I've heard the argument that what Cooke did was not against any rules.

I have trouble accepting that. He went directly at another players head. I find that to be both an intent to injure and unsportsmanlike conduct.

Bueller?

agreed..Matt Cooke is a dirty player...Everyone seems to agree..

Have a wink wink agreement and let Colton Orr take him out.

This is where my solution starts:

1. Address the equipment issue. It has passed the point where protection becomes a weapon.

It wasn't right when Richards did it, it wasn't right when Cooke did it. I know the league doesn't want to look like hypocrites with two levels of justice (star vs goon) but it's too late for that.

-> the fact they didn't make the head-shot rule effective immediately is almost criminal.

I think it was elbowing too. Plus, they call boarding pretty much randomly, when a hit looks bad but doesn't really break a rule. So at the very least, the hit was boarding.

I'm quoting out of context but it's nice that it's only taken 10 ****ing years for there to be proposed rule against decapitations . Good job.

I'd love to hear Burke's definition of proactive.

During the intermission of a recent game on Versus Eddie Olczyk came up with an interesting idea that I thought should have been looked at. If a player makes a run at another player's head, you give him a decent sized suspension. Somewhere from 5-10 games, but in addition to the suspension his roster spot becomes "locked" so-to-speak. The team's roster size automatically becomes 22, and they would have to fill in the missing player with those 22 personnel options, or send one of those 22 down to the minors to bring a guy up so he could fill in.

Not a bad idea at all.

I'm not a huge fan of even calling the whole issue a "headshot" issue. It's more a matter of hitting players at their most vulnerable, and from the blindside. When you know a guy is coming from the front and you're about to get flattened, you still stiffen up, particularly your head and neck area, to protect yourself. When you get drilled from the blindside, your head and neck are getting abused because you're still loose.

Of course, Cooke's hit was a headshot and a dirty one at that. Quite honestly, I consider it the same as the Patrice Cormier elbow. He made zero attempt whatsoever to make a "bodycheck", he just wanted to clean Savard's clock. It exposes a sickening attempt to injure the other team's best player IMO.

But really, I wish the issue would be blindside hits as opposed to "headshots". If you're admiring an outlet pass and a forechecker drills you head-on, that's fine. If you step over the blue line and take a shot then get plowed from an unseeable angle by a headhunting moron, that's NOT fine. Body checking was intended to be strictly on the puck carrier, to separate the man from the puck. Come to think of it, you could say these hits are late too, because they're happening to guys who no longer have the puck.

Do you guys think THE hit Stevens on Lindros should be legal?

Absolutely. We've all been told a billion times, don't cut across the blue line with your head down. Stevens hit him from the front, with his shoulder tight and low.

oof tough call --- watched it a few times; one one hand there was clear intent to injure -- on the other Lindros did have the puck and he was really bent over at the waist. Cringe-worthy legal.

What intent to injure was there? You can't tell me Stevens intended to injure him just BECAUSE Lindros got injured. Stevens was and probably always will be the best hitter the game has EVER seen.

I don't like that as a 'headshot' rule, but I am completely ok if they want to institute that rule for all suspensions.

I think the NHL's intention should be to get rid of concussions...I am not sure we punish players for having there head down...

I have talked to numerous NHL players about this hit.... I took personal interest in this one 'cos E is a friend. I said at the time that it was intent to injure and I maintain it. Here's what I found out from teammates of Stevens, opponents, and NHL'ers in general:

That hit was something that Neidermeyer and Stevens co-ordinated, and they did it to more than one person. It goes like this:
-Neidermeyer gives the rushing player the outside and then takes it away, giving up the middle. Stevens comes from ACROSS the ice, actually giving up his proper position to traverse the ice.
-By Stevens own admission, he is trying to time it to hit the rushing forward as he comes back to the middle, knowing that there is a puck move involved that would make most players at least glance down as they do it.
-By Stevens own admission, he is aiming for the forward's chin with the cap of his shoulder pad.
-Eric has always said that it's not a hockey play, cos when stevens comes across he is putting himself completely out of position. On the play where lindros got hit, Eric says john leclair was away behind stevens and if Eric could have gotten the puck across past the out of position stevens, Leclair is in alone on the goalie. IF Stevens is willing to give up a serious scoring opportunity in order to lay a hit, then the hit would have to have more significance than an ordinary bodycheck.
-Scott Stevens was an animal that liked to hurt people. One teammate of his told me that Stevens 'LOVES to kill things'


NOTES: This shouldnt turn into a discussion on the merits of Scott Stevens. Great defenseman, lets leave it at that. This is about hits that are meant to injure....

thats great insight Chris

At least we're clear that arguing about the merits of a rule in the context of a hit that happened 15 years ago is irrelevant

Now, I'm pro-Stevens all day long. I also like Lindros, except for his getting drafted. I also loved him in TO. Now that the bias' are out of the way, I think it's MORONIC to say that hit "was not a hockey play". Defencemen SHOULD be stepping up at the blue line when the odd man rush is in their favour (Lindros and Leclair are 2 on 3). On the play, a backchecker nearly has Lindros already (#21, dunno who it is), Leclair is standing STILL at the blue line, and Stevens/Niedermayer aren't the last men back (theres another Devil on Niedermayer's side behind him, dunno who it is).

