The 2010-2011 Suspension Thread

[BenderHockey 127]

What has Mario had to say about Cooke's antics over the last couple years? Unless you call out your own players when they're guilty, it's called being a hypocrite.

QFT. Everyone is giving the guy on the Bruins shit for calling out his teammate, but in my opinion he has a right to.

[Demangone 0]

What has Mario had to say about Cooke's antics over the last couple years? Unless you call out your own players when they're guilty, it's called being a hypocrite.

Wow pay lip service much? That's been the laziest reply to his statement. What did Cooke's history have to do with what happened on Friday?

[Fire0nIce228 1]

What has Mario had to say about Cooke's antics over the last couple years? Unless you call out your own players when they're guilty, it's called being a hypocrite.

You completely miss his point. Cooke has nothing to do with what he's talking about. He's talking about premeditated gongshow bullshit hockey.

[EBondo 233]

He's talking about "safety for the players," yet doesn't seem to realize one of HIS players has a blatant disregard for "safety of the players."

[Chadd 916]

Wow pay lip service much? That's been the laziest reply to his statement. What did Cooke's history have to do with what happened on Friday?

I guess you forgot that Cooke running DiPietro is what kicked off this whole grudge match. Not to say Rick was entirely innocent, but Cooke made sure he got a good piece of DiPietro instead of skating past him. As far as his history, he has been headhunting for years and that hasn't bothered Mario at all. He should be more ashamed by the fact that his team has more dirty players than just about anyone else in the league.

You completely miss his point. Cooke has nothing to do with what he's talking about. He's talking about premeditated gongshow bullshit hockey.

His team contributed to the situation just as much as the Islanders did. They continued to do everything possible to escalate the hostility until guys on the Islanders snapped.

[Steve_v3 289]

QFT. Everyone is giving the guy on the Bruins shit for calling out his teammate, but in my opinion he has a right to.

I totally agree. Nothing will ever change if players refuse to accept responsibility for there & there teammates actions.

I guess you forgot that Cooke running DiPietro is what kicked off this whole grudge match. Not to say Rick was entirely innocent, but Cooke made sure he got a good piece of DiPietro instead of skating past him. As far as his history, he has been headhunting for years and that hasn't bothered Mario at all. He should be more ashamed by the fact that his team has more dirty players than just about anyone else in the league.

It's funny how nobody is mentioning that.

As for Mario Lemieux's statement, what a joke. Where was he when Cooke may have ended Savard's career?

As he has always been, if something doesn't go his way he threatens to "take his ball and go home."

"We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players," the Hockey Hall of Famer said in his statement. "We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action.

"If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it."

Someone should point out that Matt Cooke is still on his team.

I hope he does sell the team.

[DarkStar50 679]

Pot meet Kettle. Penguins rank No 1, yep, No 1, in NHL fighting minutes.

In a recent NHL players poll, 98% of the players supported fighting in the NHL. End of story, Mario.

[Steve_v3 289]

Mario = FRAUD

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

lol Mario...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=ApflwUYxfDQYy7kym4.KN7h7vLYF?slug=nc-lemieux021311

The problem is, you can’t take Friday night in a vacuum. Who led the league in fights entering Sunday’s games? The Penguins, with 61, according to hockeyfights.com. Who led the league in penalty minutes? The Penguins, with 1,101. Who led the league in majors? The Penguins, with 63. Who ranked second in game misconducts? The Penguins, with eight – two fewer than the first-place Islanders. Who was one of four teams with a match penalty? The Penguins.

[hamstercaster 2]

I don't think that anybody's against a good fight with evenly matched, or close to evenly matched pugilists. What happened in that game is far from being right and the suspensions were deserved but I still think that Campbell missed a couple in there on top of missing the chance to hand down more severe punishment so that this kind of crap does not happen again this year and for the years to come. In calling out the league, who knowns if Lemieux did not have Cooke in the back of his mind. I kind of doubt it but it could have been disguised as pointing out his own knucklehead too, who knows although probably unlikely.

