Bruins angry about Malkin's hit on Boychuck
Boston coach Claude Julien said little about Evgeni Malkin's hit but implied plenty.
The Penguins center was penalized for boarding in Sunday's third period when he forced Bruins defenseman Johnny Boychuk into the wall. It was a play the Bruins didn't like, but Julien seemed cynical about whether the league would further punish its leading scorer.
"It was Malkin that hit, right?" Julien asked rhetorically. "It wasn't (Matt) Cooke?"
Julien was implying the NHL might have punished Cooke, who has been suspended five times, for a similar hit. Malkin has never been suspended by the league.
A comparison to Cooke carries weight in Boston, which remembers his career-changing hit on Marc Savard two seasons ago.
"The league will have to look at it," Julien said. "It was a hit from behind. They're the ones that make those decisions. We don't like those hits."
With 6:31 left in the third, Malkin was assessed a two-minute penalty for forcing Boychuk into the boards deep in the Bruins' end. Malkin admitted the hit turned dangerous but said that wasn't his intent. Malkin saw Boychuk with the puck and aimed for the shoulder, he said, before Boychuk turned.
"It's a little bit dangerous, of course, because it's near the far boards," Malkin said. "I said sorry, of course, but it's tough to say. I've not seen (the) replay. I (did) not jump. Nothing dangerous. I (hit) with shoulder, not (the) elbow — just shoulder. But he turned a little bit quick, and it (became) a dangerous hit."
Boychuk said he was just sore from the hit.
"It was a good thing I was closer to the boards (rather) than farther away," Boychuk said, "or else it could have been a lot worse."
Asked if Malkin's hit was dirty, Boychuk's response was measured.
"Well, it was a penalty," Boychuk said. "He got a penalty."
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.