Half-Assed GDT: Blue guys vs. flightless bird guys

[ort]

Watch the replay of the incident. Mikola didn't do crap to rile Crosby up. They were both going at it. Niko gave Crosby a little cross check, the kind you see 100 times in every single game. Crosby gave him a shot back a little harder, Niko gave him a shot back... a little harder, then they started really giving it to each other. If anything Crosby started the escalation. The idea that Mikola was the aggressor or did anything worse than Crosby did is ridiculous. They were both involved and both committed equal infractions. Crosby just ended up with a cut nose.

Two things in this game were complete and total rubbish.

1: The call on Krug during the 4 on 4 following the Crosby/Mikola cross check fest. This is a weak call. This is NOT an NHL penalty. This should never have been called. It was 100% a makeup call and the only reason was that the refs saw a bloodied Crosby and decided they couldn't have that and had to give them some sort of gift. It was ridiculous call. A free 4 on 3 on a silver platter based on a complete and total non-event that isn't even a penalty. Krug pushed over a player with the puck in the crease. You see this happen a dozen times every single game with no call. It was not a penalty. The timing of it was so beneficial to the Pens and the momentum of the game. It was a game changing moment and it was a total gift. It was the league giving special treatment to one of its premiere players. Simple as that. If some random 4th liner got a bloody nose, that call does not get made. If Mikola was the one who ended up being cut, he would not have gotten that makeup call. Crosby got the call because he's Crosby. FULL STOP.

2: What is goaltender interference? Can anyone on the planet answer that question? It's a complete and total mystery. How can anyone make an informed decision on whether to challenge or not when the outcome of every review feels completely and totally random? I've seen interference that was so much more minor, OUTSIDE OF THE PAINT, end up in goals being called off. I've seen goalies get absolutely manhandled and have it called not interference. It's completely arbitrary and seemingly based on nothing. The idea that the entire coaching staff and video team for the Blues felt comfortable having that be looked at, and not having any idea if it would get turned over tells you everything. How can you ever make that call? The rule of having a penalty called against your team is just ridiculous, I know those are the rules and they knew the rules... I get that. But the rule is stupid and bad. It's a bad rule. Especially when goaltender interference is so random that literally no one has any idea what it even is.

I hate being the guy that sits around bitching about the refs. It's such a bad look and whatever, we just have to move on. But this game was ridiculous and we have the right to feel salty about it. It was a total screw job.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Watch the replay of the incident. Mikola didn't do crap to rile Crosby up. They were both going at it. Niko gave Crosby a little cross check, the kind you see 100 times in every single game. Crosby gave him a shot back a little harder, Niko gave him a shot back... a little harder, then they started really giving it to each other. If anything Crosby started the escalation. The idea that Mikola was the aggressor or did anything worse than Crosby did is ridiculous. They were both involved and both committed equal infractions. Crosby just ended up with a cut nose.

Two things in this game were complete and total rubbish.

1: The call on Krug during the 4 on 4 following the Crosby/Mikola cross check fest. This is a weak call. This is NOT an NHL penalty. This should never have been called. It was 100% a makeup call and the only reason was that the refs saw a bloodied Crosby and decided they couldn't have that and had to give them some sort of gift. It was ridiculous call. A free 4 on 3 on a silver platter based on a complete and total non-event that isn't even a penalty. Krug pushed over a player with the puck in the crease. You see this happen a dozen times every single game with no call. It was not a penalty. The timing of it was so beneficial to the Pens and the momentum of the game. It was a game changing moment and it was a total gift.

2: What is goaltender interference? Can anyone on the planet answer that question? It's a complete and total mystery. How can anyone make an informed decision on whether to challenge or not when the outcome of every review feels completely and totally random? I've seen interference that was so much more minor, OUTSIDE OF THE PAINT, end up in goals being called off. I've seen goalies get absolutely manhandled and have it called not interference. It's completely arbitrary and seemingly based on nothing. The idea that the entire coaching staff and video team for the Blues felt comfortable having that be looked at, and not having any idea if it would get turned over tells you everything. How can you ever make that call? The rule of having a penalty called against your team is just ridiculous, I know those are the rules and they knew the rules... I get that. But the rule is stupid and bad. It's a bad rule. Especially when goaltender interference is so random that literally no one has any idea what it even is.

