USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
- Thread starter GreatLakerMohawk
- Start date
- Status
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Most nights it is encouraged that someone gets hit in the head... Albeit with a fist of course, but blows to the head are allowed (unless you use a stick, elbow, etc)
Most nights it is encouraged that someone gets hit in the head... Albeit with a fist of course, but blows to the head are allowed (unless you use a stick, elbow, etc)
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Guys choose to fight. Savard didn't choose to get cheap shotted in the head.
Guys choose to fight. Savard didn't choose to get cheap shotted in the head.
moe24
Original Lawson Lunatic
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Not specifically, but one could argue that Cooke should have gotten a penalty for something like... oh I don't know... roughing, or elbowing.
Not specifically, but one could argue that Cooke should have gotten a penalty for something like... oh I don't know... roughing, or elbowing.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Obviously, but clearly mookie was making a point about the broader culture of the NHL, which at least condones, if not encourages, this type of thing. Is a delivering a shoulder to the head a penalty in the NHL today? I don't think it is, rather I think it's been a part of the league for a long time, which is the point I was trying to illustrate with my example about Scott Stevens. If you're a fan of the guy who got hit, you say "cheap shot! he hit him in the head!" but if you're a fan of the guy who threw the hit you say "you've gotta keep your head up!" but either way the game hasn't changed. (That was a general "you".)
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Hey, I agree with you. And if the NHL is that blind that they have to put this in writing, it's something that needs to be done after this season.
I disagree. I don't think the general "you" out there feels that way. Taking away Bruins and Penguins fans, the general "you" out there nowadays realizes something has to be done about head shots.
Hey, I agree with you. And if the NHL is that blind that they have to put this in writing, it's something that needs to be done after this season.
I disagree. I don't think the general "you" out there feels that way. Taking away Bruins and Penguins fans, the general "you" out there nowadays realizes something has to be done about head shots.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
i guess it wasn't that clear....
i would think they need to do it now. not wait. i heard last night how 1) they are meeting this week to discuss head injuries and hits & 2) the example of sean avery waving his stick in front of marty in the playoffs -- and thus bringing about an immediate rule change prohibiting this going forward.
also i think a majority of people in the seats want to see players get "JACKED UP" (to borrow a phrase from espn's football show). everyone on the radio today called the bruins out for not fighting. not for not winning the game.
i guess it wasn't that clear....
i would think they need to do it now. not wait. i heard last night how 1) they are meeting this week to discuss head injuries and hits & 2) the example of sean avery waving his stick in front of marty in the playoffs -- and thus bringing about an immediate rule change prohibiting this going forward.
also i think a majority of people in the seats want to see players get "JACKED UP" (to borrow a phrase from espn's football show). everyone on the radio today called the bruins out for not fighting. not for not winning the game.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
I'm all for guys getting jacked up, see Ovechkin on Jagr in the Olympics. Bruins fans are upset for the lack of response which tells you the fans aren't happy with the hit itself. If Savard was taken out with a clean hit, there wouldn't be this outrage. Kinda reminds me of Bergeron's two concussions. Nobody was calling for Seidenberg's head when the two collided last year because there was nothing to it.
If there is nothing handed down by the league in this incident involving a repeat offender, that sends a terrible message.
I'm all for guys getting jacked up, see Ovechkin on Jagr in the Olympics. Bruins fans are upset for the lack of response which tells you the fans aren't happy with the hit itself. If Savard was taken out with a clean hit, there wouldn't be this outrage. Kinda reminds me of Bergeron's two concussions. Nobody was calling for Seidenberg's head when the two collided last year because there was nothing to it.
If there is nothing handed down by the league in this incident involving a repeat offender, that sends a terrible message.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Mookie, I dig 99.9% of what you post on here, but I just gotta say, you're flat out wrong. His elbow makes contact with Savard's head. he was trying to injure him, and he was successful.
I don't know who I'm more p'd off at..
*Cooke for being.... Cooke
*the D'bag ref looking right at the play (who should be suspended for being as incompetent as BUnyon)
*the Boston Bruins for being pu ssies like they were when Bergeron was concussed by Randy Jones, and like they've been all year
*the NHL for only giving this D'bag 2 games
Watch your back on March 18, Crosby.
Mookie, I dig 99.9% of what you post on here, but I just gotta say, you're flat out wrong. His elbow makes contact with Savard's head. he was trying to injure him, and he was successful.
I don't know who I'm more p'd off at..
*Cooke for being.... Cooke
*the D'bag ref looking right at the play (who should be suspended for being as incompetent as BUnyon)
*the Boston Bruins for being pu ssies like they were when Bergeron was concussed by Randy Jones, and like they've been all year
*the NHL for only giving this D'bag 2 games
Watch your back on March 18, Crosby.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
The whole point of the hit was to smash him the head... this is ostensibly the difference between this and Scott Stevens. This wasn't "he hit him in the head in the process of making the hit"... this hit's intent was to smash him in the head.
---
To me "no suspension"="Crosby is fair game". If the league doesn't want to enforce some sense of rules then they might as well live by them. Screw-ups like Cooke thrive because nothing takes them to account and the NHL doesn't like being slapped in the face. This is why you don't see retaliation because it means that you are smarter than the league... and the league doesn't like that. If the league wants to live and die by this sword then they can die by it and I'd encourage the Bruins to find an opportunity to do the same to Crosby. Immoral. Hell yes, but as we clearly see its not illegal so its a matter of time until it happens anyways... it's honestly the only feed back mechanism against players like Cooke (and that SOB that destroyed Bergeron). If the NHL wants to work that way then they can take the consequences. Find out what happens when you take the threat of punishment out of the sport.
The problem is, and has been right along, that the NHL is controlled by an large by old-boy idiots.
