Marc Savard knocked out/ Bruins don't react

[shrader]

For all the talk about how the league needs to do something, they're aware of that and it is coming. They're not acting fast enough, but they know that the headhunting is a serious problem and there will be changes. Will the changes be enough? I doubt it, but we'll have to wait and see what they are.

 

I'm a bit confused by all the people (one or two here, and others not on this board) who are claiming this was an elbow. I don't know how they can make that conclusion from the video. I'd say it's about as clear as humanly possible that there was no elbow in this hit. It was shoulder (or the area just below the shoulder) to head. Dirty headhunting? Yes. Elbow? No.

[Calvin]

Living here in Boston, I was in a bar yesterday when that nasty piece of action took place.. and there was uproar and pandemonium in the place. Most of the folks there were ready to take on Cooke themselves, but a big majority were very ticked off that neither Lootch or Chara or anyone else for that matter did anything about it.

 

At that time I was thinking how glad I was Ruff had our boys run those basterds from Ottawa.. seems like a different era

[shrader]

Living here in Boston, I was in a bar yesterday when that nasty piece of action took place.. and there was uproar and pandemonium in the place. Most of the folks there were ready to take on Cooke themselves, but a big majority were very ticked off that neither Lootch or Chara or anyone else for that matter did anything about it.

 

At that time I was thinking how glad I was Ruff had our boys run those basterds from Ottawa.. seems like a different era

 

I like how the local news I watched this morning is labeling it as an elbow, but not actually showing the hit. Seems kind of dirty if you ask me, but then again, this is the media we're talking about.

[Calvin]

here's a sampling of local responses - sound familiar at all??

 

bearbruins wrote:

Cooke will miss one game by the NHL going by the previous treatment given the Bruins. Cherry will blame Savard. Dissappointed no Bruin killed Cooke, but I don't think he came back on after the hit. I also doubt they showed the hit replay at the Melon, so the B's probably didn't see it. Thornton would have killed him, if he was allowed on the ice.

 

zakman wrote:

Glad to see the super soft Bruins allow their best offensive player to get his head taken off with NO RESPONSE. What a disgrace! Fedotenko repeatedly runs into Thomas and we do NOTHING. Where have the BIG BAD BRUINS gone? What a pitiful display. Do you think Pittsburgh would have done the same thing if a bruin hit Crosby like that? Obviously not.

 

ogieoglethorpe wrote:

If I'm Savard i'm in no rush to get back. Why would i make the effort for a team that lets their best player take a cheap-shot and does nothing?

 

RichmondHillOntario wrote:

First of all, let's wish Savard a speedy return to health. Our offensive catalyst is concussed. Terribly unfortunate but not a shock after that shot by Cooke. Our offence, such as it is, flows through Savard so we're in a bit of a jam. When Savard was on IR earlier, Bergeron stepped to the fore and will have to do it again. Like most of our forwards, he'll need help.

 

zakman wrote:

Hey bearbruins Cooke did come back on the ice after the cheap shot and no one on the Bruins did a thing including Thornton.

 

SupportLocal81 wrote:

So CJ termed it a "classic blind-side hit" eh?... sad that it happened and I hope Savard is OK... Obviously no one wants to see any player get injured seriously.. However, I, along with numerous other posters... want to know why.. ( and I understand that they were in it to win it..down by one goal at the time)... stepped up and took a stand by taking some liberties with the Pens..? Pretty sad really.. Hope Savie is OK first and foremost !

[spndnchz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYHFYDkunM

 

That's about as close to an elbow as you get without actually using your elbow. Maybe 2 inches off, but I'd imagine the pad there is pretty hard.

 

FWIW, Bruins coach in the post game said he told his players to win the game, not go after Cooke.

[rickshaw]

The day the Canucks dealt away Cooke I couldn't have been happier.

 

The guy went out of his way to hurt guys and always turned the other cheek when confronted by the opposition, leaving his teammates to stand up for him. I'm sure there weren't too many guys on the club that were sorry to see him go.

 

I think it's time the NHL stood up and did something in regards to these types of players and hits to the head. People will say that Sean Avery is a POS, but I can't recall too many disgusting attempts to injure like last night's hit. Cooke was licking his chops and had lots of time to make a decision. I don't think it's like Neil's hit on Drury at all. That happened at a much higher speed and Drury moved towards Neil, whereas Cooke sneaks up behind Savard.

 

He claims his innocence but he's a weasel. I would suspend him for the rest of the year. He's a repeat offender and he clearly doesn't get it.

