I need to listen to Edwards’ call on the hit.

But the Pens don’t play again until Thursday, so there wasn’t a rush to make the for Campbell to make the call.  If I were a Bruins fan, I would be pissed off at the delay though.

Cooke will get suspended today, if it hasn’t happened already.

Posted by DigitalGypsy66 on 03/09/10 at 10:11 AM ET

Exactly my thoughts, DigitalGypsy66.  It’s not like the Pens played last night and if they had, Cooke would have been suspended.  I’m expecting 5 games minimum and if the NHL goes more, then so be it.  Got to get rid of these types of blindside hits.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/09/10 at 10:16 AM ET

Slightly off topic, but still RE: dirty play…I can’t recall, was it Cooke who broke Henrik Zetterberg’s leg with a slash when he was with the Canucks?

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 03/09/10 at 10:37 AM ET

I heard Scotty Bowman on Fan590 this morning.  He stated he does not think Cooke will get a severe suspension.

Scotty is at the GM meetings so he may be hearing the inside word on this topic.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 03/09/10 at 10:42 AM ET

Legal hit in today’s NHL rulebook. Nasty, mean hit but legal like Richards hit on Booth. It seems it is okay as long as it is the other teams player that goes down. If it was the star players on Penguins and Flyers their fans would be crying bloody murder like Bruins and Panthers fans. The league has to make a rule change or the hit to the head will continue. The hit on Booth knocked the Panthers out of the playoffs because they don’t have the depth to lose a 30 goal scorer and that costs the team money. Teams cannot afford to have their star players taken out of the game by legal brutal hits. It is up to the league to do something, the players are playing by the exisiting rules.

Posted by Bo from FL. on 03/09/10 at 11:12 AM ET

Excellent article; very well written.  It hits on all of the rhetoric ploys used to avoid cognitive dissonance and uphold some manner of plausible deniability.

Bo, I’d like to point out that it’s pretty hard to argue with this logic regarding the intent to injure rule.

Giving a man a concussion is injuring a man. There is little question for anyone of a balanced mind that, instead of targeting the body, the offending player targeted Cornsbie’s head, which certainly qualifies as “an attempt to injure (in any way).” He hit Cornsbie not to separate him from the puck but rather to separate him from consciousness. He fully succeeded

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 03/09/10 at 11:29 AM ET

Unfortunately I’m sure it will take someone like Crosby getting lit up and then injured to the point of missing most of a season before someone finally does something.

Of course, the guy that gave the hit to Crosby would get the longest suspension legally allowed without a second thought from the NHL..

Until then, we get “B-level” superstars injured and meaningless thugs suspended for anywhere from 2-10 games depending on where the “wheel of justice” lands.

What would help is if they went back to the softer pads of old.  Back then if a guy threw a big hit there was a good chance he would feel as much pain as the guy he hit.  Not like the triple weave bullet proof kevlar plating they have now. 

Also any time anyone leaves their feet when making a hit, before or after contact, it’s an immediate game misconduct and five minute major.  For an example of the type of hit I’m speaking of, just watch a Niklas Kronwall highlight reel.  Try to count how many times his shoulder, elbow, whatever makes contact with some other guys head.  I’ll bet you start losing count at around 115 or so.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity... on 03/09/10 at 11:41 AM ET

Well, hate to say it, but Edwards may be right… it will take a severe injury to a top-flight player (as good as Savard is, he’s not one of the half-dozen guys you market your league on) for the league to get serious about head injuries.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 03/09/10 at 11:42 AM ET

Cooke’s hit, while legal, falls into the same bucket as Richards/Booth, Armstrong/Letowski, etc.  IMO, there’s no reason to pop somebody like that.  I understand that they may be trying to prevent a good shot/intimidate/etc, but a concussion is an injury that will last a lifetime.

The only way to stop this type of stuff, in my mind, is to make suspensions for such hits so prohibitive and costly that players will not want to drill an opponent in a vulnerable position/blindside, etc.  There was a great article on this posted on KK yesterday by Pierre LeBrun I believe on this topic.  Evidence for this is stick swinging like the McSorely/Brashear incident, Simon stomping, etc.  We don’t see that type of stuff b/c players know the suspension will be very long/career ending.  The same should be for these blindside/head targeting hits. 

One problem with legislation on these types of hits is going to be the subjectivity of intent/circumstances, like a recipient changing position last second, etc to put themselves in a more vulnerable position.

There are other options as well (perhaps in conjunction) like making equipment less like armour, etc.

I dislike regulating behavior, I think these guys should respect each other enough not to hospitalize each other, but these incidents are very sad to see and regrettible for such a great game.

