matt cooke not suspended

[hockey216]

dirtiest player in the nhl with long history doesn't face supplementary discipline for boarding mcquaid. guy has such a long history of being a scumbag dirty player that gives people concussions off dirty hits that he deserves a suspension. he is a repeat offender. he ended marc savards career with dirty hit. raffi torres got suspended 25 games last year because of his history. surprising they didn't suspend cooke. i expected him to get 6 games (rest of series) because he is repeat offender. at least 1 or 2... if he didn't have a history i wouldn't care... but when a guy has long history you have to clamp down. you can't let repeat offenders keep doing this. this is the exact same type of hit that gave mcquaid concussion last year (believe it was from chimera).

[PStrangers]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought under the new CBA that a "repeat" offender was defined as having been suspended in the last 18 months. Under this new definition, then Matt Cooke is not a repeat offender as his last suspension was on March 21st, 2011. Raffi Torres was suspended 25 game (only served 21 games) at the end of last year, making it less than 18 months still qualifying him as a repeat offender for his hit on Stoll.

However, I think the bigger difference was that McQuaid came back in the game and played. Stoll missed the rest of the series with San Jose. At the end of the day, if you hurt someone it is going to be a bigger deal than an equally as illegal of a check that doesn't result in games missed.

[k13]

That was barely worthy of a penalty.

McQuaid flopping and acting. Pathetic.

[ChicagoBlackhawk]

I love how no one talks about the Marchand hit at the end. It may not have looked as bad, but it was essentially the same in regards to being illegal and injury potential. I like Bruins better than the Pens but I just find it funny no one even mentioned it

[Winnipeg Jets]

That was barely worthy of a penalty.

McQuaid flopping and acting. Pathetic.

yeah like malkin...academy award winner of drawing penalties.

[hockey216]

I love how no one talks about the Marchand hit at the end. It may not have looked as bad, but it was essentially the same in regards to being illegal and injury potential. I like Bruins better than the Pens but I just find it funny no one even mentioned it

marchand didnt check someone directly from behind center of numbers face first into class. his push with hands from behind was a penalty. marchand gave him a push in the back. however, pushing someone from behind not as bad in my opinion as checking someone directly from behind, head/face first into glass. hitting someone from behind and driving them face first into boards is worse and more dangerous play. i agree that marchand's hit was penalty but i dont think its worth supplemental discipline. checking someone directly from behind face first into glass is more dangerous hits that cause concussions more often. marchand deserved penalty but i dont think it was worth supplemental discipline. hits like one cooke gave result in concussions all the time.

[hockey216]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought under the new CBA that a "repeat" offender was defined as having been suspended in the last 18 months. Under this new definition, then Matt Cooke is not a repeat offender as his last suspension was on March 21st, 2011. Raffi Torres was suspended 25 game (only served 21 games) at the end of last year, making it less than 18 months still qualifying him as a repeat offender for his hit on Stoll.

However, I think the bigger difference was that McQuaid came back in the game and played. Stoll missed the rest of the series with San Jose. At the end of the day, if you hurt someone it is going to be a bigger deal than an equally as illegal of a check that doesn't result in games missed.

ok maybe my word choice needs improvement. Cooke is "guy with long history of dirty hits that cause other players concussions." he is player with "long history" regardless of what new cba defines "repeat offender" to be.

if they cant treat cooke as repeat offender because new cba limits it to 18 month period, then i disagree with cba rules. he obviously has a well documented history of being a dirty player. lets say for example, player has 10 year career and gets suspended a bunch of times during first 8 years, then takes 18 months off, i still think at the next offense they shouldn't treat it as a "first offense" just because he had no priors in last 18months. i think they should have rule like this but i think 18 months too small. A player could get suspended 100 times over first 8 years, take 18 months off, then on 101st suspension its treated as first offense. obviously 100 suspensions is extreme example but you see my point. i think repeat offender should be 2 within 18 months, or 3 within 3 years, or 4 withing 6 years, or 5 within 10 years. After you've been suspended 7 times in your career you should be treated a repeat offender for life. suspensions longer than 3 games should be treated as double. i dont mind some minor stuff here and there... but i want to clamp down on guys that continually give dirty hits that give other players concussions.

[hockey216]

That was barely worthy of a penalty.

