Skip to content

Video: Brad Marchand boards James Neal

Jun 1, 2013, 10:22 PM EDT

The Boston Bruins and Pittsburgh Penguins haven’t met in the playoffs in about 20 years, but the hate’s revving up as if Ulf Samuelsson was on the ice.

A physical first period gave way to a controversy-soaked middle frame as Matt Cooke was ejected for hitting Adam McQuaid from behind, but that was just part of the zaniness. The bitterness really boiled over when Brad Marchand received a two-minute minor penalty for boarding James Neal with about 30 seconds left in the second:

Both sides were at each others’ throats as the seconds ticked off. We’ll get you video of some unlikely adversaries such as Evgeni Malkin vs. Patrice Bergeron in the near future.

It all opens the door for what could be a wild finish.

  1. jj9979 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:34 PM

    zero reason this should not have been a 5 and game

    • stakex - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:39 PM

      Perhaps the fact that this isn’t even called a penelty in most playoff games is a good reason.

      • pens5829 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:16 AM

        Are you a chick? Cause your posts sure make you sound like one.

    • dropthepuckeh - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      Except the fact that Neal is looking over to see if he is getting a call the entire time because he dives all the time. How does that beating taste Pitt? Offensive firepower indeed. Sukkit.

    • hockeyflow33 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      I would say a brief reading of a rule book will give you the reason

  2. killerpgh - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:34 PM

    5 and a game? That right. Neither should have been.

    • jj9979 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:39 PM

      exactly

      • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:02 AM

        Maybe if Matt Cooke hadn’t ruined people’s careers in the past, he’d get the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Sucks to be a bad person and get punished for it, doesn’t it?

  3. Stiller43 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM

    BOTH of them should have been 2 min for boarding. And thats it. Either way, they should have been consistent for the similar plays.

  4. stakex - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM

    To be clear, Pierre McGuire made it sound like this was a carbon copy of the Cooke hit. Its not…. at all. This isn’t a clean hit by any standards, but its not the same hit. What makes this one bad is that Marchand gets his hands up, but it wasn’t directly from behind and he didn’t drive Neal into the boards. Cooke on the other hand, saw McQuaid facing the boards and drove him into the boards with a hit to the numbers… numbers that were facing Cooke for a couple seconds.

    If you can’t see the difference between the two hits, you don’t know much about hockey or are simply a Pens fan.

    • jj9979 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      you cannot be serious.

      same exact hit, if anything the hit on neal is more dangerous cause it happened where there was no glass

      • pens5829 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:19 AM

        Statex is just some chick that lives in Boston.

      • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:04 AM

        1.) His analysis > your analysis.

        2.) Pens5829: is there anything wrong with being a woman? Are women not allowed to discuss hockey with you big, tough men?

    • hockeyflow33 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:42 PM

      You can take or out of the second part because it is just assumed that both statements are true

    • scottybcboy - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:51 PM

      stakex…..you have it right! Couldn’t have said it better myelf.

      • mustangmach - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:24 PM

        Sorry for you, but stakex is correct.

    • cheesesteak75 - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:02 AM

      To be clear, you are an ass clown if you think the two hits were different! Please go back and watch the tape I’m sure it’s recorded some where in Boston!

  5. hockeyflow33 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM

    Nope, read the rule book for the definition of a minor boarding and a major with misconduct. That will clear it up for you.

  6. malkinrulez - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:54 PM

    stakex is a Flyer fan no matter what Pens do they are wrong his opinion means nothing

    • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM

      Ok, “Malkinrulez.” I’m sure you see things through every perspective. *rolls eyes at hypocrisy*

  7. Stiller43 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM

    Mcquaid actually looked at cooke and THEN turned his back to him. He knew what he was doing. Marchand blindsided neal

    • keith8 - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:26 PM

      photo/1 you’re welcome

      • hockeydon10 - Jun 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        McQuaid seeing him doesn’t matter one bit.

        Nowhere in the rules does it stipulate that if the person getting hit sees the hitter that it washes out the penalty.

        That is still boarding. If any other Pen does that, it’s probably 2 minutes. The amount of penalty is enhanced because of Cooke’s reputation and history.

      • thesportsjudge - Jun 3, 2013 at 12:32 AM

        Bissonnette is a moron.

  8. mustangmach - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:22 PM

    McQuaid was looking to see where he was going to pass. You’re wrong. Cooke shouldn’t even be in the league. He should have been run out of it years ago for his cheap shot artistry.

  9. sombostevo - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:30 PM

    They both should have been 2 minutes, but given that Cooke got the misconduct and 5 minutes it should have been consistent. Was Cooke’s a dangerous hit? Yes. Was Marchand’s a dangerous hit? Yes. Marchand hit from behind away from the boards driving Neal head first into the top of the boards. Gotta be consistent. McQuaid stayed down and bought the call (and was almost immediately right back in the game). Neal popped right back up. That and Cooke having a history swayed the refs.

  10. ispeakpittsburghese - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:10 AM

    Same play. Same call should be warranted. Neal wasn’t facing the boards like McQuaid was, but Marchand was directly behind Neal like Cooke was directly behind McQuaid

  11. whatdapuck - Jun 2, 2013 at 5:10 AM

    Marchand’s pretty good at walking the line between what’s dirty/legal. Stepped over it here, though. Good call.

    Not as egregious as Cooke’s though.

  12. hockeydon10 - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:27 AM

    Both were boarding penalties. While they were not identical plays to each other — Pierre and Eddy are idiots, just had to throw that in there — they look like they both could have been the same amount of penalty minutes. Cooke gets more because of his reputation and history.

    That’s the way it has always worked. This is nothing new to the NHL.

  13. ironmike778 - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    Oh for crying out loud, he barely touched him. Nice sell job by Neal.

  14. is1jollyroger - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    Marchand and Cooke both have a reputation for being dirty and have both received fines and suspensions for nasty hits. That said, both hits should have been penalized evenly and like it or not the referees didn’t help matters by not doing so. I feel the ref’s, throughout the playoffs, have been very inconsistent and there have been many calls that should have not have been called, non-calls (such as Bollands leaving the feet on Richards in the closing minutes of LA/CHI) and uneven calls such as this game.

    Cooke received 5 and a game misconduct, kinda harsh in my opinion given it’s the Playoffs and McQuaid was not injured. Marchand should have easily received 2 for boarding and 2 for charging or the same 5 and a game like Cooke did. Cookes hit was worse only because of McQuaids proximity to the boards I believe and the sell job by McQuaid. Had Neal stayed down and played hurt, Marchand may have received the same as Cooke.

    Either way ugly showing for the Penguins and they made themselves look very bad.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches