HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Eugene Melnyk says he'll prove Cooke on Karlsson was intentional

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2013, 07:33 PM
  #201
Bob Cole
Tom ******* Brady
 
Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,610
vCash: 50
What an embarrassment...

Bob Cole is online now  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:34 PM
  #202
montador
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanwb View Post
This is borderline ridiculous. If this was someone like say, Phil Kessel who did this would this so called investigation be happening? Not likely. But because it was Matt Cooke he automatically loses the benefit of the doubt.

C'mon, Cooke might be dirty but there's no way he goes in there hoping/aiming to slice Karlsson's leg...
of course Cooke loses the benefit of the doubt. are you serious?

montador is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:34 PM
  #203
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
Why can you not prove intent?

If they can prove that at a 99% confidence interval that the force exerted by a player breaking their fall weighing Matt Cooke's weight, at the angle Matt Cooke came in on, is between X Newtons and Y Newtons and that based on the sharpness of even a freshly sharpened blade, Z Newtons would be needed to sever the average human Achilles tendon in the manner in which Karlsson's was severed, if Y is less than Z, you can effectively provide strong evidence that Cooke exerted more force than a normal human of his size would exert if falling in the same circumstance.
The bolded is where the argument goes off the rails. You'd have to build a strong case with a reasonable sample size that a falling man of roughly Cooke's size would generate that much force. Normally, I'd say nobody cares/has the time to do something like that, but Mr. Melnyk suggests otherwise.

Even then, though, the mere fact that Cooke exerted more force than the average human being would not be proof that he intended to hurt Karlsson, only confirming evidence that he did—which we already know. The key element would be taking that evidence that Cooke exerted more force and showing that nothing else could account for the generation of that force—except the intent to injure. You'd essentially be watching Cooke's movements trying to account for the "proper" application of force and where an innocent Cooke might have gone wrong. As you can probably tell, that's speculative at best. Nobody worth their salt would be willing to put their name on the line as expert testimony, I don't think.

Guru Meditation is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:34 PM
  #204
EDDIE20*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Eugene better hope that his forensic investigators can prove this, or else he'll come off as a total a-hole (yet again). Then again, if/when they find nothing, methinks the public will never hear about it.

EDDIE20* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:35 PM
  #205
Stanley Foobrick
Clockwork Blue
 
Stanley Foobrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fooville, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
Why can you not prove intent?

If they can prove that at a 99% confidence interval that the force exerted by a player breaking their fall weighing Matt Cooke's weight, at the angle Matt Cooke came in on, is between X Newtons and Y Newtons and that based on the sharpness of even a freshly sharpened blade, Z Newtons would be needed to sever the average human Achilles tendon in the manner in which Karlsson's was severed, if Y is less than Z, you can effectively provide strong evidence that Cooke exerted more force than a normal human of his size would exert if falling in the same circumstance.

In other words, that he stomped.

Now I'm not saying he did - in fact I don't think he did - but you guys are way off on what you think you know.
Because to prove intent you would have to climb inside his mind....... and as small as that brain may be, you aren't going to be able to do that.... unless you could somehow make him admit he did.

If you think all your X, Y formulas are going to prove anything, you are the one way off on your thinking.


If I drive through a red light into the side of your car, it's my fault...... it will always me my fault you can physically prove that........ but you would never be a able to prove if I didn't see the light or did it intentionally.

Stanley Foobrick is online now  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:35 PM
  #206
ReginKarlssonLehner
Let's Win It All
 
ReginKarlssonLehner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 24,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWeb View Post
Right now Kaspars Daugavins is probably texting one of his Latvian buddies "Sure am glad I'm out of that nuthouse."
Are you kidding?

Having a game at 7 pm then watching an African cage death match at 11 pm live.

What better combo is there in life than that.

ReginKarlssonLehner is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:36 PM
  #207
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanwb View Post
That in no way, shape, or form proves that he stomped with intent though. All it proves is that his foot accelerated on the way down to the ice. Perhaps he was off balance and quickly stomped his foot down to regain his balance? This study can and will prove nothing. Not unless we can somehow tap into Matt Cooke's thoughts during the incident.
The argument would be that no human would increase their force to that level in that circumstance to break their fall. This testimony would be coming from experts in the field - not you and not me.

Again, this under the assumption that that is what the physics beyond the incident suggest, maybe they don't suggest that at all: that's what he's going to find out by the research.

I fail to see how there's anything wrong with that. Great owner if you ask me.

Sureves is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:36 PM
  #208
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,329
vCash: 500
noted physician Dr. Recchi is going to be testifying at the trial as an expert witness as certified by Andy Sutton.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:37 PM
  #209
janecky
Registered User
 
janecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuernberger View Post
Yeah no. This method at best proves that this kind of play happens very often or not very often. Nothing more and nothing less.
That would be true only if you did a blind statistical study of similar plays. Obviously the kind of study I was talking about would also involve detailed studies of the mechanics involved in the plays. You would have probabilities accumulating on different tracks of the investigation, and if you had anomalies on this specific play across the board in comparison with a large number of comparable plays, it would be a convincing demonstration of intent. I am not saying that is the inevitable conclusion of such study, but I would be interested to know how much of an outlier Cooke's play really was and on what counts.

janecky is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:37 PM
  #210
EDDIE20*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue'sClues View Post
Because to prove intent you would have to climb inside his mind....... and as small as that brain may be, you aren't going to be able to do that.... unless you could somehow make him admit he did.

If you think all your X, Y formulas are going to prove anything, you are the one way off on your thinking.


