Pittsburgh Penguins Thread

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

What I am trying to get at, is that there's not a direct immediate correlation in his mind as he is throwing the hit/elbow to Marc Savard to the deep long term affects it would have on Savard's life.

 

I understand, but see, I think he is entirely capable of losing that "moment of clarity" long enough to kick someone too.

 

That moment of clarity, just prior to acting out, doesnt come often to people like Matt Cooke. (sorry Cooke family) It comes to people in varying degrees.....I can honestly say there are times in my life where I have not had that moment of "wait, Im about to hurt this guy bad", and just gone ahead with a hit, a slash, whatever. I'm no saint, and I hate to sound so judgmental. I think Cooke, and many other NHL'ers/people, have these moments way too rarely, because its in the culture of the game, and its getting worse, not better.

 

And without a doubt, 99% of the people would take back their actions once they realize the harm it could do. I think most people are inherintly good, and just do evil in the moments they lose control, and let their anger supercede their rational thought.

 

I can see your point that the skate as a weapon thing seems more crazy, but does that really mean anything in a league where we have seen guys use their sticks at people's heads. If he was stomping on someone like down on the ground, ok, I get it, thats out and out murder. But this is just a kick to the back of the leg (IF he meant to do it), and in that "moment of lack of clarity" that you mention, I dont think it matters to some people if its a elbow to the head, a stick to the face or a skate to the back of a leg. He doesnt know it will get his achilles, for all he knows, he wasnt trying to aim the blade, but just kick with the toe, and his leg slid down.

 

I realize Im arguing a point most of you, if not all of you, dont agree with. Usually that is when I start to re-evaluate my position, and realize the error of my ways. Im ok with my side in this instance, cause frankly, while I think your right, I like being wrong on this side of the fence on this one. I'd rather overjudge, overpunish, and overthink it, instead of letting it all go.

[Dubey 1,035]

Actually, you make a solid argument Arp, and you may be right with regards to Cooke.

 

I myself have lost that 'moment of clarity' on the ice a few times in my life and luckily have never actually injured somebody. Hell, I literally broke my stick over the back of a guy's knee one time in a moment that definitely had zero clarity, and I consider myself to be a very decent person who is never prone to violence of any kind in my regular life.

 

I agree that some players have a lower threshold for rationality in heated situations. Cooke likely has one of the lowest thresholds.

 

 

I still don't believe he did it on purpose in this instance, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion.

[digitalmonkey 929]

P.S. Marc Savard is a piece of shit too.

 

As a GM in the NHL, Murray should be more professional. Throwing accusations around based on a players past in this situation is ridiculous. Cooke did not hit Karlsson with a questionable hit. This is a play that happens many times in a game. It was an accident. All the players know.

 

Perhaps Murray should be upset with himself for not insisting that his players wear kevlar socks.

 

Whether or not a check is a headshot or not is not always clear. It's often open to interpretation and the video often has to be watched repeatedly. I don't think Cooke or Torres or whomever, hits a guy thinking it's gonna be an illegal hit and they're gonna seriously hurt the player. I just think some players play the game on the edge and that earns them the label of being a dirty player sometimes.

 

Anyone who would intentionally use the blade of their skate as a weapon is not a player playing on the edge... It is a psychopath disguised as a hockey player.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I still don't believe he did it on purpose in this instance, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion.

 

fwiw, I dont either, but I do think its careless use/recklessness. which I also know no one will agree with.

to me, and ya, I dont play the game at a high level, I dont think guys should be raising their legs to get better positioning or whatever the reason is.

[Zach6668 513]

I wouldn't argue that he doesn't have it in him to lose the clarity to kick someone, though I do disagree to some extent. His track record has proven he'll cross the line.

 

But I mean, that has nothing to do with this incident. Watching it in REAL TIME, there's no way he could possibly do that on purpose. I mean, he's off balance, engaged with a player, NOT LOOKING AT HIS FEET, and he can put the blade ON PURPOSE in that small opening between the back of the skate and the ankle? I don't think he's that skilled. (caps for emphasis, not anger )

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I don't think Cooke or Torres or whomever, hits a guy thinking it's gonna be an illegal hit and they're gonna seriously hurt the player.

really? You think they just think little will come from these hits? You gotta be kidding me, there is no way in hell I will ever believe they dont realize their actions will hurt others. Thats one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

They hope it just hurts them a little, or a lot, but not enough so they dont get suspended, and not so much that the guy has a lifetime of problems.

If you think they dont know they are hurting the hit taker, and at times, seriously, then someone on here has a bridge to sell you.

 

 

I just think some players play the game on the edge and that earns them the label of being a dirty player sometimes.

 

Can someone please explain "playing the game on the edge" to me.

