Skip to content

Bylsma doesn’t think Cooke deserved major penalty

Jun 2, 2013, 12:17 AM EST

Pittsburgh Penguins head coach Dan Bylsma seemed to agree that Matt Cooke deserved a penalty for his hit from behind on Adam McQuaid, but maybe not a game misconduct.

“Clearly it’s a hit right through the numbers,” Bylsma said. “I don’t think it was a rough hit. I think he was going into the boards, it was right from the numbers. I’m not sure I thought it warranted a five-minute penalty. But, you know, he did come right behind the guy, was going in with the guy. There you have it.”

It’s common for coaches to stand up for their guys in these situations – or simply be biased due to a variety of factors – and some might say that Bylsma is guilty of that to an extent.

Still, at least he’s willing to admit there was something wrong with the hit.

More than anything else, though, he seemed upset that the Penguins lost their cool toward the end of the second period.

“I don’t think the situation at the end of the second period was in our favor,” Bylsma said. “We had a power-play. We had a power-play coming out of the third period. We got two of our power-play guys off the ice with those altercations.”

“Starting really at that point in time, with those guys going off the ice, it did I think get us off our game. I think we could have come out and scored a power-play goal, it would have been different. We weren’t able to get back at our game after that power-play.”

  1. nunan - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    As much as I dislike Cooke, I don’t think that was worthy of a game misconduct. He has to know that the first guy into the corner might be in a vulnerable spot so he can’t just go flying in there, out of control. At the same time, McQuaid looked at him before the hit. He knew he was coming so he has to put himself in a better position. I don’t think any extra punishment should come. Plus, I want him out there when they come to Boston. Everyone there hates him.

    • stakex - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:01 AM

      First of all, McQuaid was playing the puck. Can’t play the puck with your back to it…. so he really couldn’t have changed his position.

      Besides, unless McQuaid put himself into that position a split second before the hit, the rules say its 100% Cooke’s responsibility to avoid the hit from behind. Since Cooke was looking at numbers for at least a couple strides…. he had more then enough time to avoid the hit. Instead he made the choice to hit McQuaid into the board from behind.

      • hockeyflow33 - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:07 AM

        Will you stop making sense and understanding the rule book?

      • chanceoffleury1 - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:47 AM

        (On McQuaid hit) – “I’m not going to deny that he put himself in a vulnerable position.”

        Claude Julien’s words, not mine.

      • nosefacekillah - Jun 2, 2013 at 6:28 AM

        If you are going to quote do it right – “I’m not going to deny that he put himself in a vulnerable position, because I just don’t know.” Pierre asked him about it minutes after it happened as he stood behind the bench.

        Julien said all he saw was the small clip of a replay and was not willing to scream for Cookes head. He did NOT say McQuiad put himself in the position.

      • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:20 AM

        Chaneoffleury1: what you are missing or ignoring is that even if McQuaid turns his back to Cooke, the rulebook attributes all the responsibility to Cooke to NOT HIT HIM. He should have pulled up and skated away. Even if McQuaid saw him coming, and quickly turned his back to him. Hits from behind are 100% on the hitter.

      • nunan - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

        I mean I think it was a penalty but there is a difference between a suspecting player and an unsuspecting player. There is no denying that fact. How many times have you heard ‘player’s have to take some responsibility to not put themselves in vulnerable positions’? Cooke can’t make that hit and McQuaid can’t look cooke dead in the face and then turn his back, even if he is playing the puck. Playing the puck doesn’t mean you can put yourself in bad spots and not be held accountable. A penalty was accurately called and there shouldn’t be (and there wasn’t) any extra discipline from the league.

        Hockeyflow – I know you love to spout off with statements lacking any substance but again, you are wrong. How many times can you take that? Clearly, my interpretation of the ‘rule-book’ was accurate bc Cooke wasn’t suspended.

  2. cheesesteak75 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:38 AM

    2 minutes is a good call. 5 minutes was BS, but if you make that call, then the hit on Neal is 5 minutes. No questions!

    • hockeyflow33 - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:06 AM

      They aren’t the same hit and apparently living in Pennsylvania requires complete homerism

      • Florio's Lawyer - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

        hockeyflow33 ..you’re right, they weren’t the same hits.
        McQuaid saw Cooke coming and turned his back.
        Neal never saw Marchand coming…

      • hockeyflow33 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        That doesn’t matter for the major boarding.

    • nosefacekillah - Jun 2, 2013 at 6:36 AM

      Cooke is known for his desire to injury players. When he boards McQuiad and follows through driving him face first into the boards the refs are not going to give him the benefit of doubt. He was removed from the game to prevent an escalation. The ref gave Kelly a BS 2 minutes to offset the 5 they gave Cooke. It was really a 3 minute power play with the Pens benefiting from 2 minutes of 4 on 4 (they are much better 4-4).

