Blog Entry

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

Posted on: January 24, 2012 11:49 pm
Edited on: January 24, 2012 11:58 pm
 
By: Adam Gretz

Questionable plays that involve Matt Cooke are going to get more attention than plays that don't involve Matt Cooke because, well, his reputation is what it is, and that's just the way these things work, for better or worse.

That's why this boarding call on Barret Jackman with just a little over a minute to play in the third period of Pittsburgh's 3-2 shootout win in St. Louis on Tuesday night is at least worth another look. Not only because it involved Cooke, but also because it was a big call at a big moment in what was at the time a physical, hard-fought game that was on the verge of going to overtime.

This is the play that earned Cooke a two-minute minor for boarding. The question becomes how much of Jackman's faceplant into the glass the result of a hit from behind, and how much of it was due to any sort of embelishment from the Blues' defenseman or a last second turn? Based on the replay angles it almost appears as if Cooke's initial contact is from the side, and not a hit from behind.

You decide:



Even though he was initially shaken up, Jackman eventually returned to the game.

Because every play gets looked at by the league, this will get another look from the NHL's disciplinary czars, but this seems to be more on Jackman than Cooke, who has continued to be on his best behavior this season. Even with this penalty on Tuesday night, he's still only registered 16 penalty minutes this season. He had over 100 in each of his first three seasons with the Penguins.

For more hockey news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnHockey and @agretz on Twitter.
Comments

Since: Sep 6, 2007
Posted on: January 25, 2012 1:02 pm
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

I'm actually a bit surprised how many people have defended Matt Cooke in this spot.  I don't particularly like him or the Penguins but I am in the camp that supports Cooke this morning.  There's no doubt Jackman sees him, braces for a hit from the side, and then goes into full embellishment / dive mode.  No extra discipline should be forthcoming.



Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 12:07 pm
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

I personally think Matt Cooke is a POS and all but ther plain and simple fact us that this was not a penalty. Jackman turned towards Cooke and Cooke bumped Jackmans left should as Jackman turned suddenly back towards the boards. Cooke actually did zero wrong. I dont think there should have been a minor penalty of any sort or any further punishment. That being said you reap what you sow.After so many DB hits and some that he got away with, what he gets he gets.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:35 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

I particularly loved Matt Cooke's reaction which was somewhere between confusion and distraut.  He knows the microscope he is under and doesn't want anything that even remotely resembles a dirty hit.  Which brings me to my point, he will at least have a meeting with NY, and he doesn't get any benefit of the doubt.... I would put the odds of a suspension at around 30%.  I would not agree with it if one were issued, but would understand the thought process.

Normally I'll bash Matt Cooke as much as anybody out there, but not this time.  I don't believe for a second Cooke was trying to hurt anybody on that play.  I think Jackman sorta faked Cooke out a little bit, Jackman started to turn towards Cooke then changed his mind at the last split second.  If the NHL wants to remove the center ice line from play, reduce off sides and speed up the game these things are going to happen.  I want head shots out of the game but in my opinion this doesn't fall into the head shot category that deserves a suspension. 

Don't get me wrong, I know Cooke has made his bed and his bad reputation was earned and very well deserved, he did a lot of stupid things in the past to be under the microscope he's under.  But that being said if Ovie who is a repeat offender only gets 3 games for what was in my opinion clearly a deliberate shot to a vulnerable players head against the boards then Cooke should get nothing for this one.  Reputation alone would suggest Cooke could sit out 1 game, but as much as I don't like the Pens I'm saying I think Shanny should leave him alone this time around.  

 



Since: Apr 23, 2008
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:34 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

Classic boarding. You could even argue interference since the puck hadn't gotten to Jackman yet. If he gets supplemental discipline it'll be largely because he's Matt Cooke. I think in his case Shanny throws 3 darts at the dartboard and selects the largest number.

Frankly, the Pens are lucky the zebra didn't call it a major (seeing as it was Cooke). Jackman might have embellished the hit a tad, but this definitely wasn't a dive. He was properly turning to play the puck and Cooke hit him a little early, launching him face-first into the boards.

Certainly no intent to injure, but a semi-bad result nonetheless. I'll guess Shanaban gives him 3 games.



Since: Apr 9, 2008
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:16 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

One more thing.... could the St. Louis announcers have been more homerific?  Embarassing.



Since: Apr 9, 2008
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:14 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

even Keith Jones and Mike Milbury
Please don't use them as support for any argument, it diminishes everything you say.


people are just looking for something on this one.
First I agree.  Maybe... maybe it is a 2 minute call.... probably not after the game these two played, and I could also see an embelishment call, but not suspension worthy.

I particularly loved Matt Cooke's reaction which was somewhere between confusion and distraut.  He knows the microscope he is under and doesn't want anything that even remotely resembles a dirty hit.  Which brings me to my point, he will at least have a meeting with NY, and he doesn't get any benefit of the doubt.... I would put the odds of a suspension at around 30%.  I would not agree with it if one were issued, but would understand the thought process.



Since: Apr 20, 2009
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:09 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

Jackman spins and goes down like he got shot. I'm curious as to what he hurt exactly. He gets both hands up as he's going into the boards and then grabs the back of his head when he hits the ice. Give me a break. Pretty severe reaction for only missing one shift.



Since: Mar 17, 2009
Posted on: January 25, 2012 9:18 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

 but I do think he gets some additional discipline


=============================


For what?....I expected the worse, but after watching it slowly Cooke hit him on the shoulder, and it wasn't from behind, even Keith Jones and Mike Milbury said it was no big deal , people are just looking for something on this one.   



Since: Jul 1, 2010
Posted on: January 25, 2012 8:51 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

Cooke, ya gotta keep that stick close to the ice.   

I think this was more incidental and Jackman did turn to follow the puck.    I don't think this is a return of the "old Cooke" but I do think he gets some additional discipline.   Jackman may have turned at the last minute but it was to play the puck, Cooke's arms pushed and extended with follow through towards the boards and his head wasn't following the puck and his stick was in the air.  

I don't think it was malicious, but it was reckless because he wasn't paying any attention to the puck.   

Cooke lost his benefit of the doubt a long time ago, and even though I wouldn't like to have his history factor into a decision here, he made his bed.



Since: Jan 17, 2012
Posted on: January 25, 2012 12:29 am
 

Should Matt Cooke have been penalized?

This is a no brainer.  Their should have been a DIVING CALL and on Barret Jackman and NO PENALTY ON MATT COOKE!  The guy knew that Cookie was on him and he embellished the hit.  Cooke has cleaned up his game and his reputation and it is only the neanderthals that want to continue to label him a thug.  He is a very talented player like St. Louis, only Matt has more balls. 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com