Cooke trying to reach Bruins' Savard

Dave Molinari, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Penguins left winger Matt Cooke has “reached out” to Boston center Marc Savard, according to Penguins coach Dan Bylsma.
Odds are the NHL office will do likewise with Cooke soon.

Savard was injured Sunday with a hit to the head by Cooke late in the Penguins’ 2-1 victory against the Bruins at Mellon Arena.

Bylsma said Monday that the Penguins had not yet heard from the league about a hearing for Cooke, but “we know they’re looking at all [questionable] hits and situations, so we know they’re looking at it.”

Savard, who got a Grade 2 concussion when Cooke hit him on the right side of the head with his upper left arm or shoulder, flew back to Boston Monday and told the Boston Herald he was experiencing intense headaches and severe fatigue and didn’t know when he might be able to resume playing.

Cooke did not participate in an optional practice Monday at Southpointe nor did he speak with reporters when it ended, but Bylsma said Cooke tried to contact Savard.

“I know Matt Cooke has reached out to him,” Bylsma said.

He did not elaborate on the precise message Cooke had wanted to deliver.

Bylsma said he did not see the hit as it happened and had not viewed a replay before meeting with reporters after the game Sunday, but he subsequently did watch a replay and offered this assessment:

“I think Matt Cooke’s coming back with the intention of breaking up a good scoring chance by one of their players. The unfortunate part is that a guy gets hurt and goes down on the ice. That’s not a situation anyone wants to see. It doesn’t matter what color uniform he’s wearing.”

If the NHL decides to suspend Cooke, it could be done anytime before the Penguins’ next game, which is Thursday night at Carolina.

128 Responses to Cooke trying to reach Bruins' Savard

  1. bbruins37 says:

    crosby or malkin injured? no? then the pens are fine.

  2. bbruins37 says:

    richards didn't get suspended because he's a star player. star players do not get suspended unless it's a ridiculous incident like the bertuzzi one.

    as for people talking about savard having his head down, it's called a 5'10 player following through on his shot. it would be expected that some goon doesn't come around looking to take your head off. you know, common courtesy.

  3. bbruins37 says:

    and this isn't the same as the richards hit anyways.

  4. bbruins37 says:

    what else would you expect? it's all a bunch of leafs fans on here so it's natural. well, along with hockey lover, but i think he's just upset for me making fun of his pre-school-like comprehension of math

  5. bbruins37 says:

    i almost wish we weren't in a playoff spot right now, or even in contention as there would be nothing to lose in going after cooke on the 18th. maybe he'll fake an injury that day anyways…

  6. bbruins37 says:

    ugh..the only reason he cites for not suspending him is the richards hit. A) this is not the same hit and B) if they just tried to cover that incident up with richards being the star, cooke gets off free. no thought to cooke being a repeat offender…

    "I don't know what to say. Of course we thought he would be suspended," Begin told the Boston Herald. "We thought the league would take care of it. They've been talking about shots to the head for a while and now they have a perfect example and they don't do anything about it."

    fine him for those comments NHL!

  7. hockey_lover says:

    Not even a little bit upset. I lost nothing in that "debate."

  8. hockey_lover says:

    "i want cooke injured and done for the season by a headshot."

    teeheehee.  Classic quote of the year.

    I seem to recall you saying that some of us were heartless bastards and all sorts of expletives when we didnt bow down and weep that, I believe it was Lucic or Krecji, had gotten injured. We werent even happy that he got injured .. we just didnt care .. and we were all called many names by you.

    But now its acceptable to say you WANT someone to get injured and be done for the season? hold on .. I'll be right back ..


    Ok, Im back. Carry on with the regularly scheduled programming.

  9. jpmac says:

    I would guess by the 18th the Bruins will be out of a playoff spot, and probably fighting for contention.  So have at Cooke on the 18th.  Maybe we can see the big bad Lucic run away from someone else.