 

Some will say this is way out of line, but if Matt Cooke could have handled himself in his fight with Steve Moore, instead of getting his ###### kicked and adding more fuel to the fire, I don't think the Bertuzzi/Moore incident ever happens. Cooke is a joke and there is no place for guys like that. Kaleta wants to walk the fine line, but he needs to make sure he doesn't end up like a Cooke-type player.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

The day the Canucks dealt away Cooke I couldn't have been happier.

 

The guy went out of his way to hurt guys and always turned the other cheek when confronted by the opposition, leaving his teammates to stand up for him. I'm sure there weren't too many guys on the club that were sorry to see him go.

 

I think it's time the NHL stood up and did something in regards to these types of players and hits to the head. People will say that Sean Avery is a POS, but I can't recall too many disgusting attempts to injure like last night's hit. Cooke was licking his chops and had lots of time to make a decision. I don't think it's like Neil's hit on Drury at all. That happened at a much higher speed and Drury moved towards Neil, whereas Cooke sneaks up behind Savard.

 

He claims his innocence but he's a weasel. I would suspend him for the rest of the year. He's a repeat offender and he clearly doesn't get it.

 

Some will say this is way out of line, but if Matt Cooke could have handled himself in his fight with Steve Moore, instead of getting his ###### kicked and adding more fuel to the fire, I don't think the Bertuzzi/Moore incident ever happens. Cooke is a joke and there is no place for guys like that. Kaleta wants to walk the fine line, but he needs to make sure he doesn't end up like a Cooke-type player.

 

Yeah, that's off on a complete tangent. Bertuzzi is 100% responsible for that incident.

[shrader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYHFYDkunM

 

That's about as close to an elbow as you get without actually using your elbow. Maybe 2 inches off, but I'd imagine the pad there is pretty hard.

 

FWIW, Bruins coach in the post game said he told his players to win the game, not go after Cooke.

 

According to the NHL website:

 

46.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.

 

His arm is perpendicular to the ice. He doesn't extend the elbow in any way. If the elbow made contact in any way, it may have hit the very bottom of Savard's head. Most of the contact is made by that upper arm area. Dirty? Yes, but not illegal in any way by the way the NHL rulebook is currently written. It sucks, but hopefully it serves as another piece of evidence to finally fix things.

[Sabre Dance]

The league won't do (much of) anything unless and until the players themselves (through the NHLPA) demand something be put in writing in the CBA. I find it tough to believe that there aren't players out there that don't worry that some dipstick like Cooke or Neal will head-shot them right into retirement. We are not only talking about missing games or losing salary. Now we're talking about a player's long term health. We've already seen enough players forced to retire due to multiple concussions. I think the NHL and the NHLPA need to take a long look at the quality of the play in the Olympics - no fights, no dust-ups and no head shots. Just great hockey.

What you need is for drones like Mike Milbury to shut up about the "wussification" of hockey. Just because he escaped the game without having his brains scrambled (although that point could be argued ;)) doesn't give him the right to tell today's players to just suck it up and live with it. No one went head-hunting is his day because if they did, they would get their butt kicked.

I don't want to see players wheeled off the ice on a stretcher. I want to see them play hockey.

[shrader]

I do have to say that it is pretty funny reading these reactions from the same fanbase that worships every single action of Milan Lucic. Headhunting's fine until it happens to one of your own.

[Kristian]

I think that's what they do in International competition. Right?

 

Not really.

 

The 10-minute penalty in international hockey, or at the very least the majority of the Euro leagues, is the "easy way out", because it doesn't result in a shorthanded situation for the offenders team.

 

It's a personal 10-minute misconduct penalty, which is why you usually see it called when the ref doesn't want to "decide a game" by calling a 5 minute major instead, which WOULD result in the offenders team being shorthanded.

 

Conclusion : It's a useless penalty in it's current form.

[spndnchz]

Is it me, or is the cuss word filter making less and less sense?

 

tee he

[Taro T]

The league won't do (much of) anything unless and until the players themselves (through the NHLPA) demand something be put in writing in the CBA. I find it tough to believe that there aren't players out there that don't worry that some dipstick like Cooke or Neal will head-shot them right into retirement. We are not only talking about missing games or losing salary. Now we're talking about a player's long term health. We've already seen enough players forced to retire due to multiple concussions. I think the NHL and the NHLPA need to take a long look at the quality of the play in the Olympics - no fights, no dust-ups and no head shots. Just great hockey.

What you need is for drones like Mike Milbury to shut up about the "wussification" of hockey. Just because he escaped the game without having his brains scrambled (although that point could be argued ;)) doesn't give him the right to tell today's players to just suck it up and live with it. No one went head-hunting is his day because if they did, they would get their butt kicked.

