I feel the same way about Mike Richards

We'll see what happens in 7 days and 4 hours.

The entire goddamn NHL thought Matt Cooke was a douche and should have been suspended.

Except there are really no rules by which to do it, and there won't be until next year.

Cooke essentially got off on a technicality.

casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

Same for him.

Elbow should = suspension. Shoulder hits are fine.
Pronger would be suspended forever if hard shoulder hits to the head were a penalty.

keylock71: I think not suspending Cooke sends the wrong message to the players in the league.

They basically said it's open season on headshots for three months. That was wrong?

keylock71: I don't think the Bruins are going to pass up laying out Cooke or even Crosby with a "legal" hit. If one of them should get hit bad as a result, oh well... turn around is fair play.


Please drop the schoolboy mentality. This is not going to happen.

The only time I can even remember something like this happening in the last 10 years was when Lindy Ruff sent out a goon force to fight the Sens top line after Neill hit Drury a few years back, and Ruff was penalized for doing that.

a4dzac: jekostas: Except there are really no rules by which to do it, and there won't be until next year.

Yeah, they change the rules mid-playoffs (Avery Rule), but can't do it late-season? What the hell.

There is a push to do implement the rule for the rest of this year, but the Competition Committee has to okay the change first, AND okay putting in the rule for this year.

That's not to say it won't happen, though.

casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.

Richards missed his spot on a cross-ice check. He lined up and angled himself toward Booth while Booth still had the puck, Booth dished the puck off and lost speed coming over the blue line, Richards couldn't compensate for Booth's loss of momentum and ended up only connecting with his head. Had Booth maintained speed, it would have been a shoulder hit that landed somewhere on Booth's side. Also, the only reason Richards' hit was a blind-side was because Booth was looking directly to the left as Richards landed the hit. In addition, Richards lowered his shoulder to make contact, whereas Cooke raised his shoulder to initiate contact.

Cooke landed his hit on target. Unlike the Booth-Richards hit, in which both players were in full motion and the change in velocity caused Richards to miss his spot, Cooke was hitting essentially a motionless player. In addition, Cooke did not angle his body towards Savard until Savard had gotten rid of the puck. Savard was looking directly forward and Cooke hit him from the very blind-side right.

There are two reasons why these hits are brought up together:

1) Human psychological inclination to group similar items together. After this, these hits are considered "identical" despite the only real similarity, after analyzation, is the general area where the hits landed.

2) By the NHL setting "precedent" by not suspending Richards for his hit, they can defer to a non-existent "precedent" to excuse lack of action against Cooke (also, scarily enough, hits similar to the Cooke one). They're essentially saying, "We didn't do it before so you can't now". Yes, they can. When analyzed the hits aren't very similar at all and Cooke is also a repeat offender this season.

The NHL wasn't looking for a reason to suspend Cooke, they were looking for a reason not to suspend Cooke. Don't get me wrong, Richards should have seen a suspension, but the two hits aren't alike in many regards. Both players should have gotten suspensions, but Richards' status (whether suspended or not suspended) should have had no influence on a possible suspension to Cooke.

The NHL was looking for a reason for inaction. There's a lot going on in these situations that people don't realize and we'll never know. Basically, the NHL took the easy way out and apparently has the insight of the average HFBoards' poster (by regarding the Richards and Cooke hit as identical).

From the Marty McSorely incident, to this it seems the Bruins are always involved in a notable violent incident one way or another.

I like that Guerin said what he did. Not sure how it'll go over in the locker room, but it was nice to hear him talk straight, regardless of team loyalties, etc.

Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.


Not to discount your argument (and it is at least a reasonable way to look at it), but under the current wording of the new headshot rule (backpressure or blindside that hits or targets the head), the Richards and Cooke hits would be looked at under the same umbrella.

e5wsf: Elbow should = suspension. Shoulder hits are fine.
Pronger would be suspended forever if hard shoulder hits to the head were a penalty.

Pronger is 8 feet tall, his shoulder hits are more than likely going to hit someone in the head and not anywhere lower.

If he tried to hit them lower, he'd be sliding around the ice on his belly

JC

JoeCowboy: Pronger is 8 feet tall, his shoulder hits are more than likely going to hit someone in the head and not anywhere lower.

If he tried to hit them lower, he'd be sliding around the ice on his belly

The problem with Pronger Physics is Zdeno Chara.

jekostas: Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.