  10. bbruins37 says:

    heartless for wanting others that have done nothing to get injured. why would you care about people like chris simon, matt cooke, and todd bertuzzi? hell, throw in my beloved bruin marty mcsorley. these players are monsters and they should be treated like it.

  11. leafy says:

    Absolutely agree. That was a bleeping illegal hit. Should have been a suspension for sure.

    First they say they want to crack down on head shots. Then they fail to delivery a suspension to a blatantly illegal hit.

    ALso, let's look from a broader perspective. They put in the instigator rule to reduce fighting, while not realizing that it will almost certainly increase the number of dirty hits and terible injuries, and block relatiation against attacks on star players.

    What else can you say? The league has become a total joke.

  12. TimTheBone says:

    whats so blatently illegal about it???

    The fact he hit him with his shoulder?.. nope… Legal

    The fact his shoulder hit Savvy's head??…. nope… while very dangerous and un-needed, not illegal!!!…

    so i say once again…. What is so illegal about the hit?… the hit was fine as far as the rule book is concerned…. it was just an extremly dangerous hit and there was no need for it…. yes it sucks Savard is as severely injured as he is, but the hit didnt merit a suspension as per the rulebook…. If you suspend cooke, you would be spitting on ALL Florida Panther fans by not suspending Richards…..

  13. hockey_lover says:

    Its crazy then, how the NHL even allows the other 3 players and goalie on the ice at the same time as those two guys then. Why dont they just play them alone? If they are so good and thats all the Pens need is those two, why do the others bother playing?

    Crazy shit.

  14. bbruins37 says:

    unbiased players weighing in on the hit and suspension:

  15. TimTheBone says:


    quit whining….. the hit was legal

  16. TimTheBone says:

    It's literally almost identical… down to the spot where both were hit….

  17. leafmeister says:

    Says the guy who calls anything above four "countless."

  18. hockey_lover says:

    Except you missed the part, amazingly enough, that none of us WANTED Lucic or Krejci to get hurt. Most of us just didnt care. Much like Savard. I feel bad the guy got hurt but Im not losing sleep over it. Ergo .. we arent the heartless ones?

    YOU were the one that called all of us expletives because we werent "OH MY GOD, THIS IS A TRAGEDY. LUCIC IS THE MAN AND SHOULD BE AVENGED."  Most of us, if I recall correctly, were simply saying "oh that sucks. Time to move on" .. at least, I was.

    I dont think you should care about guys like Simon and Cooke anymore than you should care about guys like Savard and Thomas some that random dude named Yan in China.

    The difference here is YOU are the one who WANTS someone to get injured.

    So, who's the heartless one here?

  19. hockey_lover says:

    The fact that Cooke completely blindsided Savard might be the part thats a wee bit illegal. Savard never saw him coming because it was out of his peripheral vision.

    Yes, I do agree to a certain extent that Savard was "admiring his shot" but at the same time, he shouldnt have to let a shot go and pivot his head 360 degrees to see if someone is coming at him.

    If you consider that most people's peripheral vision field is just under 180 degrees, Cooke came at Savard outside that field. Savard shouldnt have to "look around" to see whats coming. If he can see it, awesome. If it comes "from behind," thats illegal.

  20. bbruins37 says:

    yes, let's all stick to saying nothing but cold-hard facts without exaggerating anything.

    yo, hockey lover don't you have a young kid? can you do society a favour and make sure you don't homeschool him? thanks.

  21. bbruins37 says:

    you never want to see anyone who actually shows they are decent to others to get injured. cooke and the others haven't shown that. it's better off without them so they don't do it again.

  22. hockey_lover says:

    I certainly do. He be 6. Great kid. Grade 1 at school. We dont home school .. we arent the Duggers from 19 Kids and Counting. Or Amish.

    However, that begs the question .. why would you say something like that? hmmm?

  23. hockey_lover says:

    One thing has nothing to do with the other.

