Leafs @ Habs - Mar. 1st, 7:00pm - CBC, TSN 1050

[13th fan]

When we lose to Montreal it's usually refs have a big part to their win!

 

[L K]

I'm pretty sure that's a pretty standard call.  You can't cover the puck that far out.

Is there an actual number of how far out the goalie is allowed to cover the puck?

Technically it is a penalty but I agree, it is rarely if ever called.

The official rule is a goalie who makes a save and then covers the puck is fair game.  But a goalie who just scrambles out of the crease and covers the puck gets a delay of game penalty.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm also not convinced about the Kessel penalty. On the one replay, it looked like the puck hit the top of the glass on the way down. I'm willing to the officials the benefit of the doubt on that one, but, the Bernier penalty and especially the Gleason penalty were garbage.

 

[TML fan]

When we lose to Montreal it's usually refs have a big part to their win!

Because we usually only lose to them in Montreal. The refs are tired of having the police called on them.

 

[ZBBM]

From the NHL page:

If a goalkeeper comes out of his crease to ?cut down the angle? on a shot and after making the save covers the puck, this shall be legal. If the goalkeeper races out of his crease in an attempt to beat the attacking player to the puck and instead of playing the puck jumps on the puck causing a stoppage of play, this shall be a minor penalty for delay of game.

I still call BS.

Especially in OT when giving a team a 4/3 is a huge advantage.  Refs let a lot of stuff go in OT, and rightly so.

 

[TML fan]

I'm also not convinced about the Kessel penalty. On the one replay, it looked like the puck hit the top of the glass on the way down. I'm willing to the officials the benefit of the doubt on that one, but, the Bernier penalty and especially the Gleason penalty were garbage.

Kessel wouldn't have had to chip the puck if he had someone to pass to. The Leafs will win more games if they stop playing like idiots.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I still call BS.

I'm really not sure why. The play was a textbook example of the description of the penalty.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm really not sure why. The play was a textbook example of the description of the penalty.

Because of how often similar plays go uncalled. Also, because of how a marginal difference would make basically the same play legal. If Bernier lets the puck slide into him instead of putting his glove on it, there's no call there. It would still be the same play, but, one draws a rarely enforced rule and the other does not.

 

[AvroArrow]

Yeah, you can't blame the ref for the last penalty - blame Bernier.  That was a stupid move on his part and he should know better.

 

[bustaheims]

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming the refs for the loss. I'm blaming them for being even more inconsistent than usual and making bad calls.

 

[AvroArrow]

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming the refs for the loss. I'm blaming them for being even more inconsistent than usual and making bad calls.

No argument here.  Montreal games always seem to be more inconsistent than usual...

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Because of how often similar plays go uncalled.

It's in the rulebook though, you can only be upset when they're NOT getting called.

If Bernier lets the puck slide into him instead of putting his glove on it, there's no call there. It would still be the same play, but, one draws a rarely enforced rule and the other does not.

I think that's a pretty important distinction there. Bernier never once intended to play that puck, he dove for it with the sole intention of covering it with his glove. Had Bernier just slid into it you could argue he was trying to knock it somewhere and the puck just went under him. The ref would then have to blow the whistle since he couldn't just allow a Habs player to try and pry it from under his body.

 

[bustaheims]

It's in the rulebook though, you can only be upset when they're NOT getting called.

That would just mean I'm upset more often than I'm not, and that's no good for anyone.

I think that's a pretty important distinction there. Bernier never once intended to play that puck, he dove for it with the sole intention of covering it with his glove. Had Bernier just slid into it you could argue he was trying to knock it somewhere and the puck just went under him. The ref would then have to blow the whistle since he couldn't just allow a Habs player to try and pry it from under his body.

