Originally Posted by
hockey216
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.