    No, I dont WANT to see anyone get injured. Ever. But its a sport, sometimes a violent sport, and these things happen. Even if its illegal, I still dont want to see it. But if it DOES happen, it doesnt hurt me to my heart and soul and make me wish for vengance. It sucks but hey, life goes on. I dont know these people personally so how could it possibly "hurt" me?

    Again, the difference here is that none of us WANTED anyone to get hurt. You do.

  24. hockey_lover says:

    Ugh except the problem still is they are talking about hits to the head.

    They just dont get it.

  25. bbruins37 says:

    in this case they do have to do with each other. would you want someone who is always running around purposely injuring players to get injured, or have him contiually running around doing what he does best? the league has shown they'll do nothing so take out the "human-being" that could care less about people that actually do care.

  26. bbruins37 says:

    i don't have to spell this out for you, do i? oh wait, maybe i do…

  27. zackman13 says:

    for one of the few times, some of us actually agree with bbruins. and i agree, what the F*** no suspension?, come on!

  28. TimTheBone says:

    what you said has nothing to do with the fact though….. The check wasnt from behind…. just because Savard doesnt see him coming, does NOT make it a check from behind… if a player has his head swivelled to the left and gets hit "blind sided" from the right, does not make it from behind… a hit from behind comes from the back or "behind"…….

    not illegal!!

    it still sucks for Bruins and Savvy thoiugh .,,.. dont get me wrong .. im not heartless…. just justifying the non-suspension

  29. dumbassdoorman says:

    you should really leave peoples kids out of this assclown

  30. bbruins37 says:

    take a look at these quotes by colin campbell.

    first, we have the dan carcillo incident where he punches max talbot:

    carcillo was given a one game suspension.

    then we have cammalleri punching havlat:

    cammalleri was not suspended. campbell gave the following reasoning:

    "Cammalleri is not a repeat offender and he's no bully."

    it seems these incidents were basically only looked at based on whether the players were repeat offensders or not. ummm ok campbell. 

    now, fast forward to the savard incident. campbell says the following on not suspending cooke:

    "I know Matt Cooke is a repeat offender, he's been suspended twice in the last year. I can't suspend Matt Cooke for being a repeat offender, I have to find a reason." 

    so much for "consistency" campbell…

    notice anything about these incidents? they were all done to help the golden boy and his team. get rid of this biased old f.uck andlet someone come in that knows what they're doing.

  31. leafy says:

    You're overlooking the key point here. Ask yourself this question: Is it reasonable for Savard (or ANYONE) to see Cooke coming on that play?  Well unless he's got eyes in his ears, I don't see how he should see him coming.

    Don't listen to Colin Campbell. He's an idiot. This was a predatory hit and nothing else.

    Lastly, as for Richards' hit on Booth, everyone knows Colin Campbell has set a bad precedent and now he's put himself in a corner where he can't punish dangerous hits.

  32. dumbassdoorman says:

    The Richards decision was not made by Campbell though, his son plays for Fla, so it was not his call. I agree with a few of the others, while a dnagerous and unnecessary hit, it was not illegal.

  33. leafy says:

    Colin Campbell was a lousy hockey player. As lousy coach. And a lousy disciplinarian.

    In summary, he's a total idiot and if it wasn't for hockey, he'd probably be weaving baskets in Nantucket.

  34. leafy says:

    So a guy could come from nowhere outside your visual field and attack your head? That's news to me.

  35. dumbassdoorman says:

    Okay you seriously aren't trying to say that Cooke not being suspended is gonna help his team win the cup are you? While i don't feel the hit was illegal, it was unnecessary. He is not going to be the difference in winning or losing the cup.

  36. dumbassdoorman says:

    According to the rule book yes. Like I said unnecessary and dangerous, just not illegal. And I really do not think any of us can honestly say he was intending to injure Savard.

  37. leafy says:

    Everybody keeps saying, "according to the rule book".