If I drive through a red light into the side of your car, it's my fault...... it will always me my fault you can physically prove that........ but you would never be a able to prove if I didn't see the light or did it intentionally.
Is Eugene gonna have Cooke pass a psychological / psychiatric examination?

Something tells me the Pens organization must be having a good laugh right about now.

EDDIE20* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:37 PM
  #211
FightingIrish
Total Lak of Respek
 
FightingIrish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue'sClues View Post
Because to prove intent you would have to climb inside his mind....... and as small as that brain may be, you aren't going to be able to do that.... unless you could somehow make him admit he did.

If you think all your X, Y formulas are going to prove anything, you are the one way off on your thinking.


If I drive through a red light into the side of your car, it's my fault...... it will always me my fault you can physically prove that........ but you would never be a able to prove if I didn't see the light or did it intentionally.
So you're saying you're an expert?

FightingIrish is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:38 PM
  #212
Sotty
Registered User
 
Sotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Westfalen
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDIE20 View Post
Eugene better hope that his forensic investigators can prove this, or else he'll come off as a total a-hole (yet again). Then again, if/when they find nothing, methinks the public will never hear about it.
Of course they will prove this. They will prove whatever he wants as long as he pays them.

Sotty is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:38 PM
  #213
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montador View Post
of course Cooke loses the benefit of the doubt. are you serious?
Of course I'm serious. You really think that this incident deserves a forensic investigation, simply because Matt Cooke was involved? Really?

ryanwb is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:38 PM
  #214
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
noted physician Dr. Recchi is going to be testifying at the trial as an expert witness as certified by Andy Sutton.
Dr. Pronger is also penciled in for a physics lecture.

Guru Meditation is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:39 PM
  #215
BigEezyE22
Registered User
 
BigEezyE22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDIE20 View Post
Eugene better hope that his forensic investigators can prove this, or else he'll come off as a total a-hole (yet again). Then again, if/when they find nothing, methinks the public will never hear about it.
Seems like he's comfortable in that state.

BigEezyE22 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:40 PM
  #216
EDDIE20*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEC View Post
Of course they will prove this. They will prove whatever he wants as long as he pays them.
Yeah and it's amazing what you can pay some expert to write.

EDDIE20* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:40 PM
  #217
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
The argument would be that no human would increase their force to that level in that circumstance to break their fall. This testimony would be coming from experts in the field - not you and not me.

Again, this under the assumption that that is what the physics beyond the incident suggest, maybe they don't suggest that at all: that's what he's going to find out by the research.

I fail to see how there's anything wrong with that. Great owner if you ask me.
How would you intend to prove that no human would? You could only prove that no human did.

Guru Meditation is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:40 PM
  #218
HockeySens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 500
Im a sens fan but AHAHAHA LOOOL melnky you idiot

thts all

HockeySens is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:40 PM
  #219
inthewings
Registered User
 
inthewings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,085
vCash: 500
As an Ottawa fan: Eugene Melnyk is consistently embarrassing and needs to learn to write the cheques without flapping his gums.

inthewings is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:41 PM
  #220
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 9,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingIrish View Post
So you're saying you're an expert?
(sigh)

Are you asking him or are you telling him?

iamjs is online now  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:42 PM
  #221
metalan2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bieber fever View Post
How is that embassing ?
It's embarrassing because he used the term "forensic study", and the owner of the Sens is acting like an irrational 12 year old child.

metalan2 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:42 PM
  #222
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru Meditation View Post
The bolded is where the argument goes off the rails. You'd have to build a strong case with a reasonable sample size that a falling man of roughly Cooke's size would generate that much force. Normally, I'd say nobody cares/has the time to do something like that, but Mr. Melnyk suggests otherwise.

Even then, though, the mere fact that Cooke exerted more force than the average human being would not be proof that he intended to hurt Karlsson, only confirming evidence that he did—which we already know. The key element would be taking that evidence that Cooke exerted more force and showing that nothing else could account for the generation of that force—except the intent to injure. You'd essentially be watching Cooke's movements trying to account for the "proper" application of force and where an innocent Cooke might have gone wrong. As you can probably tell, that's speculative at best. Nobody worth their salt would be willing to put their name on the line as expert testimony, I don't think.
You're spot on and I agree with everything up to here. If there is strong enough evidence to suggest that Cooke did it intentionally (ie. very strong evidence) I believe there would be plenty of unbiased experts willing to testify that they believe he did it intentionally.

As I have already said, the use of the word "prove" is incorrect, but honestly people misuse that word all the time. You really can't "prove" much other than in scientific experiments.

Sureves is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:42 PM
  #223
Moore Money
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Melnyk might be on to something or maybe he's just on something.

Moore Money is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:43 PM
  #224
EDDIE20*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Alfredsson View Post
What are they going to do, what is he doing wrong? Hey here's an idea, lets punish the Leafs for not making the playoffs for 7 years, and being the laughing stock of the league!
WTF do the Leafs have to do with anything? If you want to ***** about something, start with going off on your crackpot owner.

One thing though - if Eugene's dogs intend to interview Matt Cooke in any form, he can legally tell them to F-O. There were no criminal charges laid on Matt Cooke or the Penguins organization.

EDDIE20* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:43 PM
  #225
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue'sClues View Post
Because to prove intent you would have to climb inside his mind....... and as small as that brain may be, you aren't going to be able to do that.... unless you could somehow make him admit he did.

If you think all your X, Y formulas are going to prove anything, you are the one way off on your thinking.


If I drive through a red light into the side of your car, it's my fault...... it will always me my fault you can physically prove that........ but you would never be a able to prove if I didn't see the light or did it intentionally.
Entirely different situation in your comparison.

Sureves is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.