Originally Posted by 150Swiftly

Ok, my comment wasn't taken the way it was meant to be, and that's my fault. Instead of saying "a better analogy," I should have said "a more valid bad analogy."

I was, in a sarcastic manner, alluding to the fact that there was no crime in the first place. Your analogy is accurate, mine was intended to expose the initial analogy for suggesting that Cooke not only committed an illegal offense but that it was also intentional. My comment was meant to be absurd. Some people here had an issue with my comment, and reading it again, I can recognize that I failed to communicate properly. So I'll just say this:

The speculation is warranted, given his history. However, I don't believe that there was a crime committed, so to question whether or not there was intention is unnecessary. You can suggest that he was going for a slew foot, but there is no evidence of foul play. I don't doubt that this type of play will be illuminated within the next few days as it isn't uncommon for both fore-checkers and d-men alike to use this method to restrict mobility.