[News] Matt Cooke suspended 7 games for knee on Barrie

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by nmhen

Recovering addicts fall off the wagon. It happens. Addicts also have the ability to ruin other peoples' lives. I think he really did try to change the way he plays, and he was able to stay "sober" for a while. But, (and not that this absolves him in any way) his team is down 0-2, his coach is pleading for the intensity to be ramped up, he goes out and crushes a couple guys early, the crowd is going nuts....I can see how that's akin to putting a recovering addict in a bar with a great party going on, drinks or drugs flying around, everyone going nuts.... Again, absolutely not trying to let him off the hook.

Like I said in the series thread, I didn't like the Wild bringing him in to start with, and I don't like it any more now.

Stop being an apologist for the piece of crap. 9 second chances is way to many.

[edn88]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Wild fan, nor a Cooke fan (I think he is fortunate that someone has not taken justice into their own hands and doled out some frontier justice on him for his past antices).

I say this because I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion, by what I see on the video, I don't really think he was trying to knee the other guy. It looks like he is trying to make a shoulder hit, but his momentum is wrong, and so he is putting out his leg to help pull himself over. When Barrie further ovoids the check it puts them both in a bad position.

I had something like this happen to me in midget hockey - an almost identical play - I was trying to hit a guy coming across the blue line, miss timed the hit, he got out of the way, so I extended my body (and leg). It ended poorly for me - I actually ended up breaking my leg on the play - but I was not trying to knee the guy (and I certainly didn't want to put my leg in jeopordy) but instinct took over.

I think the play was certainly dangerous, and a different NHL player than Cooke would have recieved a single game for this hit. I don't really know if Cooke has turned over a new leaf or not, but compared to some of the hits he was been guilty of, this one didn't seem in the same category as the others.

Sorry to be contrary to the popluar opionion, and now will prepare for the onslaught....

[nmhen]

Settle down.

I wasn't being an apologist for him at all. That's what things like "not that this absolves him in any way" mean, for example. There's a difference between apologizing for, and contextualizing the actions of, someone.

[formulate]

Originally Posted by edn88

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Wild fan, nor a Cooke fan (I think he is fortunate that someone has not taken justice into their own hands and doled out some frontier justice on him for his past antices).

I say this because I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion, by what I see on the video, I don't really think he was trying to knee the other guy. It looks like he is trying to make a shoulder hit, but his momentum is wrong, and so he is putting out his leg to help pull himself over. When Barrie further ovoids the check it puts them both in a bad position.

I had something like this happen to me in midget hockey - an almost identical play - I was trying to hit a guy coming across the blue line, miss timed the hit, he got out of the way, so I extended my body (and leg). It ended poorly for me - I actually ended up breaking my leg on the play - but I was not trying to knee the guy (and I certainly didn't want to put my leg in jeopordy) but instinct took over.

I think the play was certainly dangerous, and a different NHL player than Cooke would have recieved a single game for this hit. I don't really know if Cooke has turned over a new leaf or not, but compared to some of the hits he was been guilty of, this one didn't seem in the same category as the others.

Sorry to be contrary to the popluar opionion, and now will prepare for the onslaught....

Here's the problem:

Even if your theory is 100% correct, it goes from Matt Cooke attempting to check an opponent with his knee to Matt Cooke attempting to check an opponent while leading with his knee. Either way, the intention is there, malicious or not.

[nmhen]

Originally Posted by formulate

Here's the problem:

Even if your theory is 100% correct, it goes from Matt Cooke attempting to check an opponent with his knee to Matt Cooke attempting to check an opponent while leading with his knee. Either way, the intention is there, malicious or not.

This, plus he has spent all of his "benefit of the doubt capital" with the league. He knows that. He simply cannot put himself in that situation without assuming he will not be given the same margin for error that other players - who don't have his record - would be given.

Wild fans saying "but Barrie had loads of time to get out of the way of that knee" are missing the point: that Cooke had the same amount of time to make a better decision than the one he made, which was "I'm going to knee him." Or at least, "I'm not going to avoid kneeing him."

[AcGold]

I don't think the intent matters when he's demonstrated an inability to play clean over and over. Should have been 20 games. You want to get the dirty hits out of the game then triple the suspensions length.

[codynw]

What I want to know is, why didn't Bordeleau go ask Cooke how his day was after the hit? Isn't that his job?

[ForeverFlameFan]

The fact that he did the same thing 6 weeks ago would have made me want to suspend him for the rest of the playoffs, and then some.

[bubbsy]

i just don't see suspension lengths taking this crap out of the game.

Penalize the team, organization for their players crossing the line with intent to injure plays. Have the in game penalty for these doubled (10 minute major) which essentially should cost the accused team the hockey game in most cases. Players of this ilk will be extinct pretty quick when they are the primary reason for losses.

[nmhen]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i just don't see suspension lengths taking this crap out of the game.

