Now, before I continue I’ll state for the record that I’ve been watching hockey for a long time.  I’ve been a New York Rangers fan for a long time as well, but give me a game between any two teams and I’m there.  First and foremost, it’s the game I love.

Given I live in the northeast, and I don’t live in New York anymore, I don’t get a lot of Rangers games on the tube (yeah, I don’t have the extra money to shell out for MSG or NHL Center Ice, so I watch what’s available).  I tend to get a lot of Bruins games, and I get to see more Montreal games than New York, but I still follow my blueshirts even if I’m rooting for black and gold or even blue and white.

So I came home late yesterday afternoon, anxious to see how the game turned out.  It was both exhilarating and disappointing all at the same time.

The exhilaration came from the continuous fast pace, the constant strategizing between two of the best defensive-minded teams in the league. Trading goal for goal through two periods was an incredible roller coaster of a game, with both teams backed by goaltenders who seemed intent on *not* costing their team a point.  The sacrificial lambs on defense gave up a lot of bodily pain in the pursuit of a victory, and I wonder how many Bruins defensemen will be dressing today with serious black-and-blues to be covered with equipment.

But I of course have to address the third period hit by Bruins defenseman Andrew Ference on Rangers defenseman Ryan McDonagh as they both pursued the puck behind the Rangers’ goal.  The hit caused McDonagh to leave the game, his injury still unknown to us at this time.  Ference was tossed from the game with a 5-minute major for boarding, an automatic ejection and a game misconduct, and I just now heard that he will also be suspended for the hit, a suspension that will keep him out of tonight’s game against the Flyers, a game where the Bruins could certainly use Ference’s hard-hitting style and smart defense.

But that suspension is a well-deserved one, especially for a player who took his own teammates to task last year for egregious hits.  In this instance, McDonagh was trying to get position on Ference as they both raced pell-mell towards the puck just off to Lundqvist’s right.  Ference had his head up, he knew McDonagh was facing the boards as they both arrived, and he had an opportunity to avoid the contact completely.  Instead, Ference slammed McDonagh right on the numbers approximately five feet from the boards, sending the Ranger defenseman face-first towards the ice and certain contact with the boards.

I believe Ference when he says he did not intend to injure McDonagh, that he did not leave himself time to pull up and avoid the impact at full speed.  But Andy, you’re still guilty of boarding, you’re still guilty of a hit from behind with injury resulting.  And I agree one thousand percent with Marc Savard, who during a pre-game interview prophetically said words to the effect of, “as long as we keep hitting guys like this regardless of the rules, guys will get career-ending injuries resulting from it.”

Talk is cheap, Andy.  If you’re gonna talk the talk, you have to walk the walk too.  I’ve seen fellow teammates Milan Lucic, Nathan Horton, and even Zdeno Chara ease up when they approach a player in a vulnerable position.  You have to always err on the side of caution when you know you have an opponent lined up – is he expecting the hit, can he defend himself?  Or is he in a position where you may seriously hurt him?  If the former, go ahead and hit him.  But if it’s the latter, remember how Marc Savard looked laid out on the ice after Matt Cooke blindsided him.

Think about that while you’re sitting out your suspension.

Remember what Marc Savard looked like yesterday, giving that interview and practically acknowledging albeit unspoken that his career is over.

*Late word is that the NHL has suspended Ference 3 games and forfeit $36k  in salary (which goes to the Players Emergency Assistance Fund) for the hit.  While Shanahan agreed that there was no malicious intent, Shanahan said of the hit,  “It is a textbook example of the boarding rule that was re-written this season to include pushes or shoves, and reflects emphasis upon impact with the boards.”

*1/23/2012 – minor correction.  Left out the word *not*, sorry about that.  Need a better proofreader. 

It’s called Fictionique but don’t let the name fool you – it is much more than fiction.  It boasts a varied and talented collection of writers of all genres, each as dedicated to the craft as any writer is.

I count myself fortunate to be numbered amongst them – so come on over and visit us.  It is fun, entertaining, scary, uplifting, evocative, and many other lovely words.  Be forewarned, it is a site meant for adults – you may encounter foul language, violent situations and more.  It is a curated site with a discriminating editorial staff and a growing readership.

Join us as we revel in the written word, in the arresting imagery of the world around us.