I hate being the guy that sits around bitching about the refs. It's such a bad look and whatever, we just have to move on. But this game was ridiculous and we have the right to feel salty about it. It was a total screw job.

Hey man, I'm with you.

I can tolerate loses. Sometimes the Blues just don't have it. But favoritism pisses me off. We see it with certain players/teams in the league. It's a certainty.

And the GI rule or lack thereof is a sore spot that the league refuses to fix.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Binnington initiated contact. It’s that simple.

 

[BlueOil]

Not being a jerk.

Do you go and post at other team forums after or during a game?

it's allowed though, so why are you gatekeeping and being a jerk to the pens poster?

if the pens poster was a jerk first, i'd get your angle and the mods would probably resolve it before you made all of these remarks. but the pens poster wasn't being a jerk first, so it's just been you being a jerk for no good reason.

haven't seen you go off on GingerPapa for being an outsider, is that next?

 

[Brian39]

Key phrase was “usually”

The Blues are 4-1-2 in their nationally broadcast games so far this year. The 4 wins came against the Knights, Lightning, Stars and Wild. That's a 117 point pace that was accumulated against good teams. We're fine in national games.

 

[Reality Czech]

I don't buy that take.

Crosby complained to the refs. The ice tilted in their favor with the refs. The Blues stopped playing aggressive.

Fair enough. I'm not blaming him for the loss, just saying he may have gone a bit overboard there. Coaches don't like it when players fight when their team is winning and have all the momentum (especially on the road) but I also recognize things get heated sometimes and who doesn't wanna punch Sidney Crosby?

But you are absolutely right that we lost because the refs were terrible and we took our foot off the gas pedal.

 

[Brian39]

Watch the replay of the incident. Mikola didn't do crap to rile Crosby up. They were both going at it. Niko gave Crosby a little cross check, the kind you see 100 times in every single game. Crosby gave him a shot back a little harder, Niko gave him a shot back... a little harder, then they started really giving it to each other. If anything Crosby started the escalation. The idea that Mikola was the aggressor or did anything worse than Crosby did is ridiculous. They were both involved and both committed equal infractions. Crosby just ended up with a cut nose.

Two things in this game were complete and total rubbish.

1: The call on Krug during the 4 on 4 following the Crosby/Mikola cross check fest. This is a weak call. This is NOT an NHL penalty. This should never have been called. It was 100% a makeup call and the only reason was that the refs saw a bloodied Crosby and decided they couldn't have that and had to give them some sort of gift. It was ridiculous call. A free 4 on 3 on a silver platter based on a complete and total non-event that isn't even a penalty. Krug pushed over a player with the puck in the crease. You see this happen a dozen times every single game with no call. It was not a penalty. The timing of it was so beneficial to the Pens and the momentum of the game. It was a game changing moment and it was a total gift. It was the league giving special treatment to one of its premiere players. Simple as that. If some random 4th liner got a bloody nose, that call does not get made. If Mikola was the one who ended up being cut, he would not have gotten that makeup call. Crosby got the call because he's Crosby. FULL STOP.

2: What is goaltender interference? Can anyone on the planet answer that question? It's a complete and total mystery. How can anyone make an informed decision on whether to challenge or not when the outcome of every review feels completely and totally random? I've seen interference that was so much more minor, OUTSIDE OF THE PAINT, end up in goals being called off. I've seen goalies get absolutely manhandled and have it called not interference. It's completely arbitrary and seemingly based on nothing. The idea that the entire coaching staff and video team for the Blues felt comfortable having that be looked at, and not having any idea if it would get turned over tells you everything. How can you ever make that call? The rule of having a penalty called against your team is just ridiculous, I know those are the rules and they knew the rules... I get that. But the rule is stupid and bad. It's a bad rule. Especially when goaltender interference is so random that literally no one has any idea what it even is.

I hate being the guy that sits around bitching about the refs. It's such a bad look and whatever, we just have to move on. But this game was ridiculous and we have the right to feel salty about it. It was a total screw job.