Penalize the team, organization for their players crossing the line with intent to injure plays. Have the in game penalty for these doubled (10 minute major) which essentially should cost the accused team the hockey game in most cases. Players of this ilk will be extinct pretty quick when they are the primary reason for losses.

The Wild got 84 and change games out of Cooke this season - and he was valuable and additive in those games, on balance. Does that make it worth it to the organization? Would Fletcher take 84 games of good Cooke for one game of bad Cooke and roll the dice that the penalties they incur in the one game don't cost them a win, in that one game? Can we say he wouldn't? I don't think I can. He obviously did this time.

So, you'd have to make the penalty something more significant than even a 10 minute major. Do you say they lose a roster spot for n-games? The PA wouldn't go for that. Do you say their cap ceiling is lowered by n-amount for y-games? What if the team isn't at the cap when this happens? I'm all for getting that kind of crap out of the game, but I think the solution is tricky.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by nmhen

The Wild got 84 and change games out of Cooke this season - and he was valuable and additive in those games, on balance. Does that make it worth it to the organization? Would Fletcher take 84 games of good Cooke for one game of bad Cooke and roll the dice that the penalties they incur in the one game don't cost them a win, in that one game? Can we say he wouldn't? I don't think I can. He obviously did this time.

So, you'd have to make the penalty something more significant than even a 10 minute major. Do you say they lose a roster spot for n-games? The PA wouldn't go for that. Do you say their cap ceiling is lowered by n-amount for y-games? What if the team isn't at the cap when this happens? I'm all for getting that kind of crap out of the game, but I think the solution is tricky.

10 min major (opposed to 5 mins) would dramatically shape the game and sway the result. In the playoffs, 1 game being lost due to 1 player's dumb play is enough to start making decisions on who's playing and who's not. If a player is a repeat offender type, how many losses (season or playoffs) is a coach/GM willing to put up with before just not dressing the player.

I believe this type of penalty will result in far more prevention than meaningless suspensions, especially in cases where the player is a depth/replacable player in a lineup.

Wild got the W, and are back in the series and positioned better to win by having cooke/Barrie now out of the lineup.

[Clever_Iggy]

Too much. I didn't even think Cooke kneed him. Everyone is wrong and overreacting. --moon

Cooke should have received 20+ games and put on notice that because he is a habitual offender, his next suspend-able offense will be a season-long ban.

Player safety is such a big issue in sports now, getting rid of scumbags like Cooke is the right thing to do. Even the NHLPA's tendency to fight every new initiative would be neutered because Cooke is such an exceptional offender.

[Gaskal]

Out of all the other pests in the NHL, which of them are worthy of your career-ending knee?

#AskNeal

[Jordan!]

I'd love to see Cooke have his career ended

[wretched34]

In no way trying to defend Cooke, the guy is a scumbag, and doesn't deserve to play in the NHL.
However, the issue I have is with the NHLPA and CBA, and the "clean slate" rule.
Cooke is, and always will be a "repeat offender" in a sense that he has repeatedly broken the rules set forth by the league. Putting a time stamp on that fact, does not hide it.
I do think they still threw the book at him in this case, to the furthest extent that they could under the rules that protect him.
I can't think of the last time a guy got 7 games for a knee, especially in the playoffs.
I am actually surprised he even got 7, considering how Bickell didn't even get a phone call from the league for his knee on Sobodtka.
The league is a joke when it comes to player safety and discipline. I don't think that will ever change. Not when you have the same people protecting players from other players, as well as defending them. I mean, it's like a lawyer prosecuting and defending the same case, they don't want to lose either, but can't win both. "My client physically assaulted the victim, there is not question about that, it was a brutal attack, and he should be punished for that, but he didn't mean to hurt him, nor can you prove it was on purpose, and he still needs to work, so maybe you shouldn't actually punish him."

[neo45]

Originally Posted by codynw

What I want to know is, why didn't Bordeleau go ask Cooke how his day was after the hit? Isn't that his job?

I think Nino broke his hand with a dirty slash about 2 minutes later. Might have taken him out of the game, and could have been a 5 min major

[nmhen]

I don't know if Bordeleau's hand is broken, but he's playing tonight for the Avs, per the Denver Post.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2014...-game-4/17966/

[nmhen]

In the game, Bordeleau sold the (obvious and dangerous) slash pretty well, looked like Vader had cut his hand off at the wrist with the light saber. Went down the tunnel, and then came back to the bench pretty soon thereafter. Again, definitely a slash by Nino, not excusing it. But it seems like Bordeleau did some acting, too.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by nmhen

In the game, Bordeleau sold the (obvious and dangerous) slash pretty well, looked like Vader had cut his hand off at the wrist with the light saber. Went down the tunnel, and then came back to the bench pretty soon thereafter. Again, definitely a slash by Nino, not excusing it. But it seems like Bordeleau did some acting, too.

Definitely. I don't even recall him missing a shift.