Join us.

“…very questionable hit by Johnny Boychuk, who spun Mason Raymond around by placing his stick between Raymond’s legs and twisting it (called “a can opener,” which is illegal) and then holding him down bent over and pushing him rear end first into the boards”.

Apparently Stu and I get different television coverage, because I didn’t see Boychuck pull a “can opener” on Raymond.  What I saw was the two get caught up with each other while trying to play the puck (and hey – the puck squirted right underneath both players as they became entangled) and Boychuck doing what he was taught to do by finishing his check.  It lasted all of about two seconds, the whole incident, and I don’t believe for one second Boychuck deliberately drove Raymond into the boards tail first intending to injure him.  What would be the point?

It was a freak accident that resulted in Raymond’s injury, and it was disheartening to watch supposed professional medical people STAND RAYMOND UP and cart him off the ice.  They didn’t know the extent of his injury and given how he hit the boards it could easily have been a spinal injury (it was) which could have been horrifically exacerbated by standing him up.  The man should have been put on a backboard and taken off on a stretcher to insure his safety.  I was glad to see him in the walkway at the start of the final game – and I sincerely hope he makes a complete and speedy recovery.

Worse for me was the reaction of the Bruins fans, suggesting that Raymond was diving and just faking an injury.  They should know better.  They’ve seen Savard lost to a concussion thanks to Matt Cooke, they’ve seen Bergeron go down and Horton as well.  Did anyone assume they were diving?  No.  When a player goes down and doesn’t get up, give him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, back to Stu’s assessment of the incident.  He claims that Kerry Fraser agrees that it should have been a minor penalty at least, and I can’t argue that point; neither Boychuck nor Raymond actually played the puck so it is not a stretch to make an interference call.  However, what Stu didn’t bother to do was quote Kerry Fraser’s last remark on the incident:

“I did not see any evidence that Boychuk drove Raymond with any excessive or significant force other than what might be deemed normal on a finish of a play of this nature.”  – http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368912

Well on that point it seems Kerry and  I are in agreement.  At least someone who understands hockey was watching the game.

Stu then goes on to dissect the middle portion of the game and explain why Vancouver gave up so many goals in such a hurry but I won’t bother with his finding a multitude of excuses for Vancouver’s inability to defend against the Bruins’ counterattack.  Apparently, Boston must be the dirtiest team in the league by his standards (hey Stu, remember the Flyers from the ‘70s?  I think they were worse and I watched them play) as he continues to opine about perceived cheap shots:

“More nonsense, as expected, ensued late in the contest, nothing more egregious than Marchand using Daniel Sedin’s head like a light punching bag.”

Well, yes, Stu – it actually was nonsensical even to me, until I looked at it in the context of the entire series where Vancouver’s face-washing and cross-checking after whistles was more than tolerated.  So I don’t begrudge the Bruins’ attempt to pay it back a little.  Quite honestly, I was shocked that Canucks’ tough guys like Kessler and Bieksa and Torres simply let Marchand train on Sedin’s head.  Moreover, why the hell didn’t Sedin just give it back to him?  I mean, these are HOCKEY PLAYERS, Stu.  They should be capable of stepping in to defend a teammate.

Stu seems to be making a habit of letting his bias show in his articles.  Personally, I am not a Bruins fan so I didn’t have a stake in this series other than I wanted to see good hockey.  There was, sadly, woefully little of that but I put the onus squarely on the officials for that.  Pocketing their whistles in the post season just seems stupid to me.  But sports writers that simply don’t know the rules shouldn’t be writing about hockey.  Hey Stu, maybe next time you can save yourself the trouble of creating a biased sports article and let Kerry write it instead?  At least it would be factual and objective.

So to drag this rebuttal of Hackel’s hack job back to the original intention of this post, I found the glaring ray of sunshine I was looking for all post season after the final buzzer went off and the Bruins celebrated their victory.

The majority of the Vancouver fans that were at the game stayed for the presentation of the Conn Smythe trophy to Tim Thomas (whom they roundly applauded and cheered as it was presented) and then, probably the hardest thing of all, the presentation of the Stanley Cup to Bruins’ captain Zdeno Chara.  Yes, these hockey fans cheered that too (even though a chorus of boo’s rained down on Gary Bettman as he gave his little presentation speech – and Vancouver fans, I cheered YOU for that) and stood up and continued to applaud as the cup was passed from player to player.