I don't want to see players wheeled off the ice on a stretcher. I want to see them play hockey.

I don't think the league can wait for the NHLPA to get behind the ban-headshots bandwagon to do something about it. The players did not want to wear helmets, the league forced them into it. The league needs some sort of a rule to take blatent intent to injure head shots out of the game. My gut feel is that there are too many players that aren't in the "I'm in the NHL and too good to ever be sent down or sent packing" category, that a lot of those guys know they need to "throw their weight around" to stay in the league and that those guys are opposed to a blanket anti-head shot rule because they could very well find themselves on the wrong side of the rule without having necessarily wanted to knock a guy out even though he did knock him out (or even out of the league).

 

I proposed something along the lines of what I'd like to see 3 years ago. I'd still like to see something to this effect.

 

I would like to see the NHL address in the rulebook this issue of hitting guys in the head. I don't want to see a blanket ban on all hits to the head, because you would end up taking a lot of the physicality out of the game and you would have a new problem of players ducking when a hit is coming to try to take the hit in the melon.

 

I would basically have a rule where if you get your elbow into a guy's head, unless the hitee is below a normal skating / standing stride (I'd allow the Schaefer-Connolly hit to be legal) you get a 5 or a game misconduct regardless of whether it is or isn't in the guy's face. I also would make it a game misconduct to go shoulder to head when the hit comes from outside of what the hitee's field of vision is/should be. A hit where a player leaves his feet and hits a player's head would also be illegal. (It's already illegal to leave your feet to hit someone, this would just reinforce that particular matter.)

 

So the Neil-Drury hit would be illegal (hit to the head from outside normal line of vision), and a hit similar to the Campbell-Umberger hit but where the shoulder hits the head first instead of the chest (unlike Soupy's hit which was shoulder to chest with the followthrough catching him in the head) would also be legal. And, although it was a dirty hit, the hit of Stevens on Lindros would still be borderline legal (shoulder to chin, although if it had been elbow to chin regardless of it being true elbowing would have been illegal). The ref would also likely have discretion to call a penalty if he determines the shoulder to the head was intentional even if it was square on (not sure if I'd add that or not).

 

Sticks to the head and punches to the head would still be illegal. The facewash would still be legal. (Gotta let 'em have some fun. ;) )

 

Obviously, this is just a 1st draft and the rule would require some careful crafting to avoid unintended consequences (like pretty much making it illegal for Chara to even look at Derek Roy although maybe that's not a bad unintended consequence ;) ), but that is generally the way I'd like to see it addressed.

Hits like the one Cooke threw on Savard (where the hit came from outside Savard's field of vision) need to be eliminated from the game. Period.

[shrader]

Taro, how would you define what the players field of vision is/should be? I'm sure we have the asme general belief of what that should be, but there are so many shades of gray there. What if you have a guy with his shoulders sqaure to the goalie, but his head is turned 45 degrees to the left? What if the player turns last second? I'm sure I could come up with a hundred different scenarios here. This hit is as blatant as they come, but there are going to be so many other situations which aren't as clear cut. It's going to be a tough call.

 

Then there's convincing the refs to actually call it consistently... but that's another can of worms.

[Stoner]

How about this. Not only is the guilty party suspended, but so is the team's leading goal-scorer for the same length of time.

 

Yeah, there are a million ways of getting rid of this garbage. And a million reasons the league won't.

[inkman]

How about this. Not only is the guilty party suspended, but so is the team's leading goal-scorer for the same length of time.

 

Yeah, there are a million ways of getting rid of this garbage. And a million reasons the league won't.

Well, we both know the league won't do anything like that. How about a $500,000 fine for the team?

 

Anything less than Cooke being done for the year, the league will still be a joke. It makes me sick to my stomach to see those hits. How a person can look squarly at another person and perform an act that will most likely end up in injury or death is beyond me.

 

Anyone catch the look on Cooke's mug after the hit? Sort of...I was just doin my job, don't look at me...but yet a little sheepish. Gotta wonder how he sleeps at night. Self-medicated I'm guessing.

[Taro T]

Taro, how would you define what the players field of vision is/should be? I'm sure we have the asme general belief of what that should be, but there are so many shades of gray there. What if you have a guy with his shoulders sqaure to the goalie, but his head is turned 45 degrees to the left? What if the player turns last second? I'm sure I could come up with a hundred different scenarios here. This hit is as blatant as they come, but there are going to be so many other situations which aren't as clear cut. It's going to be a tough call.