Mikkola threw a gloved punch directly to the face of Crosby that did enough damage to require stitches. How on Earth can you leave that out of your step by step breakdown when it is the exact thing that people are talking about? I agree with you that they were both aggressors. I agree that from a rule enforcement perspective it was the correct decision to just give them each 2 minutes. I agree that gloved punches happen in hockey and this play in no way makes Mikkola a dirty player. And I agree that up to that point neither of them had escalated beyond normal post whistle nonsense. But punching a dude in the face hard enough to require stitches is hands down more egregious than any of the leg hacks or chest/arm cross checks that they were trading. The stitches were almost certainly because he punched his visor onto the bridge of his nose. But that doesn't change the fact that he really tagged him.

It was a stupid decision. We were in control of a road game and Mikkola got baited into doing something that fired up the entire building and motivated one of the best players in the world. It doesn't matter whether Mikkola was "in the right" to take a shot at Crosby. Teams rally when you hurt their best players. That's part of the emotion of hockey. The Pens noticeably woke up. The fans noticeably woke up. Crosby was noticeably better when he returned. Part of being a good NHL player is learning to pick your spots. Unless he has done something egregiously dirty first, punching the opposition's franchise player in the face as hard as you can is a really, really bad decision when you are up 2-0 in their barn midway through the game. That was a veteran captain baiting an inexperienced D man into doing something stupid. It worked. This stuff happens. It is part of the learning process and I'm not going to hold any animosity toward Mikkola so long as he learns from it and doesn't repeat it in the playoffs. Marek repeats a quote fairly often that I completely agree with: "I'd rather try to tame a tiger than paint stripes on a house cat." Mikkola lashed out and made a mistake by getting too aggressive. Long term, I'd rather see that than see him slink away when we need him to get aggressive. It would be an overreaction to punish Mikkola for this or hold it against him. But it was stupid and needs to be a learning moment.

I don't have nearly the issues with the refs that most do. I didn't like the cross check call on Krug, but the puck was right there so I get the ref believing that it was a cross check that impacted a scoring chance. Given the whole "emphasis on cross checking" thing, I understand why that call is made. It was soft, but I don't think it was a pure make up call. I think that call gets made in that situation more often than not in the current NHL.

I think they got the non-goalie-interference call completely right. I wouldn't expect that to be goalie interference in any league. Crosby has every right to cross in front of the crease there toward a loose puck, all the contact is outside the blue paint and Binner's arm outstretches toward the guy crossing the crease. The contact was almost simultaneous to Binner getting his glove on it and I didn't see Crosby deviate from his path/movement to attack Binner's glove. At the time the puck comes loose, I wouldn't say Binner had sufficient control that the whistle should have been blown. There also wasn't enough contact to prevent Binner from playing his position once the puck is loose again. I get why Binner was frustrated. As a goalie, you know you're in your crease and trying to make a play on the puck. I'd have been pissed too. It is up to Berube to see that replay and know that a challenge won't be successful. I didn't think that we had any chance of winning that challenge. Neither did Panger. That should be pretty telling.

All in all, I didn't like the way this game was called. They let a lot of shit go for 30 minutes and then tightened up. I hate when refs do that. But I don't blame the refs for last night. We were noticeably outplayed. We were getting somewhat outplayed for the first half of the game, but had a 3-1 lead because Binner was very good and Desmith wasn't. Then they put in their starter (who played like it), grabbed hold of the momentum and badly outplayed us for the remainder. We were chasing the rest of the night.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Fair enough. I'm not blaming him for the loss, just saying he may have gone a bit overboard there. Coaches don't like it when players fight when their team is winning and have all the momentum (especially on the road) but I also recognize things get heated sometimes and who doesn't wanna punch Sidney Crosby?

But you are absolutely right that we lost because the refs were terrible and we took our foot off the gas pedal.

Some of the momentum is lost when you play on the PK or feel like the ice is tilted against you. But to go all the way the team needs to figure out how to play through those setbacks.

It's telling that Berube complained about the refs. And that Vladi was pissed about it too. Both those guys are pretty straight forward in their thinking. If the Blues play like crap, Chief is the first to say so. Berube isn't a complainer and he doesn't look for preferential treatment. Something obviously wasn't right when you see Berube and Tank acting as they did.