Last night, there were fools on the street in Vancouver claiming to be Canuck fans.  They overturned the vehicles of innocent people and set fire to them.  They broke into establishments and looted them.  They attacked police officers trying to disperse the seemingly drunk and unruly crowd.  Today, I see many comments on some of the news posts belittling the people of Vancouver for this barbaric display.

That saddens me once more, that people can’t tell the difference between true fans and blatant fools.  The fools will go on a rampage and leave destruction in their wake regardless of outcome.

The fans?  They stand and cheer both their home team as they leave the ice in defeat but more importantly, they cheer the winners as well for a job well done.

My thanks to those Vancouver fans that occupied Rogers Arena last night.  You know who you are.

For me, it was a game that seemed full of promise and had no real surprises.  Boston, which has a history of making bad plays in their own end and a dearth of impact players on the powerplay this season, continued doing the very same.  There were several turnovers in the Boston end, a couple of those by veteran defenseman Zdeno Chara, but again this is something I’ve become accustomed to in watching the Bruins all season long.  The inability to make effective clearing shots while on the penalty kill also was no surprise.  Nor was the continued inability to capitalize on a five-on-three advantage.

The thing that really surprised me, though, was the little face-washing incident between Bergeron and Burrows.  Now, Canucks fans can say what they like but I will emphatically state as a long-time hockey fan that biting another player is a suspendable infraction.  It does not matter one little bit (yes – pun intended) that Bergeron had a glove on or that said glove was actually in Burrows’ face – I’ve played ice hockey, and believe it or not the gloves are leather on the underside.  You CAN bite through it.

It would be interesting to see if there are teeth marks on that glove, but it is frankly a moot point – watch the video replay if you doubt that Burrows bit him.  He did, there’s no denying it so there’s nothing to be said in defense of it.  Just like there is nothing to be said in defense of Bertuzzi’s sucker punch, or Cooke’s blindside hits, or Marty McSorely’s broadsword attack on Donald Brashear’s head.  It is, in short, one of the things that falls under “unsportsmanlike conduct” at best.  Murphy needs to suspend him for two games at least and let’s move on.

As far as officiating goes, I’d be hard-pressed to complain about the officiating in the first game of the finals – because there wasn’t any.  There were very few penalties called, as it seemed the refs were going to continue their vows of silence in this year’s second season.  Several infractions were simply ignored, which means that this series is going to start getting nasty in a hurry as players figure out that almost anything will be allowed.

Oh, and for those who have read some of my prior posts on this year’s Stanley Cup playoffs, please note that I picked the Bruins and Canucks to be meeting in the finals before Round 2 even started.  Huzzah!  I did pretty good, all things considered.

Get ready for game two on Saturday.  I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be more physical, but even if it isn’t I hope the Canucks’ players will limit their mouthing off to actual verbal exchanges.

EASTERN CONFERENCE:

Washington Capitals (1) Vs. Tampa Bay Lightning (5)

Since Knowsy is a die-hard NYR fan, of course he wants the Lightning to strike the Caps.  However, Tampa Bay did not look stellar in their triumph over the Penguins.  It should have been relatively easy to beat the anemic Pens with two of their top scorers out.  But the Pens gave Tampa trouble, and made it into a series.  As much as he detests the Caps, Knowsy has to acknowledge their superiority over the Lightning and takes the Caps in 5.

Philadelphia Flyers (2) Vs. Boston (3)

Wow, what a wild and crazy ride it’s been for New England.  The Flyers worked hard against Buffalo and eventually triumphed, and the Bruins tried very hard to lose their series to Montreal, only to finally achieve success with an OT goal by Nathan Horton in Game 7.  A tough one to call but Knowsy picks the Bruins in 7.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Vancouver Canucks (1) Vs. Nashville Predators (5)

Vancouver showed grit and determination in their series against the defending Stanley Cup champions.  They also showed a lack of discipline and struggled to play a full 60 minutes of hockey.  But they managed to persevere against a team that demonstrated significantly more scoring punch.  So Knowsy has to tip his hat to Vancouver and take them over Nashville in 6.