Cause to me, it sounds a lot like "Ya, sometimes they are gonna hit someone illegally, but sometimes they will get called and other times they wont, and then sometimes it wont be an illegal hit based on the rules of the game".

 

Am I allowed to live my life on the edge, and then say "You know what, thats just what comes with living on the edge"

Your held accountable for your actions, on the ice or off.

Just cause your too ignorant to realize your actions are going to hurt someone, and you dont mind that the law considers your actions illegal, doesnt make it ok.

[serge 904]

 

really? You think they just think little will come from these hits? You gotta be kidding me, there is no way in hell I will ever believe they dont realize their actions will hurt others. Thats one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

They hope it just hurts them a little, or a lot, but not enough so they dont get suspended, and not so much that the guy has a lifetime of problems.

If you think they dont know they are hurting the hit taker, and at times, seriously, then someone on here has a bridge to sell you.

 

 

 

 

Can someone please explain "playing the game on the edge" to me.

Cause to me, it sounds a lot like "Ya, sometimes they are gonna hit someone illegally, but sometimes they will get called and other times they wont, and then sometimes it wont be an illegal hit based on the rules of the game".

 

Am I allowed to live my life on the edge, and then say "You know what, thats just what comes with living on the edge"

Your held accountable for your actions, on the ice or off.

Just cause your too ignorant to realize your actions are going to hurt someone, and you dont mind that the law considers your actions illegal, doesnt make it ok.

 

Do you think a player who delivers a clean hit isn't trying to hurt the other player in any way?

[digitalmonkey 929]

It seems we define "hurt" differently. I think many players intend to knock the wind out of someone, but I don't think they intend to seriously injure anyone or end their career. I think it's ridiculous that you seem to believe this.

 

I'm fairly certain you're well aware what "playing the game on the edge" means. If you're standing in the corner and the puck is between your legs and you suddenly find yourself staring down at the puck...and then you look up and see an opponent skating toward you...

 

Would you prefer that player was Jussi Jokinen or Steve Ott?

 

Steve Ott plays on the edge.

 

And why are you bringing real life into this? FYI, don't go around whacking people across the ankles with a stick because you'll likely get more than a 2-minute penalty.

 

And you're arguing a moot point with regards to accountability. Cooke was held accountable for his hits...doesn't mean he intended them to be illegal or to inflict injury. His ignorance wasn't a defense. He broke a rule and he was held accountable. Now you're suggesting that he be held accountable for an accident based on previous actions that he has already "served time" for.

[Fenxis 99]

And you're arguing a moot point with regards to accountability. Cooke was held accountable for his hits...doesn't mean he intended them to be illegal or to inflict injury. His ignorance wasn't a defense. He broke a rule and he was held accountable. Now you're suggesting that he be held accountable for an accident based on previous actions that he has already "served time" for.

 

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/sports/hockey/matt-cooke-should-be-banned-from-the-nhl/

 

Savard headshot: 0 games

Donovan knee-on-knee: 0 games

etc..

 

Cooke shouldn't be penalized just because of the Karlsson -- he shouldn't even be still in the game b/c of his track record of career ending/limiting dirty moves.

[Zach6668 513]

The Savard headshot wasn't an illegal hit so.....

[serge 904]

I will reiterate. Matt Cooke is one of the cleanest players in the NHL.........the last 2 years.

 

He served his time , he actually changed his game. I haven't seen any player in NHL history do a complete transformation like Cooke has.

 

Controversial statement coming, read at own risk:

 

Sidney Crosby today is a much dirtier player than Matt Cooke.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Ya, I'm not sure why Fenxis quoted me. I referred to Cooke "hits"...never mentioned any specific hit.

[Zach6668 513]

Controversial statement coming, read at own risk:

 

Sidney Crosby today is a much dirtier player than Matt Cooke.

 

Reserving judgment, but would you expand? Maybe cite some of his dirty plays?

 

I'd happily call him chippy, don't know about dirt.

[serge 904]

BTW note to Sens fans:

 

Did you think Marian Hossa should have been punished severely for blinding Bryan Berrard and ruining his career?

 

Bryan Murray is way out of line.

[serge 904]

 

 

Reserving judgment, but would you expand? Maybe cite some of his dirty plays?

 

I'd happily call him chippy, don't know about dirt.

 

Ok. Was just making an analogy. But Cooke is very clean. Crosby not so much. Chirpy, chippy.

 

Not implying Crosby goes head hunting.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

It seems we define "hurt" differently. I think many players intend to knock the wind out of someone, but I don't think they intend to seriously injure anyone or end their career. I think it's ridiculous that you seem to believe this.

 

We define a lot of things differently. Hence why i asked you to define "playing on the edge". I wasn't being sarcastic, I don't know what it means, cause I would bet it means something different to everyone.