Stevens was and likely always will be the greatest hitter the NHL has ever seen. There is no question that he intended to nail every one of his targets as hard as he possibly could. But regardless of Stevens alleged admission that he aims his shoulder cap for the guy's chin, his style was arm tucked in tightly, feet squarely planted, and driving FORWARD on contact, not upward.

You know better than that..... LOL.... if you're the left D-man in this play, and you LEAVE Leclair to skate laterally along the blue line just to lay a hit on a forward who is 1 on 2 (as you already pointed out), then you're putting yourself out of position. You'd be seeing that tape the next day in the meeting room and be reminded of what your responsibility is on that play.
Anyway, my point in this case is simple: did Stevens intend to injure Lindros when he hit him? You're damn right he did. And that's against the rules..

Well yeah, I mean theoretically, you could say that the backchecker at full-speed could've picked up the flatfooted Leclair. But yeah, I realize Stevens is taking himself out of the play to make a big hit (unless Niedermayer plans on swinging across to Leclaire's side maybe, we'll never know because the play ended sort of abruptly, with a bunch of jaws hanging open). And yeah, Stevens wanted to hit everyone as hard as he could. Did that mean he wanted to actually HURT people or just hit them really hard, then have them get back up? "He loved to kill things" is obviously hyperbole, otherwise Stevens would be in jail And as we saw at his HHOF induction, he can be a big softie. So character references relating to his intentions on a single hit are all over the place on this one

Stevens' hit on Lindros DID cause a terrible injury, but I'd never say he intended to hurt him like that. All the injuries Stevens caused were by making clean, albeit BRUTALLY hard checks. Was he headhunting Lindros? Maybe, sure looked like it the way he threw himself out of the play. Did he want to (effectively) end his career? Only Stevens has the answer to that one. Based on analyzing the play alone though, I just don't see what I consider "an intent to injure".

SpectorsHockey

For those who suggest the NHL can't just make a rule change overnight, how do you explain "the Avery rule"?

I think I remember having this exact discussion back then, about how he totally put himself out of position.
I was always curious if Stevens did miss that type of hit a lot, but was too lazy to keep track/question it. Personally, felt to me like when he did go for it, he always timed it well and didnt get caught much at all.

ditto what Serge said, great insight.

Spectors again

Cooke blindsides Anisimov. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXixraReToU
It's the same hit as what he laid out on Savard.

I think he got two gmes for that.


?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'd have to say this just a tad more of a clear cut rule than what was agreed upon.

That was more vicious, the contact was the same but Cooke left his feet and launched into him. My vision of Cooke being dirty is starting to clear though.

Yeah I used to think MAYYYBE Cooke was being a little unfairly targetted by refs. Now I've realized he is a subtle douchebag.

Edit: Wait, were you saying he ISN'T dirty?

No, I was just finding it easier to see Cooke objectively and can see he's a bit dirtier than I originally thought.

Ah arighty, was just watching the Keith/Cooke sequence in the other thread as well. I can assure you, I'm as close to absolute neutral towards the Pens that a Leafs fan can get. Annnnnnd Cooke appears to me to be one of those straight-up idiots. In the Keith/Cooke clip, they're both equally guilty of making moronic, dirty hits. Cooke hit a guy from behind which is possibly the worst, most absolute no-no that we've all been taught, and then Keith comes back with an equally braindead attempt to take Cooke's head off.

Cooke's hits on Anisimov and Savard tell me he is a repeat offender though who could benefit from a sturdy suspension.

Stevens on Lindros
Ovechkin hits Jagr
These are the too most talked about hits it seems.
So which hit does the NHL want to keep and which one goes? Seems like most people want to take the Stevens hit out of the game but keep the Ovechkin hit. To me its pretty much the same hit.

Good comparison. I think the subtle difference in the Jagr hit was that it was mostly from the front, but more importantly, Ovechkin has him dead to rights, but he hits him in the centre of jagr's chest, not the head. Matt Cooke or Scott Stevens would have rolled their shoulder in and popped him right on the chin...