San Jose Sharks (2) Vs. Detroit Red Wings (3)

Knowsy has got to go with his gut here.  The Sharks demonstrated why they belong in post-season play, but the Red Wings embodied the hard-nosed, flashy style that makes a Stanley Cup champion.  Knowsy feels that Detroit’s experience and never-quit attitude will win the day, and he takes the Red Wings in 6.

Knowsy track record actually improved this year for round one – he picked five out of eight winners for just over 62%, better than last year’s horrible three for eight or just over 37%.
Let’s see how well the second round treats us.  If he had to make a prediction right now for a Stanley Cup showdown, it would be Boston Vs. Vancouver for the cup.  Knowsy just thinks the Bruins have the team and the tenacity to go to the finals this year, and Vancouver has shown a tremendous amount of confidence and cool in their play.
Ya heard it here first.

This is a direct copy-paste from http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=64063 , which was my first “hit” on Googling NHL Rule 48:

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.

48.2 Minor Penalty – There is no provision for a minor penalty for this rule.

48.3 Major Penalty – For a violation of this rule, a major penalty shall be assessed (see 48.4).

48.4 Game Misconduct – An automatic game misconduct penalty shall be assessed whenever a major penalty is assessed under this rule.

48.5 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head.

48.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under this rule, in either regular League or playoff games, shall be suspended automatically for the next game his team plays. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion  (refer to Rule 28).

I have been watching every playoff game that I can (thanks to my family for allowing me to monopolize the television for hours on end for days at a stretch ) and I happened to be watching the Black Hawks game when Canuck and well-known bad boy Raffi Torres leveled Brent Seabrook behind the Chicago net.  I’m embedding a Youtube video of the hit for your review.

I’ll wait while you watch it.

Torres got a two-minute minor for “interference” for this hit.  I have several problems with the way the ref and the league handled this play and I’ll lay them out for you one by one.

Problem #1 – The referee:

First, how the hell do you call “intereference” when a player who is handling the puck is checked by an opposing player?  No way is that interference.  Someone needs to revisit the rule book, I think.  What should the call have been?  Three guesses and the first two don’t count.  That was a major penalty followed by a match call.  Go back and read, piece by piece, the definition of the Rule 48 Infraction.  Does Seabrook have a responsibility to keep his head up?  Yup, he does.  Does Torres have the right to put his shoulder into Seabrook’s head regardless?  Nope, that is called “targeting the head”.

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE on this one – the ref was RIGHT THERE looking at the play.  No WAY do you miss that call.

Problem #2 – The league:

After so many players have been injured you would think that Colin Campbell (I’m starting to think that spelling is not correct anymore – maybe it should be an “o” in there) would have his team be CONSISTENT with dishing out disciplinary action.  They aren’t, and it almost seems like the rule book was burned at the end of the regular season because the officials certainly aren’t using it and the league certainly isn’t either.  Witness the hit in regular season play that Boston Bruin Daniel Paille put on Dallas Stars Ray Sawada.  I’ll wait while you look at that one as well.

Paille was suspended for four games for that hit.  Torres, who just returned from a four-game suspension for elbowing Edmonton Oilers’ Eberle in the head, got a walk essentially with that two-minute bullshit interference call.

Hockey will be relegated to “also-ran” status as a sport until the morons running it start cleaning their own house.  The rules need to be applied judiciously and equally.  It doesn’t matter if it is the first three minutes of a game or the last thirty seconds, it doesn’t matter if it is a regular season game or a playoff game – you have to be CONSISTENT or the players don’t know what to expect and the fans don’t either.  The officiating in the NHL has sucked for a long time, for sure – I’ve been watching now for 40+ years.  But it has NEVER sucked quite as much as it has this season.

You blew the call on Torres, NHL, just like you’ve successfully blown a lot of the calls this year.  I can tell you right now, this is one reason why I won’t buy tickets to a game (besides the fact that I’m not going to take out a second mortgage just to watch a hockey game live).  It absolutely infuriates me that I have to explain to my kids that rules are supposed to be applied fairly but that in sports that just doesn’t seem to happen – and that is especially true for the NHL.

The way things have gone this season, I think a change in the officials’ uniforms are in order – let’s do away with the zebra stripes on the shirt and opt for a solid black shirt with a single white vertical stripe down the back.

