That's just it elvis, it's all opinion. The evidence is the video and that is subject to interpretation. All we can do is try to guess at his intent. And it's my opinion that Cooke was playing angry as a result of his losing it on the bench earlier in the game after being hit in the neck by a Sergei Gonchar slapshot and he carried his nasty-reckless-evil-intent mindset with him when he went into the play with Erik Karlsson.
But it's just an opinion, and a minority opinion not shared by the hockey establishment at that. But as I have pointed out, it could be that the hockey establishment's instinct is to close ranks and support Cooke as away of controlling the potential damage to the image of the game that could come with another violent incident that was deemed to be deliberate. It's not as if the opinion that this was a deliberate act doesn't exist outside of the usual official hockey channels.
And I absolutely allow for your opinion, but speculation beyond that to try and prove your point or disprove another person's is hardly a basis of fact. Opinion proves nothing, and speculation proves even less.
And I happen to think that most good people sincerely believe that this incident was an accident because the alternative is too unpalatable for them to accept. But given Cooke's apparently complete absence of remorse throughout his serial career of violent incidents I have little doubt that he is up to the mark in this regard.His public statement that his determination to change his ways was in order that "his kids shouldn't be embarrassed", nothing about maiming Marc Savard and ruining his life, for instance, is telling.
Again, speculation. I believe it was an accident because it wasn't intentional.
- An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
Stomping down on the calf of a player is commonplace in the game? What is the possible rationale for that forward arcing stomping motion. And please desist from addressing me as if I'm someone with no practical experience. Cut that bull will you. It doesn't wash.
This from the poster who has directed the phrases 'shrill opinion', 'intolerance of dissenting viewpoints' and 'bunch your panties' at others (all in the same post!) to try and win the debate over who's more right. You've also resorted to exaggeration and outright lies (saying that the hockey experts were opining that Hansen meant to injure Hossa yet you've provided no evidence to support that - I even provided two examples from either side to show the response has been on both sides but I have yet to see anyone of note say Hansen clearly meant to injure Hossa) to try and prop up your opinion as more than that, or at least that we're less right.
I've mentioned it before, but I ignored my own advice to not respond as I thought you might be open to the debate. Clearly that's not the case, so until you want to provide some actual evidence to support your opinion, I already know where you stand on this and don't really need to see any more of it.
Edited by elvis15, 21 February 2013 - 10:30 AM.