Not to discount your argument (and it is at least a reasonable way to look at it), but under the current wording of the new headshot rule (backpressure or blindside that hits or targets the head), the Richards and Cooke hits would be looked at under the same umbrella.

That's pretty much the problem.

Not every hit landed on the head was meant to land on the head.

You can see where Richards' shoulder is compared to Cooke's. One is lowered and one is raised.

Cooke obviously directed his hit to the upper portion of Savard's body. He's a good checker and knows how to direct his hits. He threw a high hit and it connected.

Richards obviously directed his hit to the lower portion of Savard's body. He's also a good checker and knows how to direct his hits. He's also never had any problems as far as headshots go before the hit (which isn't incriminating in Cooke's regard but it gives you a good idea of Richards' hitting style). You can see from the angle at which Richards came at Booth and the angle of Richards' body that his hit was meant to be a side-to-side hit that connected at the wrong point.

Basically, the NHL can't regard all head shots as "illegal". If they could they would have by now. There's a lot more going on, and the proper definition of a "head shot" should be created. If they're going to make all hits that connect with the head illegal, they're going to have their hands full.

It's a lot harder to guess a player's motives by guessing the personality type of the player, but in analyzing both videos the differences between the hits and the body position of both Cooke and Richards you can see how different head shots really can be.

Has anyone seen the video clips of past hits by Matt Cooke that did result in suspensions?

They look like a carbon copy of the Savard hit.

I dont understand what the league saw, or didn't see.

I fully expect Crosby to be the recipient of a "legal" hit to the head on March 18. Hell, Malkin, Gonchar, Stall too.

Since the league obviously has no interest in taking care of this situation, it's up to the Bruins players to do it.

Anyone ever watch Scott Stevens play?

//jussayin'

No Drakuun in here?

Can't say that I'm surprised.

Kid_Not_Play: Not every hit landed on the head was meant to land on the head.

You're a professional athlete and should be able to be in control of your body, much like you're expected to always be in control of your stick.

End of story.


/Flyers Fan
/Meh on Richards

RumsfeldsReplacement: I fully expect Crosby to be the recipient of a "legal" hit to the head on March 18. Hell, Malkin, Gonchar, Stall too.


Expect to be disappointed. Cooke will pay, but none of the Penguins stars will.

Just like it should be.

keylock71: RumsfeldsReplacement: I fully expect Crosby to be the recipient of a "legal" hit to the head on March 18. Hell, Malkin, Gonchar, Stall too.

Since the league obviously has no interest in taking care of this situation, it's up to the Bruins players to do it.

Shawn Thornton's take on it:

"The way the game is, it's not like it was 10, 20 years ago, where you could just go put five guys out on the ice the next time he comes into town and beat the snot out of him, because you'll end up getting a bigger suspension than [Cooke] did for hitting him. The game's changed a bit that way. Do I agree with it? No, I'm kind of old school. I'm more an eye-for-an-eye guy on the ice. That's the way it is nowadays. So, I guess you just come back and play and put it in the back of your mind. I don't know. You take care of it when you can. But I doubt it will be a retaliation right away like people expect, because you just can't get away with that anymore, unfortunately."

So here's what I think (hope) happens:

Thornton fights Cooke in the first period, crowd cheers, then the whole thing is over. But then in the third period, when nobody is expecting anything, Crosby's head has an unfortunate collision with somebody's elbow. A perfectly legal elbow (at least as the refs and Colin Campbell see it), mind you, but a devastating one nonetheless.

I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.

RumsfeldsReplacement: I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.

Moron

a4dzac: I assume you meant Booth, but I disagree. He had time as he was lining him up to avoid the head, but didn't.

Yeah I did mean to say Booth.

And no he didn't. Booth's velocity dropped off considerably after he dished the puck (which occurred while Richards was angling himself towards him to land the hit).

Your reply was kind of the misconception most people have with open ice hits. Richards wasn't aiming for Booth's body the entire time he was heading towards Booth, rather he was heading to the area where Booth would be and then after getting a good distance between himself and Booth he angled himself.

His hit literally missed by inches. If Booth had maintained speed and if he was even a half a foot ahead of where the contact occurred, it would have been a hard body hit and wouldn't have caught the head at all.