EASTERN CONFERENCE:

Washington Capitals (1) Vs. New York Rangers (8)

Since Knowsy is a die-hard NYR fan, of course he picks the Rangers.  Since he is also a realist, he picks the Rangers in 6 games.  Washington is not going to roll over and play dead for the Rangers.  In fact, given the divisional rivalry between these two teams, expect Washington to show up ready to play hard.  They still have the bitter taste of defeat in their mouths from last year’s early exit at the hands of the Canadiens.  BUT the Rangers have one of the hottest goaltenders in the NHL and a better goal differential.  The loss of Ryan Callahan will mean that key players like Zuccarello and Prust will need to step up their games a notch, and guys like Gaborik and Fedotenko had better find their own inspiration in very short order.  Being the eternal optimist, Knowsy takes the Rangers in 6.

Philadelphia Flyers (2) Vs. Buffalo Sabres (7)

Knowsy is kind of on the fence here, as Philadelphia has shown chinks in their armor late in the season.  But Buffalo has had a less than illustrious year.  Given that each team has a disadvantage (the Flyers are missing Chris Pronger, one of their most solid defensemen, while the Sabres have an inexperienced defense with 4 players 25 or younger), the role reversal this year means that there will be no love lost in the City of Brotherly Love.  Knowsy picks the Flyers in 5.

Boston Bruins (3) Vs. Montreal Canadiens (6)

Knowsy is in a quandry here, as a fan of both teams when his favorite NYRs aren’t playing.  Montreal has experience knocking contenders out of the playoffs, but the Bruins have shown that even without Marc Savard they can score and they can win tight games.  With the uber-hot goaltending tandem of Tim Thomas (#1 overall save pct in a season with .938 this year, surpassing prior record holder Dominik Hasek) and Tukka Rask, Knowsy has to go with the Bruins in 5.

Pittsburgh Penguins (4) Vs. Tampa Bay Lightning (5)

Knowsy has never liked the Penguins, most especially since their acquisition of Matt Cooke.  But even if he DID like them, with Crosby still sidelined indefinitely and Malkin still out of the picture, the Pens will have to not only out-score TB but find a way to contain an explosive offense in Stamkos and St. Louis.  Knowsy thinks that Pittsburgh might find the character to carry on without their top scorers in Crosby and Malkin AS WELL AS without their top enforcer Cooke (sorry, Matt, but I’m laughing my ass off right now because YOU HAVE TO SIT AND WATCH), but his heart has to go with Tampa in 7.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Vancouver Canucks (1) Vs. Chicago Blackhawks (8)

Vancouver has one of the most improved teams in the NHL, but there is a storied history between these two teams.  Chicago, the defending champs, have the personnel that know what it takes to win a cup.  Their current obstacle is trying to mentally void the fact that they had to back into the playoffs this year.  Still, Knowsy thinks they have what it takes to eventually succeed over the Canucks.  Chicago in 6.

San Jose Sharks (2) Vs. Los Angeles Kings (7)

Knowsy has no doubts here.  The Sharks are far and away a better team both on paper and on the ice.  Sharks in 5.

Detroit Red Wings (3) Vs. Phoenix Coyotes (6)

Knowsy is a long-time Red Wing fan, going back to the days of Roger Crozier and Gordie Howe.  Phoenix has youth on their side, but Detroit has something youth will not be able to counter – experience.  Knowsy takes Detroit in 6.

Anaheim Ducks (4) Vs. Nashville Predators (5)

Knowsy was actually shocked that Nashville finished 5^th in the conference.  Even though they’ve made a decent showing this year they are no match for the suddenly white-hot Ducks.  If Emery keeps backstopping them the way he did heading down the stretch, the Ducks will be formidable.  Anaheim in 5.

Knowsy was sorely tempted to go beyond round one.  But in the past, that hasn’t worked out especially well so this year, we’ll take it one round at a time.

No matter what team you may root for, you gotta love April – Cup Fever comes back with a vengeance and I can’t wait for the first puck drop.

Seasonal March Ladybug

A ladybug appeared today,
A message to impart to me.
Perched on my railing, as if to say,
“The sun is out! Quickly, come see!”

