Comments on: Illegal is illegal, regardless of injury

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:45:10 +0000

My point is that the NHL’s logic is flawed. There is clearly a rule that could be cited to give him a suspension. They act like they were handcuffed because there was no rule.
The on ice non-assessment is a good point, but you can’t always count on the on ice ref to have a clear view of what happened with the speed of this game. If the league sees something the refs missed, it should be addressed.
As far as intent goes, that’s a good question. I think you have to look at a player’s history as well as the current situation. That’s how it works in criminal court – if you have a long rap sheet, the penalties are stricter.
And nobody can tell me Cooke doesn’t have a long rap sheet.

By: Brandon Worley

Brandon Worley — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:27:31 +0000

@IRock – Yes, I think that Adams should have been suspended. If checking someone from behind and into the boards in suspension-worthy (see: James Neal) then what Adams did is certainly worthy of a suspension.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:20:20 +0000

I may be dumb, but how is what Steve Downie not worse than either the Cooke hit or the Ovechkin hit? At least the Cooke and Ovechkin hits were something close to resembling legal play, the Downie cheap shot could have no other intention than to cause injury. Regardless of whether Crosby can take the ice or not, Downie has no business playing again for this season. If Gary Bettman and Colin Campbell weren’t such ridiculous clowns maybe the audience for the game would be larger.

By: IRockTheRed

IRockTheRed — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:17:27 +0000

So do you think that Craig Adams should have been suspended for this? http://bit.ly/aQNkOn

By: Brandon Worley

Brandon Worley — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:16:09 +0000

Tony – I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that’s the logic the NHL used when not suspending Matt Cooke. I believe the fact that the on-ice officials failed to assess a match penalty was a big factor as well. What’s the definition of ‘intent to injure’ anyways? Is it a dangerous and careless hit, that could easily have been a big check if he aimed it and timed it correctly? Or is it when a player swings his stick at another player’s head? THAT is intent to injure, very clearly. Once again, subjectivity factors into the issue.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:59:33 +0000

Regarding Cooke’s supposedly legal hit:
Rule 21: Match Penalties
21.1 A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper
who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner.
A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who
deliberately injures an opponent in any manner.
You could argue that it was an unintentional hit, but you’d be crazy. How can you not even mention this rule?