The 2009-2010 Suspension Thread

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I think thats a pretty damn fine idea actually. In soccer if a player gets a redcard they can only play with 10 men for the rest of the game.

[n3ss 0]

What do you guys think?

send all these goons back to Canada and start a league just for them.

[Trooper 8]

Should be a suspension, so should have Richard's. What's a joke is the league's disciplinary policy.

[Habs21 0]

nevermind...

[Ital79 0]

Should be a suspension, so should have Richard's. What's a joke is the league's disciplinary policy.

Do you think this has anything to do with the refs?

A ref makes a bad call or no call...nothing happens. They don't lose pay & they don't get a lick of discipline from the league. While this particular incident probably couldn't have been stopped by a ref, there have been many times where the refs let the game get way out of hand with post-whistle scrums and players taking runs at each other for an hour.

The 2-ref system just means there's twice as many bad calls and twice as many no-calls. I much prefer the 3-blind-mice way of calling a game as the 2 ref system has not made the game safer, more fair, or more exciting for would-be fans. Add in the fact that not all games are called the same way and you have frustrated teams and frustrated fans. A hockey newbie just tuning in would even scratch their head at some of the shit refs call and don't call.

No calls on hit like this, 2min tripping minor for knee-on-knee hits, and add in the new rash of waved-off goals for 'goaltender interference' (I've watched 3 games in the last few days and seen this call in each game...all were bullshit) and you a systemic failure of enforcing the rules from the Ivory Tower all the way down into the ice.

The whole system is messed up. Lets hope that shit does indeed roll downhill and the refs are held accountable in some way, shape, or form. It's the players' job to win hockey games - it's the refs job to consistently keep the game safe and within the rules. The whole 'playoff games are called different' crap sets me off too.

Why? Do the playoffs have a different set of rules?

No, it's just another example of the systemic failure of the NHL to regulate its league.

[IniNew 53]

I was under the impression that Refs do get punished for certain things, but its policy not to publish or release any of the punishments.

[RadioGaGa 162]

There is a "report card" filed for every game. The guys who score best through the Reg. Season are the ones who get Playoff assignments.

At least that has always been my understanding.

[Chadd 916]

If Richards wasn't suspended I don't see how you can suspend Cooke for that. Same exact thing.

Actually, the timing was closer on this one than with Richards. I have a problem with this hit philosophically, and because Cooke is the poster boy for not respecting other players, but you are correct that similar standards should be at play here. I agree that Cooke gets 3-5 games given his history.

Do you think this has anything to do with the refs?

This has nothing to do with referees. This is a failure from the NHL head office. Colin Campbell has allowed this type of hit to become a regular occurrence thanks to a lack of suspensions for past acts.

[Trooper 8]

Yeah, I don't see a connection with the reffing. The league could easily adopt an unambiguous, no tolerance policy. Penalty or not, hits to the head garner a 15 game suspension and $50-$75K fine for a first offense. Up it from there for subsequent hits. Same with checks from behind.

[chippa13 1844]

Actually, the timing was closer on this one than with Richards. I have a problem with this hit philosophically, and because Cooke is the poster boy for not respecting other players, but you are correct that similar standards should be at play here. I agree that Cooke gets 3-5 games given his history.

This has nothing to do with referees. This is a failure from the NHL head office. Colin Campbell has allowed this type of hit to become a regular occurrence thanks to a lack of suspensions for past acts.

I see it also as a failure of the players. They all say the right things about respecting each other but then these hits continue to happen. Team leaders need to take their share of the heat for letting this stuff happen. Crosby needs to look across that room and tell Cooke what is what. This is something that should be happening all over. If a Bruins threw a similar hit then Chara or Savard would need to have the same conversation. Let the league punks know it won't be tolerated, maybe execute a little lockerroom justice and these things might go away. Peer pressure can be a good thing sometimes.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Just a recap of what suspensions have been handed out for hits to head..

No rule ... yet

There is no official NHL Rule Book designation for blows to the head being illegal, though league general managers will meet this week in Florida for a second time since December 2009 to discuss the matter. The nine suspensions handed out this season for head-related incidents by players:

Player, team -- Date -- NHL wording -- Games

James Wisniewski, Ducks -- Oct. 31 -- Forearm blow to the head -- 2

Curtis Glencross, Flames -- Nov. 7 -- High hit to unsuspecting opponent -- 3

Danny Briere, Flyers -- Nov. 23 -- Late hit on unsuspecting opponent -- 2

*Matt Cooke, Penguins -- Nov. 28 -- Deliberate check to head -- 2

*Daniel Carcillo, Flyers -- Dec. 5 -- Deliberate blow to face -- 4

Ed Jovanovski, Coyotes -- Dec. 7 -- Forearm to head area -- 2

*Jovanovski, Coyotes -- Jan. 11 -- Elbow to head area -- 2

Mike Green, Capitals -- Jan. 29 -- Elbow to head -- 3

Cam Janssen, Blues -- Feb. 13 -- Late hit to head to unsuspecting opponents -- 5

*Repeat offenders

Source: NHL

Cooke is a multiple offender..I think 4-7 games. Penguins don't play until Thursday so IDK if that gives the league more time to decide or if they have to do it in a certain time frame?

[furlanitalia 1]

That's a good list. HockeyCentral was driving me crazy today as they were discussing this and debating on what should and shouldn't be called. It's simple. If a player makes contact with the head and just the head, regardless of what was targeted, it's a hit to the head and carries 5+gm+review. If it's a hit like Ovechkin's on Jagr, or Mitchell on Toews, it's a clean hit and no penalty because the player targeted the body and made contact with the body. That's how we look at it in Minor, and yes I understand that no ones wants to see Sid or Ovi tossed from a game 7 because they through a hit that went awry, but I think it needs to be black and white. It's made a difference in Minor hockey and I think I've only called one checking to the head all year.