The whole point of the hit was to smash him the head... this is ostensibly the difference between this and Scott Stevens. This wasn't "he hit him in the head in the process of making the hit"... this hit's intent was to smash him in the head.
---
To me "no suspension"="Crosby is fair game". If the league doesn't want to enforce some sense of rules then they might as well live by them. Screw-ups like Cooke thrive because nothing takes them to account and the NHL doesn't like being slapped in the face. This is why you don't see retaliation because it means that you are smarter than the league... and the league doesn't like that. If the league wants to live and die by this sword then they can die by it and I'd encourage the Bruins to find an opportunity to do the same to Crosby. Immoral. Hell yes, but as we clearly see its not illegal so its a matter of time until it happens anyways... it's honestly the only feed back mechanism against players like Cooke (and that SOB that destroyed Bergeron). If the NHL wants to work that way then they can take the consequences. Find out what happens when you take the threat of punishment out of the sport.
The problem is, and has been right along, that the NHL is controlled by an large by old-boy idiots.
Last edited:
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
You must not remember Scott Stevens.
FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
So I figure that this BJs/Kings game is pretty much what the WCHA first round series between Tech and Denver will look like later this week.
So I figure that this BJs/Kings game is pretty much what the WCHA first round series between Tech and Denver will look like later this week.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
The "SOB that destroyed Bergeron" (Randy Jones, now of the LA Kings) is no Matt Cooke.
The "SOB that destroyed Bergeron" (Randy Jones, now of the LA Kings) is no Matt Cooke.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
Considering they have two other "Contact to the head" penalties, it is a little mind-boggling that it isn't a general penalty. Screw elbows, sticks, shoulders, whatever. You hit someone in the head, you go to the box.
Because really, the puck is on the ice, and if you want to knock someone off the puck, use your hips and shoulders against their hips and shoulders. There is no reason within the context of the game that contact to the head should ever occur other than in an accident.
Considering they have two other "Contact to the head" penalties, it is a little mind-boggling that it isn't a general penalty. Screw elbows, sticks, shoulders, whatever. You hit someone in the head, you go to the box.
Because really, the puck is on the ice, and if you want to knock someone off the puck, use your hips and shoulders against their hips and shoulders. There is no reason within the context of the game that contact to the head should ever occur other than in an accident.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
I'm not sure it's that simple. If a guy 6'5 delivers a clean check, it's possible that his shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player who is considerably shorter (even 6'0-6'1, which is right around average for an NHL player). If a player is not standing straight up, this complicates matters--even if the head is not the intended contact point (and it rarely is).
I think that's probably the reason there is no cut and dried "shoulder to head" rule. Unfortunately, this opens up the gray area we see with the Cooke hit, which IMO was a cheap shot--I don't know for sure (obviously), but given his history, I think Cooke knew what he was doing was on the line between legal and reckless and went for it anyway. At the same time, I don't want to see the "2 minutes for being bigger than your opponent" penalty (which happens somewhat regularly in junior hockey) make its way into the NHL. I wish I could figure out a way to reconcile the two, but I guess this is why I'm not on any NHL disciplinary committee!
I'm not sure it's that simple. If a guy 6'5 delivers a clean check, it's possible that his shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player who is considerably shorter (even 6'0-6'1, which is right around average for an NHL player). If a player is not standing straight up, this complicates matters--even if the head is not the intended contact point (and it rarely is).
I think that's probably the reason there is no cut and dried "shoulder to head" rule. Unfortunately, this opens up the gray area we see with the Cooke hit, which IMO was a cheap shot--I don't know for sure (obviously), but given his history, I think Cooke knew what he was doing was on the line between legal and reckless and went for it anyway. At the same time, I don't want to see the "2 minutes for being bigger than your opponent" penalty (which happens somewhat regularly in junior hockey) make its way into the NHL. I wish I could figure out a way to reconcile the two, but I guess this is why I'm not on any NHL disciplinary committee!
moe24
Original Lawson Lunatic
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush
That argument has always struck me as weak (nothing personal). A player, regardless of their size, needs to be aware of his surroundings and needs to be held responsible for their actions... even when completely accidental.
For example, most high sticking penalties are the result of either recklessness or are purely accidental. Regardless the penalty is called, and rightfully so. The same should be true of contact to the head. A ref's job isn't to judge intent (at least it shouldn't be) nor to "give a pass" because someone is a certain size, their job is to penalize infractions when they happen.
I'm not sure it's that simple. If a guy 6'5 delivers a clean check, it's possible that his shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player who is considerably shorter (even 6'0-6'1, which is right around average for an NHL player). If a player is not standing straight up, this complicates matters--even if the head is not the intended contact point (and it rarely is).
I think that's probably the reason there is no cut and dried "shoulder to head" rule. Unfortunately, this opens up the gray area we see with the Cooke hit, which IMO was a cheap shot--I don't know for sure (obviously), but given his history, I think Cooke knew what he was doing was on the line between legal and reckless and went for it anyway. At the same time, I don't want to see the "2 minutes for being bigger than your opponent" penalty (which happens somewhat regularly in junior hockey) make its way into the NHL. I wish I could figure out a way to reconcile the two, but I guess this is why I'm not on any NHL disciplinary committee!
That argument has always struck me as weak (nothing personal). A player, regardless of their size, needs to be aware of his surroundings and needs to be held responsible for their actions... even when completely accidental.
For example, most high sticking penalties are the result of either recklessness or are purely accidental. Regardless the penalty is called, and rightfully so. The same should be true of contact to the head. A ref's job isn't to judge intent (at least it shouldn't be) nor to "give a pass" because someone is a certain size, their job is to penalize infractions when they happen.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
- Status