Posted by enice on 03/09/10 at 12:34 PM ET

If crosby got laid out and it was a similar hit to the cooke hit, nothing would happen, Stevens ended Lindros’ career with a similar hit and no rule chnage was made

Posted by hizobane from Canada on 03/09/10 at 01:00 PM ET

If it were Crosby laying out cold on the ice, Edwards would be cackling and extolling the virtues of the Bruin who delivered the hit, and he would call it the greatest thing he’d ever seen.  Possibly even pleading on-air for someone to hit him again while he was prone on the ice, or screaming “FINISH HIM” like it was Mortal Kombat.

And then he’d make some historically-incorrect reference of it to the Revolutionary War, and possibly a discriminatory slur mixed in just for fun because he’s Jack Edwards.

And it would just be another night of the Bruins on NESN.

Posted by Primis on 03/09/10 at 01:21 PM ET

The only thing about the article that irks me is that it seems Edwards wants punishment right away.  The Penguins don’t play again until Thursday, so no announcement has to be made until before then.  Look at Cam Janssen.  The guy makes a hit before the Olympics and the suspension isn’t announced until after the Olympics are over.  If the same thing happened to a Penguin I would not be happy, but I understand the timetable for the decision.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/09/10 at 01:24 PM ET

If it were Crosby laying out cold on the ice, Edwards would be cackling and extolling the virtues of the Bruin who delivered the hit, and he would call it the greatest thing he’d ever seen.  Possibly even pleading on-air for someone to hit him again while he was prone on the ice, or screaming “FINISH HIM” like it was Mortal Kombat.
And then he’d make some historically-incorrect reference of it to the Revolutionary War, and possibly a discriminatory slur mixed in just for fun because he’s Jack Edwards.
And it would just be another night of the Bruins on NESN.

hahahaha, funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/09/10 at 01:25 PM ET

His whole argument falls apart right here:

The league’s rule book has several instances that seem to cover this kind of intentional contact. Rule 21(i) calls for a match penalty for “an attempt to injure (in any manner).”

If that’s the litmus test, there’s a bunch of guys who would never make it through a game.  Ovechkin, Kronwall, Orpik.

The whole point of hitting is to make it hurt so the player being hit thinks twice the next time he’s around the puck.

Might as just outlaw hitting if that’s how that rule is going to be enforced.

In the end, we’re all a bunch of hypocrites mostly…we defend our players, and chastise those on other teams who do the same thing.

The double standard runs from the fans, to the players, to the league itself.

Posted by HNBCTB on 03/09/10 at 01:42 PM ET

Are we all talking about the same hit? I’m thinking that Cooke will get suspended for his illegal hit to Savard. Last time I checked the rule book, an elbow to the head was an elbowing penalty. Cooke clearly attempted and delivered a shot with his elbow.

Posted by CaptainDennisPolonich from Warm and sunny SoCal on 03/09/10 at 03:03 PM ET

Uh, no…check the video again.  No elbow there, unless his elbow starts 3-4 inches below his shoulder.

Not that it matters—enough damage was done with the shoulder to warrant a suspension.

Posted by DigitalGypsy66 on 03/09/10 at 03:08 PM ET

The problem with most of these hits, is that they are no longer designed to separate a player from the puck, but to inflict damage on another player. It started with following through with your hit and now it is hit the guy even if he has released the puck. Late hits are more and more common and designed to injure a prone player.  The point of checking is no longer to create turnovers, but to create injuries and that is the problem.

Scott Steven concussed Lindros while hitting him head on while Lindros was staring down at the puck. It was not a blind side hit so let’s not compare apples and oranges. A more reasonable comparison would be Stevens on Kariya since Kariya had released the puck, but again it was not a blindside head shot.

Posted by hockey1919 from montreal on 03/09/10 at 03:21 PM ET

a) Marc Savard in not Sidney Crosby he’s not even Slidsy Cornsbie.
b) Primis couldn’t be more correct: ... virtues of the Bruin who delivered the hit…
c) Jack Edwards is an A$$hole!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The whole point of hitting is to make it hurt so the player being hit thinks twice the next time he’s around the puck.

Actually hitting or checking in hockey was first used and only used to seperate a player from the puck. Since the late Sixties (expansion era) hitting has also evolved into an intimidator for the opposing team . But your point is well taken.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/09/10 at 03:31 PM ET

Rob Rossi, beat writer for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review), said on the radio that the general consensus of the GMs is that the Cooke hit was legal by current NHL standards.

Uh oh. Possibly no suspension? That’s the way it should be based on the rule and precedent.

Posted by cs6687 on 03/09/10 at 05:50 PM ET

I don’t even think a star injured will change anything - he will come back eventually, win the Masterson, and his perseverance will be an oft-told tale.

Someone - and someone who is a bona fide superstar player - is going to have to die on the ice.  When a lifeless body is stretchered off and the letters “DOA” are heard in the reports, then things will change - until that point, I think the “keep your head up” crowd will continue ignoring the negative effects.

It’s going to take a young, formerly-talented corpse to change minds.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/09/10 at 09:44 PM ET