      Marchands hit was a stupid play but not as dangerous (still dangerous and thus illegal). Neal was offset from the boards, not square. And it was a push not a driving body check with a follow through. Still worthy of 2 minutes (and a long ride on the pine).

  3. mrmidevil - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:20 AM

    I agree he cook deserved a penalty, but not game mis conduct. Mcqueen also took the dive and stayed down to make it lookworse. Notice he was back on the ice for his next shift. The guy that hit neal also should have been thrwon out for the hit based off consistency.

    • alswingman - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:44 AM

      Being called McQueen is no insult. Steve McQueen kicked ass in his day. McQuaid would destroy Cooke in a fight. In fact, the Pens have no fighters except Malkin and he is welcome to do that as much as he likes since it will just tire him out.

  4. papajack1259 - Jun 2, 2013 at 6:08 AM

    I really thought Crosby had some class, He is a winer,
    Mr Ingla wins the coveted Hines Ward Slime Smile award
    Mr Shero Look to sign Subban he fits your style, A Flopper

  5. tlndma - Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    It will be interesting what Mr. Shanahan says.

    • spitfisher - Jun 2, 2013 at 7:54 AM

      yes it will, I hope Shanhan takes this turd out of the game, Hockey won’t miss him, the fans won’t miss him, the players from either team won’t miss Cooke.

      The only one that will miss him is the hyprocrite owner that encourages ( with his pen) this sort of dirty and potentially harmfull play, good Job Mario!

      • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

        It’s great that Mario encourages this play, and then threatened to leave the league when the Islanders got sick of it in Feb. 2011. What hypocrites over there in Pittsburgh. It’s fine when Matt Cooke is running around taking people’s heads off, but if a Penguins player is hit, the officials are just not paying attention or taking the game seriously.

  6. nhstateline - Jun 2, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    Sorry, Pens fans. The Cooke call was exactly right and exactly the situation the rule is written for. Marchand’s hit was not identical thus the difference in the call. So I guess McQuaid should be happy he got rear ended by the “reformed” Matt Cooke, otherwise his career would probably be over, right ? Matt Cooke isn’t really a hockey player and his tired circus act has no real place in the NHL. Go get yourselves a guy like Shawn Thornton, your team would be better off.

  7. thedudeabides422 - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:31 AM

    Marchand’s hit was worse because it happened on the half boards. I’ve seen a million hits like Cooke’s without a penalty. Cooke will not get a suspension because that would only highlight how incompetent the referees were last night.

    • nosefacekillah - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      I think the 422 support is showing….

    • jl9830 - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      You’ve seen a million hits squarely from behind into the boards that weren’t called? Please stop.

    • qha0s - Jun 2, 2013 at 4:59 PM

      It was on the upper left side that Cooke tagged, if that was “square on the numbers” (as Eddy says), it would explain why none of the announcers could play decent hockey, let alone score a goal!

  8. qha0s - Jun 2, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    Shame on you, Pierre McGuire! You guys were just waiting in the wing with your clip of the Savard hit. As much as I didn’t like the hit on Savard, it was hardly the end of his career. He was side lined that night… I will quote Wikipedia from there….

    On March 7, 2010 Savard suffered a Grade 2 [[concussion]] in the 3rd period of the Bruins game against the [[Pittsburgh Penguins]] after taking a hit to the head from [[Matt Cooke]]. The on-ice officials did not penalize Cooke for the hit, and on March 10, [[Colin Campbell (ice hockey)|Colin Campbell]] declared that the league would not suspend or fine Matt Cooke. The hit and its aftermath were part of the key evidence that caused NHL to institute a new rule that more heavily penalized blindside hits. Savard was not taken to a hospital following the incident but stayed behind at a Pittsburgh hotel for the night before returning to Boston the following day.

    Savard recovered enough to be cleared to play for the 2010 postseason against the Philadelphia Flyers after their victory against the Buffalo Sabres. He scored the winning goal in overtime in the Bruins Game 1 win of the series.

    On January 23, 2011, Savard then suffered a second concussion on a hit by former Bruin [[Matt Hunwick]] in a game against the [[Colorado Avalanche]]. On February 8, 2011, the Bruins opted to shut Savard down for the season after he received his second concussion in ten months. ”

    How are those Hartford Whalers now dude? Love that coaching record! 23-37-7 You don’t end up in the playoffs like that!!!! It sucks you got on 2 cups with our team…. You couldn’t scout your way out of a wet paper bag now!

Featured video

Holiday wish lists for NHL teams
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. B. Bishop (2942)
  2. S. Crosby (2495)
  3. B. Elliott (2361)
  4. C. Perry (2352)
  5. J. Howard (1971)
  1. J. Schwartz (1914)
  2. S. Varlamov (1887)
  3. S. Mason (1776)
  4. T. Johnson (1767)
  5. S. Weiss (1699)