I didn't think he did, but I don't blame anyone who won't give him the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you It seems like so many people who voted NO are 100% convinced and are unwilling to see the other side's POV.
Cooke has a very long history of targeting star players. Very few people are suggesting his intention was to cut his Achilles, but most believe he was trying to step on Karlsson.
For me the most suspicious part of the play is the fact that he turns his skate blade outwards. If he was in fact trying to pin Karlsson, this would have been a terribly dumb thing to do since it's not a strong position at all compared to driving your leg straight forward.
I did. The likes of "Karlssonlee" and "releasethelehner" strike me as senators fans. Funny how they voted "independent yes" instead of "senators fan voting yes."
Now, I'm not going to go through the posting history of everyone (or anyone) who voted yes, but it's almost as if certain Senators fans want to make it look as if "The vast majority of people saying it was intentional were not Sens fans," even if that's not the case.
Moreover, I could simply read some of the 3000 posts that have been written on this topic to draw my conclusions.
Because you appear to think you're intelligent, allow me to tear you apart.
If you're going to rebut my argument that you were wrong to state that "Senators fans think" that what Cooke did was intentional when 15% of the votes cast against Cooke were by Senators fans - thus making a whopping 85% of the votes from non-Senators fans, then you need to do a Hell of a lot more than to say "oh look, these two guys who are Sens fans voted "yes" when they are Sens fans, so I can increase that 15% substantially to well over 50%" without making any effort to actually support your argument.
That is the exact opposite of critical thinking: it's irrational thinking.
Let's even assume that a whopping 50/153 votes for "yes" are by Sens fans posing as non-sens fans - which is of course absurdly ridiculous and completely outrageous.
That would bring the total amount of votes cast against Cooke by Sens fans as a percentage of total votes against Cooke to 43% meaning that the majority of votes are still - after that complete insane assumption - coming from people who aren't Sens fans.
And yet...your original statement has you labelling the results of this poll as though it's somehow only Sens fans (I voted no by the way) who have a problem with the hit.
Not only are you completely indefensibly wrong in that statement, but you actually have the audacity to try and make an argument that what you said wasn't complete and utter *********.
Quote:
Critical thinking, eh?
Seems to me there have been now, thousands of posts from Senator fans, as well as a direct quote from the Senators ownership, saying Cooke injured Karlsson intentionally. This would require an affirmative theory of the crime that matches what I've said, more or less verbatim.
Do you know what representation bias is? Because if you don't you're about to learn.
The fact that there are a few Sens fans - and our owner - who are of the opinion that it was intentional, those fans will speak the most about how they feel because they are the ones who are outraged.
Who do you think is more likely to make posts about the hit? People from third-party teams who thought it was clean, or a Sens fan who is completely livid who thought the hit was dirty?
Again, you respond to my criticism of your lack of critical thinking and yet...here we are again.
Quote:
If you believe Cook executed a perfect no-look, off-balance skate saw on a moving one-inch target, then what's making you uncomfortable is that theory looks incredibly foolish in writing. That you would be uncomfortable that your own belief is silly when spelled out as such, well, that's on you, not me.
Your lack of attention in realizing that I voted "no" is quite impressive.
Quote:
If you'd like to talk about a failure to exercise analysis, you could start by, I don't know, rethinking the merits of saying, in essence, "you're dumb, I don't like this site because you're dumb," which is
a) attacking the messenger, not the message
b) the exact opposite of "critical thinking."
I'd enjoy your explanation of as to how that is the opposite of critical thinking, you seem to not know what critical thinking is.
Can't say I'm surprised...in fact it explains a lot.
Cooke appears to be off balance as he and Karlsson go into the corner. Looked like an accident to me. The people saying it was intentional should watch the video again and focus on how these two made contact up top. It should shed some light on why people have overwhelmingly voted no on this poll.
I can't believe 25% of people have voted he did it on purpose when about 98% of NHL analysts, writers, coaches, players and GMs have said no, he didn't.