It's all timing. Richards mistimed it and should have been suspended, but to say that ANY player in the NHL could line up a hit to land on a guy's head, while both players are in full motion, is absolutely ludicrous. If you're aiming for that small of a target you're going to miss.

Also, his shoulder is lowered. You don't lower a shoulder to hit a guy's head. Considering Booth and Richards are relatively the same height (Richards a tad shorter), lowering the shoulder would be something you do to connect with the body.

The Richards-Booth hit was a mistake and Richards has not been the same physical force he was after it. He was clearly shaken up in the post-game interviews and kept repeating that he was "trying to separate the man from the puck". That's exactly what he did and he missed.

RumsfeldsReplacement: ke

I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.


If the Pens pay then the Bruins organization will pay.

I have little doubt that Campbell will be in Boston on the 18th.

The truth is that the Pens have gone up against bigger and badder teams than the Bruins. I'm sure the Pens aren't afraid.

Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.

Richards missed his spot on a cross-ice check. He lined up and angled himself toward Booth while Booth still had the puck, Booth dished the puck off and lost speed coming over the blue line, Richards couldn't compensate for Booth's loss of momentum and ended up only connecting with his head. Had Booth maintained speed, it would have been a shoulder hit that landed somewhere on Booth's side. Also, the only reason Richards' hit was a blind-side was because Booth was looking directly to the left as Richards landed the hit. In addition, Richards lowered his shoulder to make contact, whereas Cooke raised his shoulder to initiate contact.

Cooke landed his hit on target. Unlike the Booth-Richards hit, in which both players were in full motion and the change in velocity caused Richards to miss his spot, Cooke was hitting essentially a motionless player. In addition, Cooke did not angle his body towards Savard until Savard had gotten rid of the puck. Savard was looking directly forward and Cooke hit him from the very blind-side right.

There are two reasons why these hits are brought up together:

1) Human psychological inclination to group similar items together. After this, these hits are considered "identical" despite the only real similarity, after analyzation, is the general area where the hits landed.

2) By the NHL setting "precedent" by not suspending Richards for his hit, they can defer to a non-existent "precedent" to excuse lack of action against Cooke (also, scarily enough, hits similar to the Cooke one). They're essentially saying, "We didn't do it before so you can't now". Yes, they can. When analyzed the hits aren't very similar at all and Cooke is also a repeat offender this season.

The NHL wasn't looking for a reason to suspend Cooke, they were looking for a reason not to suspend Cooke. Don't get me wrong, Richards should have seen a suspension, but the two hits aren't alike in many regards. Both players should have gotten suspensions, but Richards' status (whether suspended or not suspended) should have had no influence on a possible suspension to Cooke.

The NHL was looking for a reason for inaction. There's a lot going on in these situations that people don't realize and we'll never know. Basically, the NHL took the easy way out and apparently has the insight of the average HFBoards' poster (by regarding the Richards and Cooke hit as identical).

Every hit is different but they were both hits to the head. Booth had dropped the puck off already and Richards left his feet and put his shoulder directly in to the head. They both should have been suspended, but Richards is more of a superstar than Cooke so you view it differently.

And as far as never throwing an open ice hit, if you knew me or played against me in my Junior career you wouldn't say that. I know the difference between a clean open ice hit and a dirty head shot where you leave your feet.

e5wsf: Elbow should = suspension. Shoulder hits are fine.

To play devil's advocate here, why?

Are shoulders not as hard as elbows? Are shoulders to the head less likely to result in concussions than elbows to the head? Why should one type of hit to the head be more acceptable than another, when both types often result in serious injury?

MugzyBrown: You're a professional athlete and should be able to be in control of your body, much like you're expected to always be in control of your stick.

End of story.

Being a Flyers fan doesn't mean you're qualified to analyze the hit. If anything, the only intelligent Flyers fan I've run across on here is MrAwesomeSquared. A lot of Flyers fans still consider Eric Lindros to be the reason Eric Lindros left Philadelphia, too. You can't trust someone based on labels.

Also, NO ONE IS SAYING HE DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER HIS BODY. In both hits the players had perfect control over their bodies. Richards and Cooke are very good hitters and have good balance.

Rather, Richards' mistake was timing and angles. He had control over his body. He didn't fly into Booth. He barely took any strides to get to where the hit was made.

