I'm sure I was not the only person who, while waiting for the decision from Campbell about Cooke, started running countless scenarios through their head of what possible punishment there could and should be for this type of hit. I have to say, before the ruling came out I was anticipating being horribly let down. In case the suspensions to Heatley, Marchand, and now Cooke are not starting a trend of consistency among headshot penalties, wouldn't it make sense to develop a set disciplinary system in order to avoid the argument of whether the league got a suspension right or wrong?
Baseball has used a set punishment for drug testing, which i know is a completely different issue than headshots but still does the job in keeping the players accountable. If a player is caught once it's 50 games, twice it is 100 games and then the 3rd time is a potential ban from the sport. Now I'm not saying it has to be this drastic, but this is consistency. There are NO arguments. Why can't the league develop something like this? And I am tired of having to use the injury or non injury factor to determine penalties. Perhaps a first time offender gets 5 games plus a game for each one the opposing player he hits is out for. Two time offenders could get 10 games plus 2 for each game lost by the opponent to injury. Then I think if a player is bone headed enough to make a third hit to the head, you can jump up the penalty to 40 games. Anything after that is a ban from the game since if getting to watch half the season from the press box did nothing to get through to you then obviously nothing will.
I realize that there are probably some flaws to this proposition but I would love to hear your guys' thoughts. Have a good one!