 

I dont know how you interpreted my statement that I believe players are intending to seriously injure with all/many hits. In fact, what I was trying to argue was, if you make a reckless hit, you should also pay the consequences. I dont know what peoples intentions are, I only know if your reckless and you cause harm, I think you should pay a penalty for that to help dissuade others from acting the same way.

 

 

 

 

And you're arguing a moot point with regards to accountability. Cooke was held accountable for his hits...doesn't mean he intended them to be illegal or to inflict injury. His ignorance wasn't a defense. He broke a rule and he was held accountable. Now you're suggesting that he be held accountable for an accident based on previous actions that he has already "served time" for.

 

Its clear you don't hold people's past transgressions against them once they "served time" for the issue. You and I disagree here too.

 

Also, I dont know what people are thinking, what their intent is when they act, I dont have this power, so what I do is, if something they did caused harm, and it was reckless, then yes, they should be held accountable. I would bring "real life" analogies into this, but you didn't seem to like it when I did last time, so I'll refrain from doing it again.

 

Dale, you and I seem to view hockey very differently.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

BTW note to Sens fans:

 

Did you think Marian Hossa should have been punished severely for blinding Bryan Berrard and ruining his career?

 

not a Sens fan, but yes, yes I did, though I dont know what you mean by "severely" punished.

[Zach6668 513]

There's a rule that a high stick is not a penalty if it's on the follow through of a shot... if memory serves, I think Hossa was shooting the puck down the ice when his follow through hit Berard?

 

You'd like the rule changed then, I assume?

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Yes.

 

I know Hossa was not penalized, since it wasn't against the rules.

 

I realize that there are things which are currently not against the rules, that I refer to as things I would penalize.

Trust me, the NHL I would prefer would have a fair bit of change from today's NHL.

[Zach6668 513]

Do your punishments differ between the two situations below?

 

1) Actual Berard incident, major eye injury

2) Berard incident, except injury is cut under the eye, stitches, maybe misses the rest of the game

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Yes it does.

 

(but that doesn't mean scenario 2 gets nothing)

[Zach6668 513]

So it's a luck-based system. It bugs me in sports that it's like that sometimes. Like, guys who do more malicious stuff sometimes get off easier if their opponent is lucky and doesn't get injured, whereas accidental (perhaps reckless is what you're getting at) stuff can get bigger penalties because of a half inch in either direction, you know?

 

But in real life justice, that's how it works as well. So I certainly see some merit to it.

[digitalmonkey 929]

BTW note to Sens fans:

 

Did you think Marian Hossa should have been punished severely for blinding Bryan Berrard and ruining his career?

 

Bryan Murray is way out of line.

 

I remember that play. I knew it was bad news for Berard when it happened. It was a follow-thru on a shot, therefore it wasn't even a penalty.

[digitalmonkey 929]

 

 

We define a lot of things differently. Hence why i asked you to define "playing on the edge". I wasn't being sarcastic, I don't know what it means, cause I would bet it means something different to everyone.

 

I dont know how you interpreted my statement that I believe players are intending to seriously injure with all/many hits. In fact, what I was trying to argue was, if you make a reckless hit, you should also pay the consequences. I dont know what peoples intentions are, I only know if your reckless and you cause harm, I think you should pay a penalty for that to help dissuade others from acting the same way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its clear you don't hold people's past transgressions against them once they "served time" for the issue. You and I disagree here too.

 

Also, I dont know what people are thinking, what their intent is when they act, I dont have this power, so what I do is, if something they did caused harm, and it was reckless, then yes, they should be held accountable. I would bring "real life" analogies into this, but you didn't seem to like it when I did last time, so I'll refrain from doing it again.

 

Dale, you and I seem to view hockey very differently.

 

 

Are you implying that Cooke was reckless by bring his leg up on the Karlsson play?

 

Your statement regarding hits appeared to suggest that players intended to hurt when they hit. Is that not what you meant? I think Serge interpreted the same way I did.

 

And how do you label a hit reckless? It appears to me that you only label it reckless if someone gets hurt.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

So it's a luck-based system. It bugs me in sports that it's like that sometimes. Like, guys who do more malicious stuff sometimes get off easier if their opponent is lucky and doesn't get injured, whereas accidental (perhaps reckless is what you're getting at) stuff can get bigger penalties because of a half inch in either direction, you know?

 

But in real life justice, that's how it works as well. So I certainly see some merit to it.

 

Ya, your right, it has an air of luck to it, but that's why I would punish them all in some way.

I might not get "hockey code" and therefore why I often think of "real life" to draw my conclusions from.

 

(did I use enough quotes there? does anyone else love putting things in brackets as much as I do?)