- This is a tough one to call when it comes to intent.
The result is obviously disasterous ...BUT...a few more feet up the boards and it likely would have only been a body check that Pacioretty would have gotten up from.
The much more important question is...
If a player injures another player via a penalty...like a late hit in this case...shouldn't there be an automatic suspension?
Let's say this was a check that occured as soon as Pacioretty passed the puck...within the normal guidelines...then I can see how there would be no suspension.
BUT...since this was a late hit...and it's really tough to agrue that it wasn't...it was a penalty call during the game...and the player is injured...I think there should be an automatic suspension of at least 1 game.
- haven't read the Sports Illustrated article yet...curious to see if it rips Cooke as badly as they say.
Given Cooke's past, it would be tough to argue against a report that blasts him.
I will say this though...since he has returned from suspension, I have seen him play smarter hockey. He has proven on a few occasions that he's more than just a borderline player. I hope this continues.
- Suspensions, do they work?
I know of one way to change the suspension process to have a larger impact on the player and the team...make the team skate a player less during the suspension games.
Giving Cooke a 4 game suspension hurts...but making the Penguins skate 1 less player for those 4 games would REALLY hurt.
If you want to see guys ensure that they won't get suspended, then making their team have one less rostered player in a suspension case is the way to go.
If the NHL is serious about reducing the number of injuries from hits that are the result of a rules infraction, then they will seriously consider a starting roster reduction for the suspended player(s).
Of course, there might have to be some limit or specific rules as to when this applies...if a bench clearing brawl occurs, you can't make a team 3 players short for the next game if there were numerous suspensions that resulted from the brawl...OR...can you?
Players get hurt in hockey on clean hockey plays. You cant suspend players based on the result. You can get more strict on the act itself but I think suspending players on the result is a really bad idea.
You can if it results from a penalty. Obviously, they could make distinction between different types of calls...but surely a boarding or charging call...or even in this case...a LATE interference call, could be a reason for suspension. If the point is to stop players from making these types of plays, then wouldn't that be the way to do it?
i agree... if injury occurs from a penalty then suspension should follow
"i agree... if injury occurs from a penalty then suspension should follow"That is absurd.
Gunner...why? Clearly we aren't talking about all offenses...but there are certainly some that should fall under that umbrella. Understand this too...the preface here is that IF the NHL is SERIOUS about eliminating or reducing these injuries THEN this type of action is necessary.
it was interference but all injuries should not be suspensions...it was a hockey play gone bad. Next time Duck...Cooke has been playing smarter hockey since his last suspension.
WHY ARE WE SO CONCERNED WITH THE PUNISHMENT THE LEAGUE IS HANDING OUT? WHY HASN'T THE NHLPA STEPPED UP AND SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..WE'RE F'N KILLING OURSELVES. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PLAYERS UNION TO PROTECT...UMMM...THE PLAYERS!!!!
I agree with the idea of certain penalties that result in injury having an automatic 1 game suspension. He did something wrong and injured a player as a result. But more than one game is tough, because you start having to look at intent and all that stuff. At the end of the day, this suspension stuff is one big gray area where nobody will ever agree completely so we just need to accept it an move on.
I was thinking about this some more and there is an interesting grey line with this discussion. One the one hand, hits to the head, like the Cooke elbow, result in a suspension (repeat offender noted) but on the other hand, a charging penalty where a guy gets hurt wold probably not. Obviously, targeting the head is an issue, but isn't the biggest issue of all PLAYERS RESPECTING ONE ANOTHER?
Isn't the proper way of changing that mentality to punish those that break the rules...especially those rule violations that cause injury? I see where people are coming from when saying the injury should not dictate the suspension...but I look at it as an ADD ON to the original penalty. If you commit a charge and the guy is OK, you got the box and lucked out that he was not injured.
But if he did get hurt, then you are going to have to pay a bigger price after this game. Doesn't that change the mentality of the player going forward? Look, I shouldn't be charging anyway...now I have ot pay for it and need to watch cause if I do it again, it will mean 3 games instead of 1?
I think a combination of new suspension rules around already existing infractions is what needs to be done if the NHL is serious about dangerous hits...without changing the good, legal, hits that take place.
YOU CANT BASE IT ON A PENALY CALL.....THE REFS DONT KNOW WHAT A PENALTY IS ANYMORE....