Rivers and streams across the ground
Descending from mountains of grayish snow,
One can almost hear the sap’s drum-beat sound
As several green buds begin to show.

The news reminds us all to change
Our time pieces, an hour lost
Whilst nature starts to re-arrange
Her living room, a hectic host.

The sun begins its vernal trek
Across the last of winter’s skies,
Its warm disposition held in check
By the chilly northern wind’s last cries.

March is a month supremely fickle,
Every imaginable weather combines;
Its feathery touch inclined to tickle
A soul weary of February’s designs.

I long for days of gentle breezes,
Warm morning light and colored blooms;
Decorations used as nature pleases
To beautify her airy rooms.

I was surprised on two counts:

First, that Johnson declared that the hit was not malicious and that he didn’t blame Bertuzzi.  I think that might be a first for Bertuzzi, getting absolution from a player he hit.  Second, that the league decided no further action was required.  So I tracked down one of many videos of the incident and watched it (there was a long shot of the hit, and then thankfully a much closer shot).

On the first point, I can understand why Bertuzzi would be apologetic after bringing his elbow up into an opponent’s ear.  I mean, he probably did not INTEND to elbow Johnson in the head.  But on the OTHER HAND, the saying is the only thing you should put in YOUR EAR is YOUR ELBOW.  So why didn’t he just keep his elbow down?  I don’t know if I buy the reasoning that he was simply reacting to the contact since he initiated the contact.  The league has long warned players about the hazards of stray elbows and careless use of the stick.  But apparently (to anyone who watches hockey regularly) the league hasn’t really been interested in backing up those warnings with any consistent punishment.

On the second point, see the last part of point one.  If you want to remove elbows to the head from the game, you have to make sure you penalize accordingly to discourage it.  If you follow rule 48 to the letter, then in this case the principal point of contact was the head and the elbow coming up might indicate the head was targeted.  On the OTHER hand, though, if you put the video side-by-side with the hit that Cooke was recently suspended for, you see a marked difference.  Johnson saw the hit coming; McDonagh didn’t have a clue since Cooke hit him from behind.  Bertuzzi did not really seem to be trying to hit Johnson in the head, while Cooke clearly and maliciously hit McDonagh in the head FROM BEHIND.

I have to say that, after watching the sport for over forty years now, I‘m of the opinion that the league once more only got it partly right.  The 5-minute major penalty may seem sufficient in this particular instance, though that’s something I hate to admit as I’ve never liked Bertuzzi (not since the lack of accountability for the incident that ended Steve Moore’s career in 2004).  Personally I would have liked to have seen an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty to boot.  That would have made me feel more comfortable with the league’s ruling (or lack thereof).

I’d like to explain my “lack of accountability” statement.  As you all know by now, Moore was sucker-punched from behind as he was trying to avoid Bertuzzi, who was stalking Moore in an attempt to draw him into yet another fight.  As he was going down, Bertuzzi deliberately slammed his head into the ice and continued pummeling Moore’s inert form.  For this deliberate act of malice, Bertuzzi was supposed to be suspended indefinitely.

But that suspension wound up being only 20 games (including 7 playoff games) as the next year was “the year without hockey” thanks to the lockout.  Bertuzzi was reinstated in August 2005, with Bettman stating that a 17-month suspension was “long enough”.  Sorry Gary, but it wasn’t REALLY 17 months since no one played the entire 2004-2005 season.  The suspension should have been for GAMES PLAYED.

Bertuzzi, in my opinion, should not still be playing professional hockey (nor should guys like Matt Cooke).  However, since it is not within my power to remove him from the game (and those who DO have the power are not inclined to use it in this fashion) then I have to also say it is not appropriate to demonize the man every time he hits someone.

It’s ok to do that when he gives out cheap shots, though.  As for the league, as long as you keep laying the blame on the NHLPA for the complete lack of discipline when it comes to cheap shots that injure other players then nothing will change and the sport will simply stagnate.  While you can’t take the contact out of the sport (and since you can’t, you won’t get the fighting out either) you most certainly can ensure that the integrity of the game and the safety of the players are maintained by eliminating those players that continue to exhibit behavior that puts their fellow players at risk.

In other words, Gary – put up or shut up.  Concussive injuries will go down as soon as you start kicking the cheap-shot perpetrators out of the league PERMANENTLY.  It’s that simple.