No TSN analyst or player wants to be the first person to say that Cooke did it on purpose. Canadian commentators are too PC for that. The incident was just ambiguous enough for it to be a dangerous stance to take. Everyone would rather just forget about it then take a controversial stance.
If you think that, then you clearly have not played a high level of hockey (or hockey at all) and dont know what its like to pin a better player against the boards, especially when youre off balance in the first place.
Cooke has phenomenal balance on his skates. I've seen him play live many times. So,....to pin a "better player" against the boards, you need to raise your leg and skate up, and then step the skate down onto the back of the player's unprotected leg with pressure? Ahh,....thanks,...now I know how to pin a player into the boards the "right way",....when I get in the situation myself.
No TSN analyst or player wants to be the first person to say that Cooke did it on purpose. Canadian commentators are too PC for that. The incident was just ambiguous enough for it to be a dangerous stance to take. Everyone would rather just forget about it then take a controversial stance.
Yeah,..what's up with TSN. It's like they are banning any possiblity or talk of it being intentional. Is Matt Cooke's father the owner of TSN or something? Something unexplainable is going on at TSN.
Cooke has phenomenal balance on his skates. I've seen him play live many times. So,....to pin a "better player" against the boards, you need to raise your leg and skate up, and then step the skate down onto the back of the player's unprotected leg with pressure? Ahh,....thanks,...now I know how to pin a player into the boards the "right way",....when I get in the situation myself.
Did you even watch the play? Cooke didn't just raise his leg at random..he was knocked off balance by Karlsson just before they made contact.
You stand on one leg and have someone push you. Youre first instinct will be to put your leg down for balance, the SAME way Cooke did. It was just bad luck that Karlsson's foot was there, Cooke wasnt even looking at him, nevermind looking down at his foot.
I can't believe 25% of people have voted he did it on purpose when about 98% of NHL analysts, writers, coaches, players and GMs have said no, he didn't.
They are all either blind, were brainwashed,...or are sheep. Meaning after Doug Maclean guaranteed, after watching it 50 times,...that it was an accident,.....everyone else who heard that,.....caved to that response,.....and like sheep,...just followed along and went with the flow. Just out of curiosity, ...if it was so obvious it was an accident,...why did the genius Maclean have to watch the replay 50 times. Interesting,.....don't you think?
They are all either blind, were brainwashed,...or are sheep. Meaning after Doug Maclean guaranteed, after watching it 50 times,...that it was an accident,.....everyone else who heard that,.....caved to that response,.....and like sheep,...just followed along and went with the flow. Just out of curiosity, ...if it was so obvious it was an accident,...why did the genius Maclean have to watch the replay 50 times. Interesting,.....don't you think?
They are all either blind, were brainwashed,...or are sheep. Meaning after Doug Maclean guaranteed, after watching it 50 times,...that it was an accident,.....everyone else who heard that,.....caved to that response,.....and like sheep,...just followed along and went with the flow. Just out of curiosity, ...if it was so obvious it was an accident,...why did the genius Maclean have to watch the replay 50 times. Interesting,.....don't you think?
Interesting theory. Which one do you subscribe to?
If they were blind, I think would excuse themselves from offering judgement.
If they were brainwashed, who brainwashed them and how?
If they were sheep, they would have the same opinion on everything all the time.
In all seriousness, do you think maybe Doug MacLean recognizes his responsibility to a give well thought out opinion on a high emotion event.
It's amazing how the 'It had to be intentional because it's Cooke' crowd is misreading every thing surrounding this.
It would be interesting to see how the results change if the question replaced "injure" with "hurt" or asked "did Cooke's recklessness cause Karlsson's injury?".
IMO Cooke will "unintentionally" cause two or three more "unfortunate accidents." Which is too bad for the guys he will injure.
It would be interesting to see how the results change if the question replaced "injure" with "hurt" or asked "did Cooke's recklessness cause Karlsson's injury?".
