Savard Headed Home… Set to Meet with Specialist

Marc Savard, who was felled by a Matt Cooke hit to his head yesterday, is headed back to Boston after spending last night in the team’s Pittsburgh hotel according to

Marc Savard, who was felled by a Matt Cooke hit to his head yesterday, is headed back to Boston after spending last night in the team’s Pittsburgh hotel according to TSN.

Savard was unable to travel with his team last night due to concussion symptoms following the hit.

According to the TSN report, a team spokesman said that Savard was able to eat today, which was a good sign. He is slated to meet with a concussion specialist back in Boston.

As for Matt Cooke, he is still awaiting his fate. There has been no official word on what if any discipline will be handed down in regard to this incident.


10 Comments on this Post

  1. Walshy

    ok so I have finally watched this hit. If he doesnt get a suspension for this hit, well Im a monkey’s uncle.

    The league needs to have a look at itself in the mirror if he gets away with it. I dont care if people get all upset with the ‘double standard’ due to the Richards hit thing……

    After this season the league will have a minimum rule in place anyway.

    I have read a few people talking about having a min rule plus the player being scratched until the injured player comes back, I like that rule…..

  2. I agree he will get 3-5 games Walshy but I hope the NHL doesn’t go overboard on hitting. The game isn’t played in slow motion. If Cooke would of got him in the shoulder I wouldn’t have a problem with this hit. It was a head shot though.

  3. Walshy

    The fact is the hit from from behind Savards vision, if Savard was against the boards, it would have been boarding. You can tell that even if Cooke had of got Savard’s shoulder he had no way to brace for the hit because he wouldnt have even known it was coming.

    Players know where blind spots are with regards to vision, Cooke chose to hit from that spot, just like Richards chose to wipe out Booth, if he had of come from a different angle, Booth would have seen Richards coming and I bet Booth wouldnt have lowered himself into a vulnerable position.

    Thats my take on it anyway.


  4. Does anybody remember a certain “meeting of the minds” between Kasparaitis and Lindros? The same principle applies here- keep your head up. Savard should have known Cooke was coming. The third man back always takes the shooter.
    There are multiple key differences between the Cooke and Richards hits. 1) Cooke neither pushes off his feet nor takes a step into Savard. He was gliding- no additional force was applied. 2) His elbow stays DOWN. Contrary to all the press reports, Cooke’s arm/shoulder DO NOT move as he approaches Savard. Watch the replay.
    I agree that head shots need to be curtailed, but I think the bigger issue here is the player, not the action. If this was Ovechkin, the issue would be swept under the rug, just like it was last year when he deliberately kneed Gonchar(a clearly defined penalty) and received no punishment. Cooke will be suspended, the public will be vindicated, and the NHL will pat itself on the back.
    The easiest solution to this issue is the creation of a helmet that actually protects its wearer. The NFL has upgraded it’s headgear over the years, but the NHL is woefully lacking in head protection. These guys are moving at exceptionally high speeds, and it would be interesting to see a study comparing the force absorbed from an NHL hit versus one in the NFL.
    Bottom line- Savard put himself in a bad position and Cooke finished him off. It’s hockey, people. If you want to see what happens when you take the edge off hockey- watch the New Jersey Devils.

  5. Walshy

    Its the angle that Cooke comes in at that is my issue. Its the same as hitting a player right between the numbers, players know where the blind spot is in a players vision and Cooke came right in from there. So how can Savard know Cooke was coming?

    The head gear argument is a great one and one the NHL should be right on top of, but will miss Im sure….

  6. I might be wrong, but I don’t know. Cooke obviously has that goon mentality to him, but I don’t see Cooke intentionally hitting Savard like that. There’s just no reasoning. No instigating prior to that. Nothing. If you look at the video, Savard is skating foward, leading me to believe Cooke was originally going for the shoulder but Savard started to slow down. When Savard slowed down just a little bit, Cooke still had his momentum. He was SO CLOSE to hitting his shoulder (if he didn’t actually graze it).

    Also, I’m tired of hearing this was an elbow hit. Once again, look at the video in slow-mo, NO ELBOW!

    I’m not sitting here tryin to play defense for Matt Cooke. I’m just telling it how I see it. I myself feel there isn’t enough evidence to give him a suspension, but I know he’ll get one no matter what I think..

  7. Walshy

    Oh and by the way who is this Steve Grimm goon on the Pens radio morning show????

    I was just listening to the replay of the morning show and he was trying to say that Jeff Carter goes out and plays with more of an intent to injure players than Matt Cooke. Im sorry but he needs his head checked and I dont care that he is on a Penguins radio network, dont treat the fans like fools. Thankfully the Mears set this tool straight….

    That was worse than some of the crazy gear that comes out of Maddens mouth, and that is saying something….

  8. Not saying Steve Grimm is right, but the Flyers are the poster team for goon hockey. So I see what he’s trying to get at.

  9. Walshy


    Then use the correct examples, you are in the media, get it right.

    Cote, Hartnell, they are the guys that go out to injure, not guys like Carter and Richards (he plays hard but does not try to injure someone, at least in my opinion.)


  10. My take on it that Matt Cooke should not be suspended. I am basing this on the current rule book and previous ‘no suspension handed out’ hits.

    I think this is the year the GM’s finally decide to modify the rule book to make this type of hit illegal, intentional or not, much like a high stick penalty. This issue has been a topic of debate at the GM meetings for years now and people are tired of seeing players carted off the ice.

    My kids are very young right now, but they love hockey. I have apprehensions about getting them involved in the sport where violent collisions occur regularly. I think the mentality to eliminate headshots and hitting vulnerable players needs to be engrained in players from a young age all the way up to the NHL level.

    Ultimately, it is up to the players to decide they do not want this in their sport. They have to want to ‘pull up’ at the last second if they see someone may seriously get hurt. It shouldn’t have to be a thought of “how much money will I lose if I get suspended” that gets them to do it either.

Comments are closed.