Wrong move.  Here comes the conspiracy/favoritism crap….

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/10/10 at 02:40 PM ET

uh, oh.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/10/10 at 02:45 PM ET

Since when has Campbell cared about consistency? His rulings are anything but consistent.

Posted by David from MI on 03/10/10 at 02:56 PM ET

The Richards/Cooke comparison works here, as Ken Campbell argued on THN this week. That’s not to say that those hits should be allowed, only that our current rules do allow them, and that we (sadly) need for these brutal realities to go unpunished in order to see the foolishness of our ways.

Posted by anonymouss on 03/10/10 at 02:57 PM ET

yeah… and i thought the whole “repeat offender” thing was supposed to factor in. which is what is supposed to make this different than Richards.

what a joke.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 03/10/10 at 02:59 PM ET

Here is my problem with the ruling.  This gives any player the go-ahead to deliver the same kind of hit for the rest of this season and not have to worry about any suspension.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 03/10/10 at 03:02 PM ET

Repeat offenders apply only for offences. If this is not an offence, as was already determined by no suspension for the Richards hit, it does not suddenly make it an offence in Cooke’s case. Repeat offenders get multiplied punishment for infractions, and when you think about taking a non-infraction (strike one) and multiplying its punishment (zero games), you wind up with no punishment.

Posted by anonymouss on 03/10/10 at 03:02 PM ET

Wow.

I mean, since there was no word on it for so long, I sort of figured this was going to be the news…but, still…wow.

Consistency on these calls would be good, though.  It’s just…the consistency is going the wrong way, in this case.  Richards should have been suspended and so should have Cooke.

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 03/10/10 at 03:03 PM ET

Exactly. Only this hit has been legal since the beginning of time. What has changed is that the game has gotten faster and the players tougher, and the instigator rule if you consider that a factor. We realized long ago that play picked up enough to change some things (giving goalies masks, players helmets), but apparently not others.

Besides, concussions are not worth mid-season rule changes or unsupported suspensions. Only Sean Avery is worth those two things.

Posted by anonymouss on 03/10/10 at 03:04 PM ET

Here is my problem with the ruling.  This gives any player the go-ahead to deliver the same kind of hit for the rest of this season and not have to worry about any suspension

Good point Paul.  There may be a riot in Boston when the Pens go up there.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/10/10 at 03:06 PM ET

The only thing the NHL is consistent about is consistently BAD in their disciplinary rulings.

Posted by Primis on 03/10/10 at 03:07 PM ET

Welcome to the NHL, where two wrongs make a right.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/10/10 at 03:07 PM ET

Even as a Pens fan, I think that this kind of hit should be a suspendable offense. Cooke should have been out at least 5 games, and likely will be if it happens again next season. Richards should have been too. Hopefully they really will get these hits out of the game…

Posted by penguinsfan on 03/10/10 at 03:09 PM ET

I agree with Paul 100%. Campbell just set the precedent for open season on head shots.

I also agree that Campbell’s rulings are wildly inconsistent.

Posted by propper on 03/10/10 at 03:12 PM ET

So on this one I presume he got suspended because he began to leave his foot/feet off the ice, as contact was shoulder to chest. Oh, maybe his shoulder lifted slightly onto his chin after contact.

I’ve not had too much a problem with suspensions this season as others have, but this is mind-blowingly ridiculous. Was a precedent for Cooke not sent with his suspension earlier this season?

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/10/10 at 03:23 PM ET

Stupidity is doing the wrong thing again because that is the way you did it the first time. I used to believe that Colin Campbell was just incompetent now he has proven himself to be dangerous as well. If it weren’t for the fact that someone could get killed by decisions like this it would be a joke. Colin Campbell, the next player that gets blindsided and concussed can honestly say it is all YOUR fault. You can only pray it isn’t Greg that suffers.

Posted by hockey1919 from montreal on 03/10/10 at 03:25 PM ET

Welcome to the NHL, where two wrongs make a right.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/10/10 at 03:07 PM ET

Spot on JJ, and Paul.

Absurdity at its finest.  No wonder the NHL is an “also ran” among the major league sports, what a freaking joke.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 03/10/10 at 03:28 PM ET

Does Colin Campbell want Bertuzzi - Moore redux? (almost six years ago to the day by the way).  This decision has the league headed down the same path is my concern.

Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 03/10/10 at 03:35 PM ET

“Campbell has said throughout the meetings that it was Richards’ hit on Booth that put general managers “over the brink” on this issue.” - From USAToday.

So he agrees that the hit on Booth is the catalyst , the GMs sat on it until someone else got hurt and yet lets Cooke go unpunished. Amazing lack of logic.

Posted by hockey1919 from montreal on 03/10/10 at 03:43 PM ET

Here is my problem with the ruling.  This gives any player the go-ahead to deliver the same kind of hit for the rest of this season and not have to worry about any suspension.
Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 03/10/10 at 03:02 PM ET

BINGO!

Posted by calquake on 03/10/10 at 03:59 PM ET

I think it is hard to suspend based on a leagl (but dirty) hit. Paul is right about open season. I know that the NHLPA and the competition committee plus the BOG have to approve before it becomes law but they needed to find a way to enforce this rule immediately. As is nothing changes until next year and it is open season for blind shots to the head

Posted by Randy from Butler PA on 03/10/10 at 04:02 PM ET

Precedent

Suspension

in reference to previously set precedent

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/10/10 at 04:14 PM ET

So, it’s “legal” to take a guy’s head off and the other team can’t keep you honest because of the instigator rule.  That’s a recipe for disaster.  Zero accountability.  This is going to get messy folks.

