Hockey World Reacts To Matt Cooke's Devastating Hit On Marc Savard

After yet another vicious blow to the head of a player, the debate continues to rage this evening in the hockey world about the tolerance for these types of plays in the sport. Penguins forward Matt Cooke's hit on Boston's Marc Savard is just the latest in a long series of these types of hits, and in the ensuing debate,  as always, the opinions are varied and the arguments are complex.

We'll start with the common logic, sensibly argued by those whose fandom would lead you to believe they'd be arguing the other way on this issue. It's the fans of Matt Cooke's team, the Pittsburgh Penguins, at SBN's Pensburgh:

Matt Cooke leveled Boston's Marc Savard with 5:37 left in the game, in what's sure to be a controversial hit and something the league will have to look at.  Cooke's hit was with his shoulder and hardly a second after Savard played the puck, but it was also a dangerous hit swooping in from behind that ended up targeting the head.   Savard was concussed and stretchered off the ice.  In many ways, it was a lot like the hit that Philly's Mike Richards put on Florida's David Booth earlier in the season, which also required the stretcher. Unlike Richards (who received a major and game misconduct), Cooke, it should be noted, was not penalized by the on ice officials because the play did develop quickly and while the result was an injury, it was the circumstances that made both plays dangerous.

If the league is serious about cracking down on head shots, this is going to have to be something they take a look at, even though Cooke for his part has to play a physical game and always look to finish his checks.  Dangerous but an unavoidable part of the game?  Or something that needs further discipline to show these direct head-shots can not be tolerated?  It's a very fine line, but given Cooke's history of questionable hits, it won't be surprising or totally outrageous if he's levied with a suspension.

The comparison to the Richards hit on Booth (link to video) has been made a lot in the aftermath of Cooke's hit. In many ways, though, it's not an apt comparison.

Greg Wyshynski at Puck Daddy argues that point:

Geographically, that's accurate, as both occurred near the blue line in the offensive zone. But that's where the comparison ends. Richards isn't skating by, sticking out his arm. Booth quickly dished the puck rather than having shot it like Savard. They're two completely different hits, and that's a good thing: The Richards check, as devastating as it was, was a hockey play by a Selke-worthy forward; The Cooke Hit was a cheap, late hit by a player who excels at them.

Cooke clearly makes elbow contact with Savard's head on Sunday, making this an egregious violation of the rules.

Of course, the next logical step in the debate is the question of whether or not all head shots should be eliminated from the game entirely. The types of injuries that come from these hits are almost exclusively terrifying and they put careers and could potentially put lives in danger.

One way of cutting down these types of hits is making players know that they will be held accountable after dishing them out. Bruins fans are wondering where the response was.

Here's SBN's Stanley Cup of Chowder:

Where were the other 17 skaters with a Spoked-B on their chest? I realize it was a one goal game, but you have to react and make players accountable for their actions on the ice. Nobody stepped up on the B's to send a message. Sure Bergeron was chirping at Sidney Crosby for a minute, but none of the Bruins tough guys stepped up and challenged the Penguins to answer the bell for a blatant cheapshot.

The main reason that the Bruins didn't respond is likely because of the elephant in the room, the instigator penalty. The argument for removing the instigator is that when there is no threat of the it, hits like this simply won't occur because Cooke would have been held accountable for his actions by the Bruins players on the ice.

Here's James Murphy from Boston's NESN.com:

The other, more important reason for revenge rarely being served is the instigator penalty, which, in turn, helps to facilitate dirty plays (as the instigator will often get a more serious penalty than the person making the dirty play to begin with). But, unfortunately, that rule is staying for now. So until a clear-cut penalty on blindside hits is established, Cooke and others like him will go on knowing that they can play with reckless disregard for the game. The league won't allow the players to police themselves. So when will the league itself start policing the game better?

League executives and general managers from around the league are meeting this upcoming week in Florida, and this very issue is on the agenda once again. Will changes be put in place?

Whatever decision is ultimately made will have dissenters on either side, but one thing can be agreed upon by everybody: the injuries following hits to the head are terrible to witness. Let's all hope Savard gets well soon.