McQuaid flopping and acting. Pathetic.

you obviously don't watch hockey. cooke's hit on mcquaid is a boarding penalty 100% of the time. even cooke said it was obviously a penalty. mcquaid is one of tougher players and doesn't flop. try watching hockey.

[k13]

you obviously don't watch hockey. cooke's hit on mcquaid is a boarding penalty 100% of the time. even cooke said it was obviously a penalty. mcquaid is one of tougher players and doesn't flop. try watching hockey.

Look closer when he's talking to the trainer.
NHL is soft now it is pathetic.

Maybe a 2 minute penalty, 5 minutes is a joke.
The hit was so weak, not even from behind, more sideways, mcquaid saw him coming all the way.

[PStrangers]

ok maybe my word choice needs improvement. Cooke is "guy with long history of dirty hits that cause other players concussions." he is player with "long history" regardless of what new cba defines "repeat offender" to be.

if they cant treat cooke as repeat offender because new cba limits it to 18 month period, then i disagree with cba rules. he obviously has a well documented history of being a dirty player. lets say for example, player has 10 year career and gets suspended a bunch of times during first 8 years, then takes 18 months off, i still think at the next offense they shouldn't treat it as a "first offense" just because he had no priors in last 18months. i think they should have rule like this but i think 18 months too small. A player could get suspended 100 times over first 8 years, take 18 months off, then on 101st suspension its treated as first offense. obviously 100 suspensions is extreme example but you see my point. i think repeat offender should be 2 within 18 months, or 3 within 3 years, or 4 withing 6 years, or 5 within 10 years. After you've been suspended 7 times in your career you should be treated a repeat offender for life. suspensions longer than 3 games should be treated as double. i dont mind some minor stuff here and there... but i want to clamp down on guys that continually give dirty hits that give other players concussions.

I agree with you that the 18 months limit here doesn't work out very well. I am sure the motivation was to allow players to "change". Everyone seemed to be saying that Torres had "cleaned up his game" before his latest hit. People were saying the same thing about Cooke too.

I was simply pointing out, that since Cooke's hit would not have drawn a suspension for a first time offender then I am not surprised that he did not get a suspension since in the eyes of the NHL given the CBA, this was required to be treated as a first time offender.

[hockey216]

not even from behind, more sideways

you need glasses. it was 100% a hit from behind on numbers. Cooke pushed mcquaid from behind, right on his numbers, face first into the glass. watch it again. hitting from that angle is considered boarding. that is a boarding penalty 100% of the time. even cooke and pittsburgh coach admitted it should have been called a penalty and that it was a hit from behind. when asked about hit in postgame, even pitt coach said it was definitely hit from behind right on the numbers. that is textbook boarding. refs are going to call that boarding 100% of time. if you dont think that's boarding, you either don't watch hockey or don't know the rules.

[hockey216]

I agree with you that the 18 months limit here doesn't work out very well. I am sure the motivation was to allow players to "change". Everyone seemed to be saying that Torres had "cleaned up his game" before his latest hit. People were saying the same thing about Cooke too.

I was simply pointing out, that since Cooke's hit would not have drawn a suspension for a first time offender then I am not surprised that he did not get a suspension since in the eyes of the NHL given the CBA, this was required to be treated as a first time offender.

now that i see thats the rule i see why it makes sense. if you are going to treat cooke as first time offender (!) then i guess its not surprising he didnt get suspended. with this new cba rule i guess it is not as shocking he didnt get suspended as i initially thought. i wasn't aware of the 18month rule. i guess i just disagree with "18 month = entire previous record (no matter how bad) is 100% erased" rule. The guy has been too dirty for too long to be treating him as first offender.

[Vegas39]

now that i see thats the rule i see why it makes sense. if you are going to treat cooke as first time offender (!) then i guess its not surprising he didnt get suspended. with this new cba rule i guess it is not as shocking he didnt get suspended as i initially thought. i wasn't aware of the 18month rule.

i guess i just disagree with "18 month = entire previous record (no matter how bad) is 100% erased" rule.

Blame that on the players association caving on that one

[vinndy]

I haven't replied in months but I had to. I said it then and I'll say it now, that wasn't a dirty / malicious play and shouldn't have even been a penalty.

[Vegas39]

I haven't replied in months but I had to. I said it then and I'll say it now, that wasn't a dirty / malicious play and shouldn't have even been a penalty.

That will be called boarding every time.