 

[MissouriMook]

This is BS.

The officiating was bad, but Binny initiated contact by sticking out his arm.

And? He was catching the puck, which as far as I can remember is still an integral part of defending the goal. If you go back and look at the still frames from the incident, the contact between Crosby's leg and Binnington's glove happened at the top edge of the crease. Again, incidental contact, but still interfering the goalie's ability to defend his goal while HE was still in his crease. Wave off the goal, assess no penalty, move the game along.

 

[Drubilly]

And? He was catching the puck, which as far as I can remember is still an integral part of defending the goal. If you go back and look at the still frames from the incident, the contact between Crosby's leg and Binnington's glove happened at the top edge of the crease. Again, incidental contact, but still interfering the goalie's ability to defend his goal while HE was still in his crease. Wave off the goal, assess no penalty, move the game along.

Thank you Mook! I was starting to think I remembered the play wrong. I thought Binner was pissed because he caught the puck and had it in his glove UNTIL Crosby hit him.

 

[Reality Czech]

Some of the momentum is lost when you play on the PK or feel like the ice is tilted against you. But to go all the way the team needs to figure out how to play through those setbacks.

It's telling that Berube complained about the refs. And that Vladi was pissed about it too. Both those guys are pretty straight forward in their thinking. If the Blues play like crap, Chief is the first to say so. Berube isn't a complainer and he doesn't look for preferential treatment. Something obviously wasn't right when you see Berube and Tank acting as they did.

For sure, most of those calls were weak. The penalties against Krug and Mikkola were debatable at best and I don't blame the Blues for being pissed. But it was still a winnable game.

Regarding the goalie interference call, I can see both sides of the argument but I gotta say I almost hoped we didn't challenge because at the time I felt the call wasn't gonna go our way. I really didn't wanna risk giving them that extra PP and a chance to take the lead. Oh well, it's tough to beat the hottest team in hockey, an all-time legend in Crosby and the refs all in one night.

 

[Brian39]

And? He was catching the puck, which as far as I can remember is still an integral part of defending the goal. If you go back and look at the still frames from the incident, the contact between Crosby's leg and Binnington's glove happened at the top edge of the crease. Again, incidental contact, but still interfering the goalie's ability to defend his goal while HE was still in his crease. Wave off the goal, assess no penalty, move the game along.

Having part of your body in the crease does not mean that all of your body is considered in the crease. Having your skates/legs/torso in the crease does not give your arms the protection of being "in the crease" when they are extended well outside the border of the crease. As a goalie, if you have active hands that are 18 inches in front of your body and your body is at the top of the crease, your hands don't get protected as in the crease. That's the trade off to playing aggressively at the top of the crease. You have to deal with contact from players not entering your crease.

Binner's ability to move within his crease was not impaired. The contact was incidental and occurred out of the crease. Crosby established and committed to his path moving in front of the crease before Binner began reaching forward outside of his crease. He also has Mikkola draped over him preventing him from moving further away from the crease. Crosby actually starts his path toward the goal down lower and is drifting up toward the point as he is driving the net. Mikkola is trying to establish body position and prevents him from going any higher. Mikkola's legs are straddling Crosby while Mikkola is backing him toward the goal at the time of contact.

Crosby has every right to go to that area of the ice and he started his path there well before the initial shot is taken. He is arriving as the puck gets there. Mikkola prevents him from taking a path higher up and is backing him toward Binner. Crosby still avoids contact within the crease and all contact is incidental. It was absolutely not goalie interference.

 

[ort]

I don't feel like it's even worth discussing the details of the call since we all know there is no rhyme or reason to these calls. There is no consistency. I have literally no idea what is or is not goaltender interference. There is no standard. I've seen these calls go all over the place. I would be 100% fine with not calling this goaltender interference, but I would like to have a good picture in my head of what the rules actually are and how they are applied. Since it is not consistent at all, how can a coach even make the call? It's such a grey area. There is no consistency. We all know we've seen much less get called interference and much more not. It's a total coin toss.