And if 5+gm is too much, tier it depending on severity.

Accidental, 2+10.

Intentional, 5+gm+review.

[EBondo 232]

Just a recap of what suspensions have been handed out for hits to head..

No rule ... yet

There is no official NHL Rule Book designation for blows to the head being illegal, though league general managers will meet this week in Florida for a second time since December 2009 to discuss the matter. The nine suspensions handed out this season for head-related incidents by players:

Player, team -- Date -- NHL wording -- Games

Cam Janssen, Blues -- Feb. 13 -- Late hit to head to unsuspecting opponents -- 5

*Repeat offenders

Source: NHL

Thought this was wrong. Janssen also was suspended from the incident with Kaberle for three games.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

The list is only from this year I believer

[LkptTiger 1]

If Richards wasn't suspended I don't see how you can suspend Cooke for that. Same exact thing.

Given the way Savard's back was turned, I would say that Cooke had no business throwing a hit in the first place. At least Booth was cutting TOWARDS Richards when he got smoked (gutless though the hit might have been). Savard was pretty much stationary as he went through his shooting motion WITH HIS BACK TO COOKE. Cooke not only attacked Savard from behind, but also displayed a far greater intent to injure - targeting the head even more blatantly than Richards did.

Ultimately, this is just one more reason to hate Matt Cooke. As much as he may deserve a nice, lengthy, mandatory break.....here's to hoping that little prick is gonna dress on the 18th in Boston.

[Law Goalie 147]

Just treat hits to the head like kneeing: simple as that.

What Cooke did is no different than Samuelsson on Neely.

[hyprlte 0]

I agree with the "lose a roster spot" if a player is suspended for a head shot . I think that will definitely get players thinking twice before they decide to take somebody's head off, especially if there is a playoff spot at stake.

[Trooper 8]

Given the way Savard's back was turned, I would say that Cooke had no business throwing a hit in the first place. At least Booth was cutting TOWARDS Richards when he got smoked (gutless though the hit might have been). Savard was pretty much stationary as he went through his shooting motion WITH HIS BACK TO COOKE. Cooke not only attacked Savard from behind, but also displayed a far greater intent to injure - targeting the head even more blatantly than Richards did.

Ultimately, this is just one more reason to hate Matt Cooke. As much as he may deserve a nice, lengthy, mandatory break.....here's to hoping that little prick is gonna dress on the 18th in Boston.

This is really splitting hairs. At the speed these plays took place those differences are more attributable to chance than intent. The league needs to err on the side on safety. Take for instance the NCAA. There is no checking from behind. I addition there is that little gray box in the rule book (at least the copy from about 3 years ago) that basically says, "we know players will turn at the last minute but the rule should be called to the letter, as the benefits from strict enforcement outweigh the 'unfairness' of those instances" - that is paraphrased from what I remember.

[furlanitalia 1]

This is really splitting hairs. At the speed these plays took place those differences are more attributable to chance than intent. The league needs to err on the side on safety. Take for instance the NCAA. There is no checking from behind. I addition there is that little gray box in the rule book (at least the copy from about 3 years ago) that basically says, "we know players will turn at the last minute but the rule should be called to the letter, as the benefits from strict enforcement outweigh the 'unfairness' of those instances" - that is paraphrased from what I remember.

LkptTiger may have been splitting hairs but the league has chosen that route to go down (or at least propose).

If an attacking player is hit by a defending player in a north-south motion (so Willie Mitchell on Jonathan Toews) it is a legal hit because the attacking player had time to defend themselves as they would have been able to look up and see the player coming at them.

If an attacking player is hit by a defending player in a way that they could not have seen the hit coming, and therefore could not have done anything to prevent injury, it will be considered an illegal hit (Matt Cooke on Marc Savard).

That's paraphrasing what Lou Lamoriello was saying this morning on Hockey Central. Keep in my this still has to go through the competition committee, but by the sounds of it all 30 gm's were in favor of this.

[RadioGaGa 162]

So, on the day they decide that head shots WILL be penalized they DON'T suspend Cooke for a head shot:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=313323

I believe Jeremy Roenick said it best: "Wake Up NHL...wake the F**k Up already. It's a joke"

[Fire0nIce228 1]

You cant suspend someone for something that happened before a rule was put in place.. The hit was legal. Not 'clean' but legal.

This is what I expected. They cited the Richards/Booth hit and followed the precedent they set.

I'm going to bow out of this topic for now..

[RadioGaGa 162]

You cant suspend someone for something that happened before a rule was put in place.. The hit was legal. Not 'clean' but legal.

This is what I expected. They cited the Richards/Booth hit and followed the precedent they set.

I'm going to bow out of this topic for now..

I realize that...but it just seems so wrong, given the timing of it.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

I get the Richards hit setting precedent, but two wrongs don't make a right. My only hope is that Cooke is in the lineup against Boston on the 18th? Not sure on the date, but he'll have to say hello to Lucic at some point.

You cant suspend someone for something that happened before a rule was put in place.. The hit was legal. Not 'clean' but legal.

This is what I expected. They cited the Richards/Booth hit and followed the precedent they set.

I'm going to bow out of this topic for now..

[furlanitalia 1]

Campbell said it best (not that he's a great guy but he summed it up well):

"In your stomach you know the hit is wrong but by the definition of the rules it is a legal hit. That is why we have done something to hopefully change this moving forward."

Honestly, while I agree he should be suspended, if the league did something to him after nothing was done to Richards I would feel even worse about their integrity they I do with them sticking to something. At least they aren't wavering on how they handle similar situations.

[Law Goalie 147]

I ask again: if Cooke had gone for his knees in that situation, would we ask for a suspension?