While I understand a fallen teammate can on ocassion serve as a point around which the rest of the team can rally (in the second round of the ‘01 playoffs, the New Jersey Devils had turned in a poor performance against the Toronto Maple Leafs until the Leafs’ Tie Domi slammed his elbow into the head of Scott Niedermayer behind the play at the end of a decisive Leafs victory, giving Niedermayer a concussion and the Devils all the spite they needed to come back and beat the Leafs to move on to the Eastern Conference Final) the point I was trying to make was merely this: Regardless of the injury to Mark Savard, if the Bruins don’t step it up and start pulling out some wins, they’re going to be watching the playoffs at home on television in April rather than playing in them. Shouldn’t that, in and of itself, be all the motivation they need to win?

But doesn’t intent to injure only apply to plays on which a penalty can be called, like an elbow or an attempted elbow, for example? I think intent to injure exists only to influence the severity of a penalty by allowing the on-ice officials to use their own discretion to decide whether the act being penalized was accidental or flagrant, and whether or not it is deserving of a minor or major penalty or warrants ejection from the game. Again, because a shoulder to the head is not an illegal play, intent to injure does not apply in this particular instance. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player penalized for intent to injure by itself – it usually goes along with something like elbowing or charging.