Once again, Booth pulling up after dishing off the pass, then tracking the pass with his entire head (he was looking directly left upon impact), caused Richards to miss his target and Booth to not see it coming. When mixed it doesn't turn out pretty.

RumsfeldsReplacement:

So here's what I think (hope) happens:

Thornton fights Cooke in the first period, crowd cheers, then the whole thing is over. But then in the third period, when nobody is expecting anything, Crosby's head has an unfortunate collision with somebody's elbow. A perfectly legal elbow (at least as the refs and Colin Campbell see it), mind you, but a devastating one nonetheless.

I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.

It's not going to happen, and hoping that it happens really makes you a farking miserable person.

Get the hell over it you piece of human trash.

Richards hit...

Link (new window)

If you watch it... Richards comes in and lunges up (leaving his feet) and raising his shoulder. So the argument that Richards shoulder was lowered and Cooke's wasn't is just not correct.

Now if the argument is Cooke's past that is legit. Richards does have a little history of dirty hits, but nothing to the level of Cooke's. And Richards is a different player than Cooke, meaning dirty sometimes, but not always.

Doc Daneeka: e5wsf: Elbow should = suspension. Shoulder hits are fine.

To play devil's advocate here, why?

Are shoulders not as hard as elbows? Are shoulders to the head less likely to result in concussions than elbows to the head? Why should one type of hit to the head be more acceptable than another, when both types often result in serious injury?

You are supposed to hit with your shoulder, not your elbow. There is no "shouldering call" because you can't move your shoulder at the last second to hit someone in the head, jab them in the ribs, or slue foot someone (sweeping the back of their skates while elbowing them in the chest)

casdawg87: Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.

Richards missed his spot on a cross-ice check. He lined up and angled himself toward Booth while Booth still had the puck, Booth dished the puck off and lost speed coming over the blue line, Richards couldn't compensate for Booth's loss of momentum and ended up only connecting with his head. Had Booth maintained speed, it would have been a shoulder hit that landed somewhere on Booth's side. Also, the only reason Richards' hit was a blind-side was because Booth was looking directly to the left as Richards landed the hit. In addition, Richards lowered his shoulder to make contact, whereas Cooke raised his shoulder to initiate contact.

Cooke landed his hit on target. Unlike the Booth-Richards hit, in which both players were in full motion and the change in velocity caused Richards to miss his spot, Cooke was hitting essentially a motionless player. In addition, Cooke did not angle his body towards Savard until Savard had gotten rid of the puck. Savard was looking directly forward and Cooke hit him from the very blind-side right.

There are two reasons why these hits are brought up together:

1) Human psychological inclination to group similar items together. After this, these hits are considered "identical" despite the only real similarity, after analyzation, is the general area where the hits landed.

2) By the NHL setting "precedent" by not suspending Richards for his hit, they can defer to a non-existent "precedent" to excuse lack of action against Cooke (also, scarily enough, hits similar to the Cooke one). They're essentially saying, "We didn't do it before so you can't now". Yes, they can. When analyzed the hits aren't very similar at all and Cooke is also a repeat offender this season.

The NHL wasn't looking for a reason to suspend Cooke, they were looking for a reason not to suspend Cooke. Don't get me wrong, Richards should have seen a suspension, but the two hits aren't alike in many regards. Both players should have gotten suspensions, but Richards' status (whether suspended or not suspended) should have had no influence on a possible suspension to Cooke.

The NHL was looking for a reason for inaction. There's a lot going on in these situations that people don't realize and we'll never know. Basically, the NHL took the easy way out and apparently has the insight of the average HFBoards' poster (by regarding the Richards and Cooke hit as identical).

Every hit is different but they were both hits to the head. Booth had dropped the puck off already and Richards left his feet and put his shoulder directly in to the head. They both should have been suspended, but Richards is more of a superstar than Cooke so you view it differently.

And as far as never throwing an open ice hit, if you knew me or played against me in my Junior career you wouldn't say that. I know the difference between a clean open ice hit and a dirty head shot where you leave your feet.

Richards never left his feet. I don't even think I've seen someone argue that point without being shut down. So once again, bolded, Richards never left his feet.

I mean, physics alone would dictate that if Richards had not been on his feet, the impact of Booth's forward momentum would have thrown Richards backwards. That didn't happen. Richards maintained forward momentum after contact, meaning his feet were directly on the ice.