I think it's a pretty marginal distinction, since, considering the angle he took to the puck, Bernier still would have gone to cover the puck up with his glove once it got into his body and he still would have clearly had no intention of playing the puck. The intention would have been exactly the same, it's just the execution that would have been different - and, as far as I'm concerned, in a situation like that, it's the intention that really matters. If it's not a penalty in one situation, it shouldn't be a penalty in the other.

 

[Stickytape]

Tough loss to swallow, but the point helps at least.  Bleh.  Let's move on.

 

[Derk]

Another blown lead in the 3rd. It continues to be worrisome. Doesn't seem like this team has learned to protect a lead after that epic Game 7 collapse. In fact it seems like last year's team was better at it.

Can't remember where I read it, but after the Isles loss, the Leafs were near or at the bottom of the league in third period leads given up (with Calgary). This loss may have put them in last. Couldn't find that stat anywhere this evening, but I didn't try very hard either.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think it's a pretty marginal distinction, since, considering the angle he took to the puck, Bernier still would have gone to cover the puck up with his glove once it got into his body and he still would have clearly had no intention of playing the puck.

And I think that still would have been called a penalty. The distinction I was talking about has everything to do with intent, not execution. If a goalie races for the puck and intends to stop the play, whether by jumping on the puck or just allowing it to come to him from within the faceoff dot, it should be a penalty. And the rulebook 100% supports that.

The only way that's not a penalty is if a goalie lunges to the puck with his stick in order to try pokechecking it away (which is what most goalies do in that situation and is something Bernier has done regularly in the past) and he misses it and the puck goes under him. Or if the player gets to the puck first and shoots it into the goalie and then the goalie covers it. I think those situations are what commonly happens when no penalty is called. But I honestly don't remember seeing a goalie lunging for the puck and covering it like Bernier did very often.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm also not convinced about the Kessel penalty. On the one replay, it looked like the puck hit the top of the glass on the way down.

I watched this a bunch of times from the two angles CBC had, it's hard to say. The puck was fluttering quite a bit so it's hard to say if it changed direction from hitting the glass, but I don't think it did. Kessel's reaction was pretty telling too.

For me though the interesting thing about that is if the puck didn't hit the glass, is it because Markov collided into the boards which caused the glass to move back a few inches. The timing would have had to have been perfect (and I'm not saying that Markov did it on purpse), but it's certainly possible the glass moved just enough to allow the puck to have gone out.

 

[dappleganger]

How many more bonehead plays from Bernier are we gonna get this year?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I think it's a pretty marginal distinction, since, considering the angle he took to the puck, Bernier still would have gone to cover the puck up with his glove once it got into his body and he still would have clearly had no intention of playing the puck.

And I think that still would have been called a penalty. The distinction I was talking about has everything to do with intent, not execution. If a goalie races for the puck and intends to stop the play, whether by jumping on the puck or just allowing it to come to him from within the faceoff dot, it should be a penalty. And the rulebook 100% supports that.

The only way that's not a penalty is if a goalie lunges to the puck with his stick in order to try pokechecking it away (which is what most goalies do in that situation and is something Bernier has done regularly in the past) and he misses it and the puck goes under him. Or if the player gets to the puck first and shoots it into the goalie and then the goalie covers it. I think those situations are what commonly happens when no penalty is called. But I honestly don't remember seeing a goalie lunging for the puck and covering it like Bernier did very often.

I kind of felt he was charging out to play it as he has before and decided on his way out that his best course of action was to cover it.  If the rule is that it's a penalty, then it's a penalty.  I just honestly didn't for a second think there was a risk of a penalty on the play, and I imagine Bernier likely felt the same.

For me, the case that the rulebook shouldn't consider it a penalty is that it's not a no-risk play, and if the goalie fails to cover it up, it's highly likely to go in the net.  Sort of the opposite of "high-risk/high-reward", like "low risk of screwing it up, but high risk of a failed play ending up in the net".  Anyway, so it goes.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

How many more bonehead plays from Bernier are we gonna get this year?

I'd say take the number of games Bernier starts the rest of the season and multiply that number by 1.