    You know what, I want someone to show me where in the rule book it says that hits to the head from outside a players visual field are fair game.

  38. bbruins37 says:

    throw in carcillo's punch on bradley. hmmm the caps this time. ovechkin, crosby, malkin. i guess he's a fan?

    cooke is a player that always plays in the pes line-up. taking him out would not be beneficial to the pens, and thus can be seen as helping htem.

    let's say this savard hit was the cleanest hit ever. his quote about not being able to suspend a player based on their past completely contradicts what he's done before. he's an absolute idiot.

  39. bbruins37 says:

    not much point in arguing it leafy. everyone in here seems to be pro-cooke, or maybe just anti-bruin…who knows?

  40. leafy says:

    Everybody forgets this could happen to your OWN player. If this happened to Kessel or Kaberle, I'd be really pissed. All hockey fans should be crying foul.

  41. bbruins37 says:

    everyone probably thinks that i'm only doing this because it's savard, but i've been pretty vocal on all cheapshots from ovechkin to cormier. if only the NHL was as harsh as the CHL…

  42. TimTheBone says:

    look im not por-cooke, anti-bruin, pro-dirty hits… nothing of the sort…. im just stating that it in no way was an illegal hit….. you honestly can't argue that fact Leafy… im not doing it to be a pest or a bast*rd…. im just trying to tell you the way the officials of the NHL are basing themselves on…. they didn't do it cause theyre "stupid"… they're not trying to save face because of the Richards hit…. i never said that … what i said was imagine if Cooke was suspended, Florida fans would scream to high heavens…. richards single-handedly ruined the Cats chances for the playoffs… or at least greatly hurt them…. and dont give me that crap about stars getting the red carpet treatment….

    my last response to you leafy is….. show me where in the rulebook it says hits to the head ARENT legal…….

    I'm with ya on the fact it was dirty and a terrible gutless play….. but that doesnt mean its illegal…. the rulebook does need some changes for sure… players need to be protected… but even with the rules changed… it won't eliminate these events completely… Hockey is a fast physical game of which injuries are a part of ….. they happened in the past, and will happen again…. its unfortunate but thats the game "we" play….

  43. TimTheBone says:

    oh come off it!!….. this has nothing to do with Crosby or anyone else…. Your just bitter about losing your best player for the year to an ugly dirty gutless play (yet not illegal)……. i understand but stop scouring the internet for possible reasons to blame or peoples heads to hang this on…….its done its over…. nothing can be done…. nothing could have been done with a justifiable reason……. within the rules that is…..

  44. bbruins37 says:

    read what i wrote. he clearly contradicts himself. whether the savard hit was clean or not, and whether he's sucking crosby's dick or not doesn't affect his ineptitude. he's a joke. he's doesn't even know enough to not contradict himself.

  45. leafy says:

    The truth is that there is "grey area" in the rule book and, therefore, JUDGMENT on the part of the disciplinarian are needed to hand down suspensions accordingly. And therein lies the problem. The NHL disciplinarian, i.e., Campbell, has set a terrible precedent over a long period of time. Now he has no other choice than to let vicious hits go by.

    It's exactly the same thing in law. There are grey areas in the law, which is why judges are often asked to rule on contentious issues. Judges set precedent. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. NHL disciplinarians are no different.

  46. bbruins37 says:

    where the hell are you getting that from? richards hit was not all head. cooke got all head. he went for the head and clipped it.

  47. hockey_lover says:

    Meh, its all good. As soon as I read it, I wasnt offended. I actually said to myself "wow, took longer than I thought."  Not expected but not a surprise either.

  48. hockey_lover says:

    Uhhh ok? Im not sure how you can take the "human being" out of a human. Oh wait .. is that like how you can judge intent?

  49. hockey_lover says:

    I guess you do. Spell it out for me. Clearly with lots and lots of detail. Please.


Leave a Reply