Alexander Ovechkin Suspended Two Games

[yatyas]

My bad on the Campbell's...

Either way I don't see how that deserves a suspension compared to hits over the year we've seen. I can understand because of the push, but come on keep your balance it's the NHL, he was suspended because of all the talk lately over the shots to the heads and everyone knows it..

[PuckHogs29]

Originally Posted by yatyas

My bad on the Campbell's...

Either way I don't see how that deserves a suspension compared to hits over the year we've seen. I can understand because of the push, but come on keep your balance it's the NHL, he was suspended because of all the talk lately over the shots to the heads and everyone knows it..

As much as I hate to begrudgingly admit it, Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean and didnt' deserve a suspension.

Richards got 5 and a game for his hit because it was late, but otherwise clean.

This was a case of a dangerous boarding play, and yes the outcome on the play has a lot to do with the severity of the punishment. It deserved a penalty because it was dangerous, and Ovechkin is now a repeat offender. I have no problem with this suspension. You can't keep comparing plays that aren't similar.

Even more people need to read their rulebook, and you need to have a more realistic grasp on what "just a push" and the ability to keep your balance when someone Ovechkin's size lays into you.

[CapsFan99]

Funny how Campbell is suspending Ovechkin for Injuring Campbell

[yatyas]

Originally Posted by Skorka85

As much as I hate to begrudgingly admit it, Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean and didnt' deserve a suspension.

Richards got 5 and a game for his hit because it was late, but otherwise clean.

This was a case of a dangerous boarding play, and yes the outcome on the play has a lot to do with the severity of the punishment. It deserved a penalty because it was dangerous, and Ovechkin is now a repeat offender. I have no problem with this suspension. You can't keep comparing plays that aren't similar.

Even more people need to read their rulebook, and you need to have a more realistic grasp on what "just a push" and the ability to keep your balance when someone Ovechkin's size lays into you.

Time out...So your size dictates whether you should be suspended? I don't know they just showed the hit again on VS. I don't like the suspension, it just didn't look as dangerous as it's made out to be. My point is, if all of these GM meetings didn't take place because of Cooke's hit and others, would OV be suspended right now? I don't know, I would hope not. Sidenberg's hit on Parise was pretty ugly and nothing was called as VS just pointed out?????? So if you're a repeat offender with size and strength you should automatically warrant a suspension? Campbell knew he was there and turned as he was pushed and fell into the boards, so again I'm not getting this?

[yatyas]

Originally Posted by kevman00

Its gotta be the injury, cause it damn sure aint the hit.

YouTube- Craig Adams Dirty Hit on Alexander Ovechkin HD - Feburary 7th 2010

Wow good example the SAME EXACT hit OV put on Campbell!!!!

Another:

YouTube- gonchar hits clutterbuck

[smokenator]

Weak - that sums up the bogus suspension. It was questionable whether or not it was even from behind - looks to me to be more from the side. It was definitely a bad fall.

Originally Posted by Skorka85

As much as I hate to begrudgingly admit it, Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean and didnt' deserve a suspension.

Richards got 5 and a game for his hit because it was late, but otherwise clean.

This was a case of a dangerous boarding play, and yes the outcome on the play has a lot to do with the severity of the punishment. It deserved a penalty because it was dangerous, and Ovechkin is now a repeat offender. I have no problem with this suspension. You can't keep comparing plays that aren't similar.

Even more people need to read their rulebook, and you need to have a more realistic grasp on what "just a push" and the ability to keep your balance when someone Ovechkin's size lays into you.

Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean? Are you kidding me? He took a clear, intentional, open-ice shot to Savard's head. That's not clean in any league rule book. Ovechkin's was a push with a bad landing. According to the video, it was a great tag, albeit dangerous, to the side/back of Campbell's left shoulder. That's not boarding.

[fightingfan]

this just proves how much of a joke the league is....

what also is a joke is all the fans saying that he deserved to be suspended. listen to yourselves, this is hockey. cambell was a couple feet away from the boards and saw ovechkin coming shame on campbell

o and cookes hit was clean too. stop crying people. the only reason savard got hit in the head was because he was bent over.

[StealinUrCar06]

Originally Posted by smokenator

Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean? Are you kidding me? He took a clear, intentional, open-ice shot to Savard's head. That's not clean in any league rule book. Ovechkin's was a push with a bad landing. According to the video, it was a great tag, albeit dangerous, to the side/back of Campbell's left shoulder. That's not boarding.

It was clean in that it was a headshot, but with his shoulder. If its a bow, by all means hang the guy, but if its a hard clean hit shoulder to dome, hes good.

[caps87]

Originally Posted by smokenator

Cooke's hit by the rule book was clean? Are you kidding me? He took a clear, intentional, open-ice shot to Savard's head. That's not clean in any league rule book. Ovechkin's was a push with a bad landing. According to the video, it was a great tag, albeit dangerous, to the side/back of Campbell's left shoulder. That's not boarding.

Not too many hits like that are accidents.

By the book, it was clean. It wasnt late, Cooke didnt throw an elbow, he didnt leave his feet, and it wouldnt have been a headshot if Savard wasnt bent over. Much like the Ovechkin hit, it is unfortunate that someone was hurt, but neither hit was suspension worthy, and by the book, Cooke didnt even earn a minor penalty. Thats debatable in the Ovechkin hit. I thought it deserved two, maybe five. But a 2 game suspension is ridiculous. However, both warranted and on ice response, and there was absolutely zero response in both hits, which is completely pathetic. Hopefully Cooke gets his in the rematch.

[skacore]

To all those bozos who live by the "he should be suspended until the injured player comes back!" theory, I'm curious anyone still feel like that?

What a joke!

[ValJamesRules]

Originally Posted by CapsFan99

Funny how Campbell is suspending Ovechkin for Injuring Campbell

Haha, I get it. Too bad his son plays for Florida.

The shove was uncalled for. I'm glad to see a star get suspended.

[rondo]

Ovechkins been on a pretty long leash and the NHL had enough and rightfully suspended him. The guy is a great player who plays on the edge but he has a handful of questionable hits, slu foots, etc and the suspension fits the crime imo...I would'nt say he is a dirty player but he plays reckless and careless at times and the hit on Campell was both...He has yet to pay a price for all of his questionable hits that he has handed out and the first one to get him is Colin Campell with a 2 game suspension that will take $232,000 out of his bulging pocket...

[Oil Can Henry]

Boarding's such a BOGUS call,....and how can it be minor/major?...it's GOT to be either one or the other. Plus it's borderline to begin with,...players do take the other guy into the boards, don't they?!
If the player gets up quickly,...then it's a minor. If he lays-around on the ice, then a major's called,....hmmm,...what do you think he's gonna' do?
....And the offending player gets branded as being "dirty."

[BigBadWolf1171]

Originally Posted by skacore

To all those bozos who live by the "he should be suspended until the injured player comes back!" theory, I'm curious anyone still feel like that?

What a joke!

yeah that was my theory, fail me !!

[AVALANCHE FAN]

Big deal 2 games like its really gonna matter,He`s gonna serve his suspension then come back and do the same thing again.