Cooke is a serial offender and has been for most of his career.  The fact that the Pens have now lost another player for the duration of the season and the first round of the playoffs (it seems doubtful that Crosby will be back before the playoffs, and I hope he takes his time returning so that he doesn’t do any further damage to himself) may be enough punishment given the circumstances; McDonagh does not appear to have suffered any serious injury given that he never saw Cooke coming and was maliciously elbowed for no reason at all.

However, I’m of the opinion that it will do little to stop the blatant disregard for the safety of other players.  Let’s get real, Colin Campbell – Cooke has been doing this for years.  This was his fifth suspension and fourth since he signed with the Pens in 2008.  That’s one a year now as a Penguin and it isn’t because he wasn’t trying for more.

It’s time to up the ante and add a codicil to the rule that states:
The first career offense shall be punishable by a suspension without pay and a fine to the team of the perpetrator.  A second career offense shall be punishable by a longer suspension and a larger fine.  The third career offense shall be deemed a display of unredeemable behavior and the perpetrator will be banned from playing in the league again under any circumstances.  It shouldn’t matter what team they play for when any infraction is committed – it is a question of player behavior.

THAT is how you will get the cheap shots out of the game, fella.  Let the players know in no uncertain terms that once may be an accident and twice may be coincidence, but three times is a pattern that is unacceptable.  Maybe the threat of losing of their livelihood will do what your suspensions and fines won’t – deter players like Cooke from repeating offenses.  Cooke’s statement following the disciplinary hearing was laughable in its predictability and insincerity.  As was Shero’s statement to the press.  It is really very nice that Penguin management has finally spoken to Cooke.  Given that he has been a member of the team for so long now, and has exhibited this type of play repeatedly throughout his career, WHY WEREN’T YOU TALKING TO HIM BEFORE HE INJURED OTHER PLAYERS?  Saying that he has been scolded is not much use to people like Marc Savard, is it?  He’s YOUR PLAYER, YOU hired him and continue to play him.  It is sort of like having your unleashed dog leave the yard and bite a neighbor.  How often is that allowed before you have to do something drastic about the dog?

I watched most of the Bruin’s romp over the Canadiens tonight and was impressed with the actual play; even though the Canadiens had vowed to get even with Chara, I witnessed mostly clean play.  The officials kept control without bias and even though Montreal was never really in it they played well and they stuck to hockey.  The most striking part, for me, was not in the game itself but in a discussion during the second intermission between Mike Millbury, Wayne Gretzky and Ray Bourque.  One of Mike’s questions was what Gretzkey and Bourque thought of the current rash of head shots and concussions.  Gretzky and Bourque both smiled and recalled that there wasn’t much of that during their tenure as players.  A natural follow-up question from Millbury was why they thought that might be.  Gretzky said that during the 70’s and 80’s, he felt players had more respect for one another.

I don’t disagree.  In fact, I think it is the major problem in the game today; players like Cooke think it’s ok to take out an opposing player in such a way as to ensure they don’t return to the game.  Even though players were just a big in the 70’s, even though there were no helmets and equipment was not as advanced, the majority of players kept their sticks and elbows down and their hits clean.

Let’s get the game back on track, Mr. Bettman et al.  Forget about that stupid “trapezoid of safety” behind the net – if a goalie wants to come out of the crease and play the puck then they are forfeiting their “goaltender” status and are fair game for being checked.  How about actually protecting goaltenders where they NEED IT MOST, in the blue paint?  How about enforcing those rules you have that make sense (like penalizing players such as Subban when they run over goaltenders in the crease – not occasionally but EVERY DAMN TIME THEY DO IT and make it a MAJOR penalty) and put some teeth into rules like Rule 48.

Oh, and remember please that officials that do things like what happened in the Bruins-Sabres game (you know, the one right after the Chara hit on Pacioretty? where the penalties were so one-sided that the bias was OBVIOUS TO MY CHILDREN) need to be held as accountable as the players are.  I have YET to see any word of disciplinary action against the crew that officiated that game – it was a TRAVESTY, it was UNFAIR and it was UNPROFESSIONAL.

Coolest game on ice?  Not by a long shot, guy.

But it COULD be.