Eleven Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Matt Cooke is done. Thing is, I know I've seen that exact hit somewhere in the last two weeks, I don't remember where, and there was no hearing, even by phone. Edited April 22, 2014 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah. Â He got three. If he hadn't brought his shoulder into Backes's face, it wouldn't have been a problem. But he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 What a goal in MN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah. Â Did you see where the puck was? That alone cancels out any possibility of a "good hit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Did you see where the puck was? That alone cancels out any possibility of a "good hit". No way. It may be a bad hit for many reasons. That's not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 No way. It may be a bad hit for many reasons. That's not one of them. Â He didn't even have the puck. That alone makes it interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 He didn't even have the puck. That alone makes it interference. Â Agreed, but if he hadn't targeted so high it would have just been boarding, still illegal. Seabrook launches himself with his shoulder and connects with Backes head. Backes was just coming up from looking at the puck. What makes it so devastating is the high hit. You can't say he wasn't targeting the head. There was no need to go high. Both guys are pretty tall. The only saving grace is that it was an intense chippy game and both sides were taking liberties, but Seabrook crossed a line and it is too bad, because usually he is a tough but steady player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) He didn't even have the puck. That alone makes it interference. He stopped the puck on the boards, thought he had it, went to skate and was hit less than a 1/4 of a second later. That is not interference. After watching it a few more times it was definitely a hit to the head, but I want my players to make that hit every time (sans headshot). Edited April 22, 2014 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 He stopped the puck on the boards, thought he had it, went to skate and was hit less than a 1/4 of a second later. That is not interference. After watching it a few more times it was definitely a hit to the head, but I want my players to make that hit every time (sans headshot). Â I may be wrong but I have heard that the league made no mention of the head or the hit to the head in their explanation of the suspension and the reasons for the suspension. Apparently there was enough to suspend regardless of the headshot ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I may be wrong but I have heard that the league made no mention of the head or the hit to the head in their explanation of the suspension and the reasons for the suspension. Apparently there was enough to suspend regardless of the headshot ? Yeah, um,… k. So,… um, would the league have suspended him for the same hit if there was no headshot and play continued? I really doubt it. The league can say whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I agree that it wasn't interference (he just played the puck.) I agree that without the head-shot, it probably wouldn't be suspension-worthy. Â That said, it was a brutal head shot and, as such, should have been far more that three games. If they really want that out of the game - and they should - then there has to be more of a consequence than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I agree that it wasn't interference (he just played the puck.) I agree that without the head-shot, it probably wouldn't be suspension-worthy. Â That said, it was a brutal head shot and, as such, should have been far more that three games. If they really want that out of the game - and they should - then there has to be more of a consequence than that. Â Yup. Until suspensions start making people's jaws drop, there will be no deterrence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Yup. Until suspensions start making people's jaws drop, there will be no deterrence. Â I've never been one to buy into the "keep him out as long as the guy that he hit is out" due to the "injury history" portion of how long the guy will be out. However, it should be at least as long as one would reasonably expect a normal player (i.e., without a notable history) to be out due to hit like that. Blasting a guy in the head should reasonably be expected to cause a concussion and I'm sure that there are plenty of statistics for how long those typically take to recover from. I'm pretty sure that it's more than three games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Matt Cooke is done. Thing is, I know I've seen that exact hit somewhere in the last two weeks, I don't remember where, and there was no hearing, even by phone. Â Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people. Â ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever. Â Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people. Â ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever. Â Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that. If Bertuzzi gets to keep playing after what he did to Moore then no one will ever get thrown out. Players seem to be trying to hurt each other a lot more so far this playoffs. Edited April 22, 2014 by nucci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people. Â ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever. Â Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that. Â He hasn't been suspended since 2011. So to say that he has continued to cheapshot people is a bit of a stretch. I'll be curious to see what they do with him here since if I'm reading the rules correctly, he is not a repeat offender thanks to that 3 year run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) He hasn't been suspended since 2011. So to say that he has continued to cheapshot people is a bit of a stretch. I'll be curious to see what they do with him here since if I'm reading the rules correctly, he is not a repeat offender thanks to that 3 year run. Â That fact that he hasn't been suspended in 3 years pretty much tells you something's completely wrong. Â Â Edited April 22, 2014 by Kristian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 That fact that he hasn't been suspended in 3 years pretty much tells you something's completely wrong. Â Â Â So a video of things he did more than three years ago is proof that he should have been suspended more in the past three years? Yeah, that makes sense. Let's face it, he has cleaned up his game significantly over the past three seasons. Just look at his penalty minutes, he has cut them in half. So do you want us all to believe that the refs and the league are looking the other way on this guy even though he built up quite the repuation prior to 2011? Of course not. The only play that was even questioned with him over the time frame was Eugene Melnyk and his army of forensic scientist saying they have proof that he intentionally cut Karlsson's achilles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 So a video of things he did more than three years ago is proof that he should have been suspended more in the past three years? Yeah, that makes sense. Let's face it, he has cleaned up his game significantly over the past three seasons. Just look at his penalty minutes, he has cut them in half. So do you want us all to believe that the refs and the league are looking the other way on this guy even though he built up quite the repuation prior to 2011? Of course not. The only play that was even questioned with him over the time frame was Eugene Melnyk and his army of forensic scientist saying they have proof that he intentionally cut Karlsson's achilles. Â No, he should've been out of the league way before, that's what's wrong with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 That fact that he hasn't been suspended in 3 years pretty much tells you something's completely wrong. Â Â That guy is in the business of tearing ACL's and MCL's, the NFL would be a better fit for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 See after a play like that I feel like Barrie's teammates should handle things. Cooke is a disgrace to the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Hopefully one step closer tonight to the dream match-up of Montreal and Boston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Hopefully one step closer tonight to the dream match-up of Montreal and Boston  I just threw up a little in my mouth. Two of the teams I dislike the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Only Kronwall on Detroit could have gotten away with that trip on that Marchand breakaway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.