Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

elvis15

[Injury] Karlsson achilles cut 70% in battle with Cooke, out 3-4 mo after surgery

Recommended Posts

And your "unprofessional opinion" is still that, an opinion, except it carries less weight than someone who is paid to know about hockey and, as many of the people who have weighed in on this have, likely played the game in the NHL themselves.

That doesn't mean people are blindly following them, just that I can't find any definitive proof that it was intentional in any way by Cooke from watching the video we have available.

Scenario A :

1. Cooke chases Karlson into the corner ;

2. Karlson, being the elite skater he is, gains a small amount of time and space ;

3. Cooke reacts to said speed of Karlson, pushing his balance to the absolute limit ;

4. Cooke loses said balance ;

5.Cooke ties up Karlson, resulting in a "push off" of Karlsons leg, and a 70% severed Achilles tendon.

Scenario B :

1. Cooke chases Karlson into the corner ;

2. Karlson, being the elite skater he is, gains a small amount of time and space ;

3. Cooke reacts to said speed of Karlson, and raises his skate hoping for a split second opportunity to injure him ;

4. Cooke sees he can stamp on Karlsson if he aims right between the heel guard of the skate and shin pad ;

5. Cooke ties up Karlson, proceeds to "push off" his leg and sever 70% of his tendon.

"Common sense" and occams razor would dictate we must accept the hypothesis with the least assumptions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it looked intentional. And Matt Cooke's track record needs to be considered here as well. He was 'playing angry' that night because he took a Sergei Gonchar shot in the neck; he could be seen raving like a lunatic on the bench after this play.

I have no trouble believing that an enraged psychopath is capable of stomping on another player with his skate blade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's razor is a tool for deducing competing hypothesis using the least amount of assumptions. IMO there are more variable assumptions with ( cookes loss of balance, ---------> results in Karlson cut leg) that arrow suggests that 4 or 5 things would've HAD to happen (a perfect storm if you will) for Cooke to lose balance resulting in Karlsons cut leg THAN there are variables with Cooke seeing someone vulnerable and instinct takes over. One simply cannot assume Cooke lost balance, if you take away cookes "loss of balance" and the 4 - 5 variable assumptions (perfect storm) you are left with what actually happened. Cooke cut karlsons leg, and whether you think Cooke has it in him to cut someone or not doesn't matter, the end result has less variables than the perfect storm. Cooke would only need 1 split second oppurtunity, not a proverbial perfect storm.

Scenario A: the 4 - 5 step "perfect storm"

Scenario B: Cooke has a split second decision, he relied on instinct and made the wrong choice, which he has a loooooong history of doing. How is that so hard to believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe Matt Cooke when he said he lost his balance? How does one their balance but remain on his feet? Was Matt Cooke not within arms reach of the boards? For Matt Cooke to need to stick his blade forward, he would had to Have a very strong sensation of falling forward. Since the boards and Karlson were there, I cannot believe his balance story. Since his feet didn't shoot out from under him, accidentally cutting Karlson, as he didn't fall forwards or backwards , then why did he put his blade out and "push off " Karlson I can only assume he meant to injure Karlson.

So by your logic because the TV didn't say it happened, then it didn't happen? Their "professional opinion"is still that, an opinion. Their "professional opinion" cannot change what happened, but they will spin it any way it suits them. So you keep letting the talking heads formulate your opinion, because if their in broadcasting and on TV, they must be right, and if your regurgitated opinion sounds just like theirs, you must be right? Amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it looked intentional. And Matt Cooke's track record needs to be considered here as well. He was 'playing angry' that night because he took a Sergei Gonchar shot in the neck; he could be seen raving like a lunatic on the bench after this play.

I have no trouble believing that an enraged psychopath is capable of stomping on another player with his skate blade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of your post makes much sense, but I'll just say that my opinion was formulated on several years of playing the game myself. The professional opinions just support my own, whereas yours is supported by nothing but some bizzarre theory of what happens when someone is off balance.

Have you ever been on a pair of skates? It certainly doesn't sound like you have any idea of what skating entails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when someone would bring up the XP factor. Your many years of "hockey experience" has no bearing on the Cooke play. You have the same camera angles as me. Your bringing up my hockey history has no bearing to this thread or cookes play and its just a thinly veiled attempt to belittle my opinion.whats next ? Make fun of my post count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all we know, you could be one!

But so are compulsive liars, people who exaggerate excessively, and those who just don't understand things very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when someone would bring up the XP factor. Your many years of "hockey experience" has no bearing on the Cooke play. You have the same camera angles as me. Your bringing up my hockey history has no bearing to this thread or cookes play and its just a thinly veiled attempt to belittle my opinion.whats next ? Make fun of my post count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you just brought up my hockey history because it has so much bearing with how I watch the game, right? One needn't be a rocket scientist to watch and understand a game....one needn't post 15000 times to prove how much one understands the game. One doesn't need to have season tickets to the Rockets for the last 15+ years, but I guess if one were to make that argument, one might consider it a pissing match, which is exactly what you want....I choose to accept logic, while you choose to accept "the perfect storm"

Edit: can you put a private poll up? So as not to ostracize anyone who's opinion I may or may not have swayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you just brought up my hockey history because it has so much bearing with how I watch the game, right? One needn't be a rocket scientist to watch and understand a game....one needn't post 15000 times to prove how much one understands the game. One doesn't need to have season tickets to the Rockets for the last 15+ years, but I guess if one were to make that argument, one might consider it a pissing match, which is exactly what you want....I choose to accept logic, while you choose to accept "the perfect storm"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maturity. Physically, mentally and emotionally.

I rarely, if ever, refer to someone that I don't know as an "enraged psychopath" unless there is overwhelming evidence to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.