Also, where'd you play Juniors? I played a short time in Europe after my Junior career.

casdawg87: Richards hit...

Link (new window)

If you watch it... Richards comes in and lunges up (leaving his feet) and raising his shoulder. So the argument that Richards shoulder was lowered and Cooke's wasn't is just not correct.

Now if the argument is Cooke's past that is legit. Richards does have a little history of dirty hits, but nothing to the level of Cooke's. And Richards is a different player than Cooke, meaning dirty sometimes, but not always.

Actually, the multi-angle view shows it just looks like he lunged forward. His feet were always on the ice and only came up after contact.

Richards-Booth hit MULTI-ANGLE (new window)

Kid_Not_Play: MugzyBrown: You're a professional athlete and should be able to be in control of your body, much like you're expected to always be in control of your stick.

End of story.

Being a Flyers fan doesn't mean you're qualified to analyze the hit. If anything, the only intelligent Flyers fan I've run across on here is MrAwesomeSquared. A lot of Flyers fans still consider Eric Lindros to be the reason Eric Lindros left Philadelphia, too. You can't trust someone based on labels.

Also, NO ONE IS SAYING HE DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER HIS BODY. In both hits the players had perfect control over their bodies. Richards and Cooke are very good hitters and have good balance.

Rather, Richards' mistake was timing and angles. He had control over his body. He didn't fly into Booth. He barely took any strides to get to where the hit was made.

Once again, Booth pulling up after dishing off the pass, then tracking the pass with his entire head (he was looking directly left upon impact), caused Richards to miss his target and Booth to not see it coming. When mixed it doesn't turn out pretty.

Cooke didn't take any strides in to the hit, either. Both happened at exactly the same angle, hit the exact same part of the body, and both happened to an unaware player who was in a vulnerable position.

Cooke didn't use his elbow, didn't leave his feet, and the hit wasn't late. Richards left his feet to make the hit, which is charging, but didn't use his elbow or hit late.

No two hits are perfectly similar in the NHL, but the circumstances of these two hits (body part hit, direction of hit, position of player, even placement on ice) are eerily alike. Your argument is really, really poor.

jekostas: Get the hell over it you piece of human trash.

When did you become Katalyst?

MugzyBrown: RumsfeldsReplacement: I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.

Moron

you quoted the wrong part. This:

A perfectly legal elbow (at least as the refs and Colin Campbell see it), mind you, but a devastating one nonetheless.

was the moronic part.

whereisian: jekostas: Get the hell over it you piece of human trash.

When did you become Katalyst?

I didn't become Katalyst. But hoping that a player gets injured when he had nothing to do with the original incident makes you a piece of human crap, pure and simple.

also, no "carpenters" tag?

RumsfeldsReplacement: So here's what I think (hope) happens:

Thornton fights Cooke in the first period, crowd cheers, then the whole thing is over. But then in the third period, when nobody is expecting anything, Crosby's head has an unfortunate collision with somebody's elbow. A perfectly legal elbow (at least as the refs and Colin Campbell see it), mind you, but a devastating one nonetheless.

I hate advocating violence, but the Penguins have to pay for this, and they have to pay dearly.

I do not think that means what you think that means. Cooke didn't throw an elbow (he kept his arm close to his body throughout the hit and didn't lunge at Savard) and the league has stated that it was didn't warrant additional punishment because it wasn't an elbow hit. If a Bruin elbows Crosby or Malkin in the head, expect a hefty suspension/fine, and I'll expect you back here whining about how it's not fair.

I've been lurking the thread and I was actually in favor of Richards getting suspended.

But as Kid Not Play said, he never left his feet. He should have been suspended because players should be accountable for their own actions, not because he had the intent to injure.

Here's the video of Richards not leaving his feet (new window)

You can see from the last two angles that Richards' foot slid forward to maintain balance, but it was always on the ice.

The argument that it was a flying elbow have been discredited by a number of people. Even Crosby said it was legal, only that he hopes that somebody lets up in that situation.

If he had actually left his feet he would have been suspended.

Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: Kid_Not_Play: casdawg87: I feel the same way about Mike Richards

If you can't tell the difference between the Richards hit and the Cooke hit you've never thrown an open-ice hit before.