What was reckless about the play? It looks like Cooke's skate and Karlsson's leg just happened to be in the same spot when contact was made. It's an area of the leg that can be vulnerable to something like this hence the discussion around socks or tape needed for protection.
Or is more reasonable to believe that a player who has made an effort to not play dirty and when he did, did it in a manner that was anything but subtle or sneaky, would risk his career by blatantly stomping on a player?
What was reckless about the play? It looks like Cooke's skate and Karlsson's leg just happened to be in the same spot when contact was made. It's an area of the leg that can be vulnerable to something like this hence the discussion around socks or tape needed for protection.
Or is more reasonable to believe that a player who has made an effort to not play dirty and when he did, did it in a manner that was anything but subtle or sneaky, would risk his career by blatantly stomping on a player?
I think it is more reasonable to believe that a player who has a history of repeatedly targeting and injuring top players is capable of targeting and injuring again.
"it just happened to be in the same spot" isn't generally the best defense either.
"His face 'just happened' to be where I was swinging my fist"
"She 'just happened' to pass out in the same bed I did."
"The telephone poll 'just happened' to be where the car was going"
I think it is more reasonable to believe that a player who has a history of repeatedly targeting and injuring top players is capable of targeting and injuring again.
"it just happened to be in the same spot" isn't generally the best defense either.
"His face 'just happened' to be where I was swinging my fist"
"She 'just happened' to pass out in the same bed I did."
"The telephone poll 'just happened' to be where the car was going"
All you are saying here is that you would expect Cooke to be involved in a dirty play more so than say one of the Sedins. Doesn't matter when the play is not considered dirty.
If Cooke had been looking at where Karlsson's leg was and if Karlsson's leg was in the same position as opposed to be being motion, before Cooke started to put his foot down, then it would be reasonable to question whether it was accidental or not.
I think it is more reasonable to believe that a player who has a history of repeatedly targeting and injuring top players is capable of targeting and injuring again.
"it just happened to be in the same spot" isn't generally the best defense either.
"His face 'just happened' to be where I was swinging my fist"
"She 'just happened' to pass out in the same bed I did."
"The telephone poll 'just happened' to be where the car was going"
So you are saying the person intentionally ran into the telephone pole?
All you are saying here is that you would expect Cooke to be involved in a dirty play more so than say one of the Sedins. Doesn't matter when the play is not considered dirty.
If Cooke had been looking at where Karlsson's leg was and if Karlsson's leg was in the same position as opposed to be being motion, before Cooke started to put his foot down, then it would be reasonable to question whether it was accidental or not.
Did Cooke have to look at Karlsson's shoulder to try and get under it, or his hands to get his under them? Does he have to look at the goal or the goaltender when trying to score? He knew where Karlsson's foot was, the same place it always is, at the end of the leg he was trying to run up to the boards without looking at em.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver
So you are saying the person intentionally ran into the telephone pole?
No, I'm saying he is responsible for the accident. And I wouldn't say the poll is partially responsible for not wearing a kevlar sock.
Did Cooke have to look at Karlsson's shoulder to try and get under it, or his hands to get his under them? Does he have to look at the goal or the goaltender when trying to score? He knew where Karlsson's foot was, the same place it always is, at the end of the leg he was trying to run up to the boards without looking at em.
When his foot was starting to go down, Karlsson's ankle was not in it's path, it was moving. How did he know that it was going to be in the exact position it was when his foot was at ankle height?
It seems like so many people who voted NO are 100% convinced and are unwilling to see the other side's POV. 
Cooke has phenomenal balance on his skates. I've seen him play live many times. So,....to pin a "better player" against the boards, you need to raise your leg and skate up, and then step the skate down onto the back of the player's unprotected leg with pressure? Ahh,....thanks,...now I know how to pin a player into the boards the "right way",....when I get in the situation myself.
