Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenstoner
i was thinking why cant they adapt something like this...
if player A hit Player B and caused concussion to player B, A should be suspended.
To be suspended how many games are determined by how many games player B is gone for.
Ie. B is out for 7 games, A should be susppended for 7 games.
B is out for half a season. A should be suspended for half a season.
|
I don't like this method because say if player B who got injured is a shitty player and player A is a star, and both teams are fighting for a playoff spot, than player B's team may sit him out longer than how much he is injured causing player A to sit out that time too. Unless you had NHL doctors running the show, this method would not work out too well.
I'm surprised they didn't suspend Cooke. I think the Cooke hit was 5X worse than Richards. Maybe because Richards is taller so the hit was solid shoulder into head, whereas Cookes was lower on the arm to the head and also because Booth was admiring his pass when he got him and Savard had alrady taken the damn shot.
If I'm Crosby, I'm not impressed with the fact they are going into Boston a week tomorrow to play the Briuns. I bet Campbell will be at that game.
I get the reasoning for not suspending Cooke, but after this season they have to have some clear cuts rules in place. I don't want to see shitty hockey because superstars are injured. I bet Cooke won't even drop the gloves next week if someone wants to fight him.