Richards missed his spot on a cross-ice check. He lined up and angled himself toward Booth while Booth still had the puck, Booth dished the puck off and lost speed coming over the blue line, Richards couldn't compensate for Booth's loss of momentum and ended up only connecting with his head. Had Booth maintained speed, it would have been a shoulder hit that landed somewhere on Booth's side. Also, the only reason Richards' hit was a blind-side was because Booth was looking directly to the left as Richards landed the hit. In addition, Richards lowered his shoulder to make contact, whereas Cooke raised his shoulder to initiate contact.

Cooke landed his hit on target. Unlike the Booth-Richards hit, in which both players were in full motion and the change in velocity caused Richards to miss his spot, Cooke was hitting essentially a motionless player. In addition, Cooke did not angle his body towards Savard until Savard had gotten rid of the puck. Savard was looking directly forward and Cooke hit him from the very blind-side right.

There are two reasons why these hits are brought up together:

1) Human psychological inclination to group similar items together. After this, these hits are considered "identical" despite the only real similarity, after analyzation, is the general area where the hits landed.

2) By the NHL setting "precedent" by not suspending Richards for his hit, they can defer to a non-existent "precedent" to excuse lack of action against Cooke (also, scarily enough, hits similar to the Cooke one). They're essentially saying, "We didn't do it before so you can't now". Yes, they can. When analyzed the hits aren't very similar at all and Cooke is also a repeat offender this season.

The NHL wasn't looking for a reason to suspend Cooke, they were looking for a reason not to suspend Cooke. Don't get me wrong, Richards should have seen a suspension, but the two hits aren't alike in many regards. Both players should have gotten suspensions, but Richards' status (whether suspended or not suspended) should have had no influence on a possible suspension to Cooke.

The NHL was looking for a reason for inaction. There's a lot going on in these situations that people don't realize and we'll never know. Basically, the NHL took the easy way out and apparently has the insight of the average HFBoards' poster (by regarding the Richards and Cooke hit as identical).

Every hit is different but they were both hits to the head. Booth had dropped the puck off already and Richards left his feet and put his shoulder directly in to the head. They both should have been suspended, but Richards is more of a superstar than Cooke so you view it differently.

And as far as never throwing an open ice hit, if you knew me or played against me in my Junior career you wouldn't say that. I know the difference between a clean open ice hit and a dirty head shot where you leave your feet.

Richards never left his feet. I don't even think I've seen someone argue that point without being shut down. So once again, bolded, Richards never left his feet.

I mean, physics alone would dictate that if Richards had not been on his feet, the impact of Booth's forward momentum would have thrown Richards backwards. That didn't happen. Richards maintained forward momentum after contact, meaning his feet were directly on the ice.

Also, where'd you play Juniors? I played a short time in Europe after my Junior career.

casdawg87: Richards hit...

Link (new window)

If you watch it... Richards comes in and lunges up (leaving his feet) and raising his shoulder. So the argument that Richards shoulder was lowered and Cooke's wasn't is just not correct.

Now if the argument is Cooke's past that is legit. Richards does have a little history of dirty hits, but nothing to the level of Cooke's. And Richards is a different player than Cooke, meaning dirty sometimes, but not always ...

NY Apple Core... I've played Czech, Finnish and Russian teams before Juniors but I'm a North American boy

He does leave his feet... go to your link at about :59... He is over the Faceoff logo NHL ad and both feet are off the ground.

casdawg87: He does leave his feet... go to your link at about :59... He is over the Faceoff logo NHL ad and both feet are off the ground.

Go to my link at 2:30.

Both of his feet are on the ice, and in slow-mo, you see they come up after contact.

It's just physics. He's traveling perpindicular to Booth. If his feet were of the ice it would have hit Booth's head but Booth would have gone forward. The inertia due to friction and gravity as well as the force at which Richards moved caused Booth to fly backwards. That simply couldn't have happened if Richards wasn't on the ice.

a4dzac: So what...he still lunged upwards instead of just staying low, thus resulting in the head hit.

You lunge forward when you hit. Richards still angled his shoulder low and lunged forward because he wanted to lift Booth off of his skates with the hit. If he wanted to hit Booth's head he would have started his hit higher and then lunged. That's pretty much the main difference between the two hits. Cooke started his hit much higher and then lunged upwards. Richards started his hit much lower and then lunged upwards.

And once again, the head hit was a result of misplacement rather than placement. In my opinion, that's still a suspendible offense.