The disciplinary actions are a joke, that I'm pretty sure everybody knows and Lemieux calling out the league may in the end do something in a sense that Campbell may think about it twice before handing down some random disciplinary action... but then, maybe not. Michel Bergeron brought up that Campbell's ultimate dream is to be a GM and that it may actually influence the way he handles things. So you take that for what it's worth.

[Trooper 8]

Despite me having a ton of respect for Crosby's skill — and acknowledging that he is the best player in the world right now, I still would love to see him get knocked out.

Which really just says more about you than anything.

[bandits_5 18]

I don't think that anybody's against a good fight with evenly matched, or close to evenly matched pugilists. What happened in that game is far from being right and the suspensions were deserved but I still think that Campbell missed a couple in there on top of missing the chance to hand down more severe punishment so that this kind of crap does not happen again this year and for the years to come. In calling out the league, who knowns if Lemieux did not have Cooke in the back of his mind. I kind of doubt it but it could have been disguised as pointing out his own knucklehead too, who knows although probably unlikely.

The disciplinary actions are a joke, that I'm pretty sure everybody knows and Lemieux calling out the league may in the end do something in a sense that Campbell may think about it twice before handing down some random disciplinary action... but then, maybe not. Michel Bergeron brought up that Campbell's ultimate dream is to be a GM and that it may actually influence the way he handles things. So you take that for what it's worth.

well said hamster +1

when i saw marios coment , i looked at my wife and said , i think he's talking to matt cooke , without actually talking to matt cooke. so , im glad to see somebody else was , maybe , thinking the same thing

[Steve_v3 289]

I don't think that anybody's against a good fight with evenly matched, or close to evenly matched pugilists. What happened in that game is far from being right and the suspensions were deserved but I still think that Campbell missed a couple in there on top of missing the chance to hand down more severe punishment so that this kind of crap does not happen again this year and for the years to come. In calling out the league, who knowns if Lemieux did not have Cooke in the back of his mind. I kind of doubt it but it could have been disguised as pointing out his own knucklehead too, who knows although probably unlikely.

The disciplinary actions are a joke, that I'm pretty sure everybody knows and Lemieux calling out the league may in the end do something in a sense that Campbell may think about it twice before handing down some random disciplinary action... but then, maybe not. Michel Bergeron brought up that Campbell's ultimate dream is to be a GM and that it may actually influence the way he handles things. So you take that for what it's worth.

well said hamster +1

when i saw marios coment , i looked at my wife and said , i think he's talking to matt cooke , without actually talking to matt cooke. so , im glad to see somebody else was , maybe , thinking the same thing

When the Penguins actually do something to Matt Cooke then maybe you'll be right.

In my opinion Mario would have done something well before this if he was serious about changing Cooke's behavior.

[IniNew 53]

What some analyst think they should do with Cooke

[EBondo 233]

What some analyst think they should do with Cooke

Some analyst who happens to be the Devils' best defenseman not named Stevens or Neidermeyer. Would have loved to see him do what he described.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I just saw a great segment with Kerry Fraser (never thought I'd say that) on OTR/TSN.

Talking about the Pens/Isles brawl(s) and what he might have done differently.

He said, given the history...in a situation like that he'd go up to some of the young callups and tough guys prior to the game and introduce himself and tell them that if they do something stupid they will be gone. He also said...late in a game that is really fired up...he'd go up to a player who has a history or he knows is right on the edge and just go "What did you say?". Hoping the player lips off or flips him off...give him 2 and get him off the ice.

Interesting insight. Some may not agree...but, I think that's a ref trying to keep control and assert some authourioty on the players and the situations.

[BenderHockey 127]

Some analyst who happens to be the Devils' best defenseman not named Stevens or Neidermeyer. Would have loved to see him do what he described.

With all due respect, Stevens was never really known as the cleanest hitter in the world. Daneyko never seemed to pipe up back when #4 would lead with his elbow when a player was tied up with his D partner either.

[EBondo 233]

Stevens was dirty, but clean. Dirty in the sense of the hit, but clean in the sense that everything he did was legal at the time.

[BenderHockey 127]

I can't recall a time where elbows to the head were "legal". Ignored, maybe. But never legal.