Posted by Matt from SLO, CA on 03/10/10 at 04:29 PM ET

Does anybody know if Jack Edwards has been put under suicide watch?

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/10/10 at 04:51 PM ET

Welcome to the NHL, where two wrongs make a right.

And where it’s open season for the next three months.

Posted by steve on 03/10/10 at 05:05 PM ET

I think it’s time to set a new precedent.  Admit you made a mistake on the first ruling and get the second one right.  Campbell needs a beating.

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 03/10/10 at 05:17 PM ET

If he were wearing an Islander jersey he would have got at least 15 games. Collin Campbell would be a liar if he said otherwise.

Posted by Marc from New Jersey on 03/10/10 at 06:30 PM ET

Serious question - is there any rule that out laws using a shoulder to check someone in the head?  All I’ve heard is the NHL is trying to remove head shots from the game but have they banned it yet?  Apparently not.

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 06:39 PM ET

The only thing that is shocking is that people are shocked.  The NHL has consistent failed to “do the right thing”.  Why start now?

But from a legal perspective, this is totally frightening.  Precedent has now been set.  Any player has the right to do this madness to any player and not fear any retribution from the League.  Even worse, had someone jumped Cooke, they are likely more culpable as an instigator. 

Dark Days my friends.  Dark Days.

I do wonder this - had the on-ice officials tagged Cooke, would that have changed the events from Campbell’s perch?  Was that the significant similarity with the Richards’ hit?

Ironically, of the two hits (Anisimov & Savard), the Anisimov hit looked rather benign.  I wonder if Campbell regrets his decision to suspend Cookie Monster?

Posted by ProjectMayhem on 03/10/10 at 06:40 PM ET

Not much difference between the shot Cooke took from D. Keith and the one he administered…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XiTS8NjNao&feature=player_embedded

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 07:02 PM ET

Not much difference between the shot Cooke took from D. Keith and the one he administered…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XiTS8NjNao&feature=player_embedded

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 07:02 PM ET

You’re right.  Hopefully the recommendation from the GM meetings will instigate a rule that makes that a suspension.

Doesn’t change the fact that Cooke should have been suspended.  The intent to injure rule was put in place to let the league catch those calls that are absolutely dirty, but not penalized.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/10/10 at 07:06 PM ET

If that’s the rule, “intent to injure” then I can see why all the commotion over this ruling.  Who knows what his or anyone else’s intent is.  What if he intended to injure but missed?  Still a suspension? 

Other wise it seemed like a “legal” hit to me.  Unless there is a rule I’m not familiar with.

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 07:20 PM ET

If that’s the rule, “intent to injure” then I can see why all the commotion over this ruling.  Who knows what his or anyone else’s intent is.  What if he intended to injure but missed?  Still a suspension?

Other wise it seemed like a “legal” hit to me.  Unless there is a rule I’m not familiar with.

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 07:20 PM ET

There is no precedent for an intent to injure with a miss simply because you’re right that it’s so hard to judge intent.  My opinion is that Cooke intended to injure Savard when he shoulder-checked him in the head.  Still, you’re technically correct that the lack of a specific rule to address hits like this makes it a point open to arguments like these.

My question is whether you want hits like this to continue to be legal.  I think Cooke should have been suspended for a dirty play, just like Richards should have been suspended and just like Keith should have been suspended for the hit you linked.

I also think the Scott Stevens hit on Lindros that everybody loves to mention in times like this would be considered a clean hit under the rule that’s proposed.  I like hard-hitting and body-crushing checks.  I don’t like dangerous blindside hits.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/10/10 at 07:30 PM ET

Might be wise for some teams to sit their star players in a few games where they suspect they might be headhunted before the new rules take effect.  A good solid head hit and a guy could easily be out a calendar year or longer - maybe even never quite be the same.

Imagine being able to finish off a major thorn in the side of your team in the form of a player on a divisional opponent.  Take him out in the next few months, affect his play for seasons to come.  A bargain, really.

I just hope no one gets killed.

Why they could put a stupid rule affecting Sean Avery into effect before the series was over and can’t actually put this one in effect now is asinine.  Doesn’t surprise me at all - like any corporate entity, they don’t see the employees as people, but just resources to be used and then discarded like so much litter.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/10/10 at 08:10 PM ET

I wouldn’t object to a suspension but see why there was not.  There already is a precedent not to suspend and it was a legal hit. 

And it’s not going to be the wild wild west either.  Nothing is going to change because of no suspension.  Next year it will be an illegal hit.

Although Pittsburgh / Boston should be fun next week.

Posted by McFly on 03/10/10 at 08:21 PM ET

@ Baroque
I understand and agree with the idea of waiting for a new season to implement new rules. One part of the schedule should not have different rules from another part of the schedule. Just my opinion on that.

But I do agree with you on this:
Why they could put a stupid rule affecting Sean Avery into effect before the series was over and ... is asinine

All that did was give NHL haters like Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon more ammo to ridicule the NHL.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/10/10 at 09:11 PM ET

Campbell is a neanderthal! He is hired to placate the “old school” crowd. Which include a majority of the GM’s.

Posted by Timbits on 03/10/10 at 11:52 PM ET