 

[ort]

I still disagree on the Mikola thing. They were both straight up attacking each other. What was he supposed to do? Back down? He was pretty much attacked by Crosby. He was probably thinking, hey, if we both get called, that's a win for my team. I don't think in that moment he was clearly thinking that throwing a jab was a bad idea. It was more of a face wash anyway.

Yeah, I just watched this again... Mikola gave Crosby a little two handed cross check, the kind you see a defenseman give 3-4 times per game. Nothing even close to as penalty, more of a hey, that's enough kind of push deal... Crosby then cross checks him twice, slashes his leg and then Mikola starts giving it back. Crosby jumped him. Crosby started throwing gloved punches at Mikola first. I don't fault Mikala for a dang thing. He did nothing wrong.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

For sure, most of those calls were weak. The penalties against Krug and Mikkola were debatable at best and I don't blame the Blues for being pissed. But it was still a winnable game.

Regarding the goalie interference call, I can see both sides of the argument but I gotta say I almost hoped we didn't challenge because at the time I felt the call wasn't gonna go our way. I really didn't wanna risk giving them that extra PP and a chance to take the lead. Oh well, it's tough to beat the hottest team in hockey, an all-time legend in Crosby and the refs all in one night.

Same thing Yeo did a couple nights ago, except they also scored during the PP.

Terrible challenge. It swung the game. Pissing off Crosby certainly didn’t help.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Same thing Yeo did a couple nights ago, except they also scored during the PP.

Terrible challenge. It swung the game. Pissing off Crosby certainly didn’t help.

I still don't understand the "pissing off Crosby" take.

So Crosby only plays well when he is pissed off?

I was thinking, if Miko scored on that nice shot in the 2nd and the Blues went up 4-1 would we be talking today about not pissing off Miko?

I don't get it.

Crosby is a world class player (and a whiner) and is probably a great person/captain, but he's not the Incredible Hulk.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I still don't understand the "pissing off Crosby" take.

So Crosby only plays well when he is pissed off?

I was thinking, if Miko scored on that nice shot in the 2nd and the Blues went up 4-1 would we be talking today about not pissing off Miko?

I don't get it.

Crosby is a world class player (and a whiner) and is probably a great person/captain, but he's not the Incredible Hulk.

In my opinion, your post is the take that is confusing.

Even a world-class player, like Crosby is allowed to be "off" every so often. He is human. And we all know what happens when humans get pushed.

Your "argument" that Crosby plays better only when pissed off is a strawman. In fact, you didn't even ask a question. You made a faulty statement with a question mark at the end.

Miko woke up a slumbering Crosby. Big mistake.

 

[Brian39]

I still disagree on the Mikola thing. They were both straight up attacking each other. What was he supposed to do? Back down? He was pretty much attacked by Crosby. He was probably thinking, hey, if we both get called, that's a win for my team. I don't think in that moment he was clearly thinking that throwing a jab was a bad idea. It was more of a face wash anyway.

Yes. In a road game you lead 2-0, you don't retaliate when a star is trying to bait you into retaliating. You tie him up and you keep your hands low. You smile and shit talk about how they're throwing a temper tantrum.

Mikkola is half a foot taller than Sid, it shouldn't be all that difficult for him to control that battle without throwing a jab from low to high. It was absolutely not more of a facewash than a punch. It was a punch in response to Crosby trying to stir shit up. I agree that he wasn't thinking that throwing a jab was a bad idea. That doesn't make it a good idea. Moving forward, hopefully now he recognizes that retaliation against a franchise player when your team is fully controlling a game is a bad idea.

 

[Nederlander]

Binnington initiated contact. It’s that simple.

I don't know what you're talking about. Binnington was in his crease and had his glove hand out to defend his goal. How is this him initiating contact?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

In my opinion, your post is the take that is confusing.

Even a world-class player, like Crosby is allowed to be "off" every so often. He is human. And we all know what happens when humans get pushed.

Your "argument" that Crosby plays better only when pissed off is a strawman. In fact, you didn't even ask a question. You made a faulty statement with a question mark at the end.

Miko woke up a slumbering Crosby. Big mistake.

Your response made no sense.

So Crosby can be triggered to play better, so it's best to treat him with kid gloves? What?