 

Then there's convincing the refs to actually call it consistently... but that's another can of worms.

I think we both would come to a reasonable agreement on what a player's primary field of vision would/should be. As stated in my original post (way back when Drury got his world rocked), the proposal is merely a 1st draft; and unfortunately, the league doesn't pay me enough to work on a revision. ;)

 

As for a player turning away/turning his back; the league already addresses that matter (though not as well as I would like) with hits from behind. The league could run an education campaign (similar to what it did for 'diving' or 'obstruction') once the powers that be come up with their own set of ground rules. And there are enough hits in the video archives that they should be able to discern pretty clearly where that gray line falls.

[Stoner]

Wait. There was no penalty on this play?

[Taro T]

Wait. There was no penalty on this play?

Correct.

[VansTheMans]

Correct.

 

DISGUSTING. :wallbash:

[mrjsbu96]

Wait. There was no penalty on this play?

 

what should the penalty be for?

 

most of the guys have it right - as the rulebook is written now, there is nothing wrong with this hit.

 

it is definitely lack of respect for your opponent and the intention is to hurt, but there nothing illegal here. Lou Lamoriello lost one of his best players (Elias) to a shoulder-to-head hit about a month ago and rightly said that there was nothing wrong with hit. i'm not condoning the Cooke hit, but as the rules are written now, he didn't jump in to the opponent, or anything else illegal, rather he more or less caught him with his head down.

 

i still think everytime one of these type of plays happend that one of the problems is the equipment. if these guys didn't wear body armor - like the way the shoulder and elbow caps are currently constructed of hard plastic - that maybe the result is not as bad.

[wjag]

I saw an interview with Colin Campbell last night on the NHL network. A couple of points:

 

1. He has to be the most uncomfortable on air interview in any sports league. Man looks and acts like a treed cat.

2. Said they were looking hard at head hits but were having great difficulty defining terms like, defenseless, blind side, etc. Not a quote, but a paraphrase.

3. Said too late in current season to change, but hopefully by June meetings, something could be decided and implemented for next year.

[LabattBlue]

I saw an interview with Colin Campbell last night on the NHL network. A couple of points:

 

1. He has to be the most uncomfortable on air interview in any sports league. Man looks and acts like a treed cat.

2. Said they were looking hard at head hits but were having great difficulty defining terms like, defenseless, blind side, etc. Not a quote, but a paraphrase.

3. Said too late in current season to change, but hopefully by June meetings, something could be decided and implemented for next year.

This Colin Campbell quote from an AP article in this mornings Buffalo News caught my interest...

 

"We're looking at can we reduce concussions that come from legal hits?"

 

I don't know if he is referring to hits like Richards on Booth and Cooke on Savard, but if so, shouldn't the issue be, "We need to take these hits out of the game"?

[R_Dudley]

what should the penalty be for?

 

most of the guys have it right - as the rulebook is written now, there is nothing wrong with this hit.

 

it is definitely lack of respect for your opponent and the intention is to hurt, but there nothing illegal here. Lou Lamoriello lost one of his best players (Elias) to a shoulder-to-head hit about a month ago and rightly said that there was nothing wrong with hit. i'm not condoning the Cooke hit, but as the rules are written now, he didn't jump in to the opponent, or anything else illegal, rather he more or less caught him with his head down.

 

i still think everytime one of these type of plays happend that one of the problems is the equipment. if these guys didn't wear body armor - like the way the shoulder and elbow caps are currently constructed of hard plastic - that maybe the result is not as bad.

 

QFT.

 

Only point I would add is I believe it might not just be plastic but Kevlar body armor which is harder than plastic. I'm all for considering certain body protection areas going back to a padding style instead of armor.

[Stoner]

what should the penalty be for?

 

most of the guys have it right - as the rulebook is written now, there is nothing wrong with this hit.

 

it is definitely lack of respect for your opponent and the intention is to hurt, but there nothing illegal here. Lou Lamoriello lost one of his best players (Elias) to a shoulder-to-head hit about a month ago and rightly said that there was nothing wrong with hit. i'm not condoning the Cooke hit, but as the rules are written now, he didn't jump in to the opponent, or anything else illegal, rather he more or less caught him with his head down.

 

i still think everytime one of these type of plays happend that one of the problems is the equipment. if these guys didn't wear body armor - like the way the shoulder and elbow caps are currently constructed of hard plastic - that maybe the result is not as bad.

Intent to injure is a match penalty.

 

Head down? Please.

 

My client is not guilty of rape! Her ###### just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!