It's my opinion that a Stevens elbow to the ear was/is just as dirty as a Cooke boarding from behind.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Stevens was dirty, but clean. Dirty in the sense of the hit, but clean in the sense that everything he did was legal at the time.

Just like Matt Cookes hit on Savard.. hmmm.

[goaliemanshark 6]

I have a really hard time taking anyone with a Cooke avatar seriously.

Isn't it illegal to do anything with intent to injure?

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I guess intent is one of those things noone really knows.. Noone knows if Steckel intended to injure Crosby for example? Noone knows if Scott Stevens intended to injure Lindros?

Not really sure where your going with that one.

And just so were clear, I'm really not just trying to start pissing matches. I'm simply saying, that the double standard that many many people have is ridiculous. I guarantee there are members here who have no problem with Scott Stevens but absolutely trash Matt Cooke at every opportunity. They did the same thing.. a 'dirty' but legal play at the time.

[goaliemanshark 6]

Of course, I wasn't trying to start a pissing match either. It's just hard to have a discussion about Matt Cooke with someone who has a Matt Cooke jersey avatar. It would be difficult to discuss Dan Boyle or Zack Galifinakis with me because I have already shown my bias in my profile.

Agreed double standards are frustrating, but when a player such as Cooke, Stevens, Avery, Perry, Neil, and others who have consistently played dirty for an extended period of time do something "dirty", whether it's legal or not, people jump to conclusions. That't usually the source of the double standard.

I thought that it was always illegal to do something with intent to injure, ? I'm not sure of the rules, just double checking.

[Steve_v3 289]

I guess intent is one of those things noone really knows.. Noone knows if Steckel intended to injure Crosby for example? Noone knows if Scott Stevens intended to injure Lindros?

And just so were clear, I'm really not just trying to start pissing matches. I'm simply saying, that the double standard that many many people have is ridiculous. I guarantee there are members here who have no problem with Scott Stevens but absolutely trash Matt Cooke at every opportunity. They did the same thing.. a 'dirty' but legal play at the time.

Stevens had many hits that were borderline at best. Like his one on Lindros, he comes from the other side of the ice & delivered an elbow to the head. I could argue he was trying to injure him.

Most of the hits people had a problem with, were with hits like that. Cooke has had many in just the last two seasons where he hit someone from behind or delivered a shot directly to the head.

And you have to be kidding if you want to compare Steckel with either Cooke or Stevens. Steckel was skating up the ice and wasn't even looking at Crosby. Plus Crosby turned right into him. If that hit caused a concussion why on earth did he continue to play? Never mind play the next game.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Stevens had many hits that were borderline at best. Like his one on Lindros, he comes from the other side of the ice & delivered an elbow to the head. I could argue he was trying to injure him.

Most of the hits people had a problem with, were with hits like that. Cooke has had many in just the last two seasons where he hit someone from behind or delivered a shot directly to the head.

And you have to be kidding if you want to compare Steckel with either Cooke or Stevens. Steckel was skating up the ice and wasn't even looking at Crosby. Plus Crosby turned right into him. If that hit caused a concussion why on earth did he continue to play? Never mind play the next game.

I'm not comparing Steckel with anyone..I'm talking about intent, which was brought up by another member when I tried to show the double standard alot of folks have concerning players like Stevens/Cooke. Maybe Steckel not the best example, but I have seen it argued both ways in the Steckel/Crosby incident, and I don't wish to engage in a discussion on a matter from last month thats been beaten to death. As far as your question goes on why he continued to play, I have no idea. The footage from between periods on the HBO episode shows Crosby lookin kinda loopy in my opinion (BUT I'm not a doctor :)), and I have also seen in many places on the internet that many folks think he literally suffered back to back concussions and thats why he is out for so long on what looked like two not extremely violent hits (when compared to Savard or Booth for example).

My original point was just to point out all the haters because of the Savard thing that basically pardon a guy like Scott Stevens for a 'dirty' but legal play' situation. Face it, if the Cooke/Savard thing never happened, he wouldnt be nearly as universally hated as he is.