 

[ort]

I think hindsight is 20/20 here. We know what happened, but at the moment, I think the only thing going through his head was, hey this dude is legit assaulting me, and hey sweet, if I can get him off the ice for 2 minutes, great.

I think if Mikola didn't retaliate at all, they probably wouldn't have even called Crosby... or if they did, they probably would have taken them both off anyway, even with Mikola doing nothing... because we clearly see how much deference the league gives players like Crosby. Mikola was probably thinking, hey, I may as well get my money's worth and make sure he gets off the ice...

I mean, really it all happened so fast I doubt he had time to think at all. He was probably thinking, "holy hell, I'm being attacked... what the hell?!????!???!!!!"

 

[Brian39]

I still don't understand the "pissing off Crosby" take.

So Crosby only plays well when he is pissed off?

I was thinking, if Miko scored on that nice shot in the 2nd and the Blues went up 4-1 would we be talking today about not pissing off Miko?

I don't get it.

Crosby is a world class player (and a whiner) and is probably a great person/captain, but he's not the Incredible Hulk.

I don't know what to tell you if you don't believe that elite athletes are sometimes pushed to play better by emotions. I have never heard a pro athlete say that they don't feed off emotion and I've heard countless athletes say that they do. "Playing with a chip on your shoulder" is a pretty common phrase in sports that is exactly about an athlete using slights/setbacks/adversity/pain/cheap shots as fuel to improve performance. Anger is a hell of a motivator. Adrenaline is a hell of performance enhancer in athletics. Getting popped in the nose and hearing thousands of people transition from mostly quiet to fully engaged triggers a large wave of both.

An 82 game season is a long grind. There isn't a player in the history of the game that has brought their A game through every game of an 82 game season. It is incredibly difficult to get up for that many games and be fully engaged every night to play at 100% of your ability. It is extremely easy to sleepwalk through a Wednesday night game against a non-Conference opponent in the middle third of the season while your team sits in a comfortable standings spot.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

If Crosby didn’t start bleeding and need stitches, Mikkola’s decisions probably wouldn’t have been scrutinized so much. It affected the refs a lot, to my view.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Don’t we talk about how much better Vladi and Parayko are when they’re pissed off? Why the double standard for Crosby?

His play amplified after that dust up with Mikkola, and that’s a fact. We couldn’t stop their top line from producing scoring chances after that.

 

[Brian39]

I think hindsight is 20/20 here. We know what happened, but at the moment, I think the only thing going through his head was, hey this dude is legit assaulting me, and hey sweet, if I can get him off the ice for 2 minutes, great.

I think if Mikola didn't retaliate at all, they probably wouldn't have even called Crosby... or if they did, they probably would have taken them both off anyway, even with Mikola doing nothing... because we clearly see how much deference the league gives players like Crosby. Mikola was probably thinking, hey, I may as well get my money's worth and make sure he gets off the ice...

I mean, really it all happened so fast I doubt he had time to think at all. He was probably thinking, "holy hell, I'm being attacked... what the hell?!????!???!!!!"

Which is a rookie mistake. The time to get your money's worth is not when you are up 2-0 on the road. You take a number and get your money's worth in the future. If Mikkola is going to have a long NHL career (which I think he's got a decent shot at) then he will have plenty of chances to pay Crosby back in games that have either gotten out of reach or in front of our fans when we are looking for a spark.

Prior to his punch, there were no negative team outcomes for the Blues. They either take both, take neither or just take Sid. All of those are favorable outcomes in a game you control. The mindset needs to be risk mitigation at that point in the game. Nothing that could get the crowd back into it. Nothing that could give them a PP. Nothing that could change the momentum. You don't try to get your money's worth there. You let Sid take the chance of an offensive one penalty and if that doesn't get called then you move on and continue keeping the crowd out of it. No good comes from escalating bullshit when your beating a team on the road.

Again, I'm not mad at the kid. I don't want to see this impact his ice time. Just give him the "take a number and get him later instead of taking an unnecessary risk in that moment" talk and move on. And end that conversation with a smirk and a joke about giving a HoF stitches. This is a learning moment where they can acknowledge the mistake but still have the team cheering about it during a film session.