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

[Xerloris]

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.

It's absolutely not a penalty but you can't run into a goalie and make him drop a puck and then score, inside or outside of the crease. It should have been deemed no goal and had a face off with no penalty since it was incidental contact.

 

[sfvega]

Binnington initiated contact. It’s that simple.

I think so too. Sucks, but it is what it is. When Hellebuyck was in his crease and infamously reached out of it and was then impeded from making a save, we were all for it. Kinda the same deal here. I think the challenge there was so much more important to the momentum than the tying goal itself. The game was completely even up until that goal, it was incredibly uneven the second the Pens went on that PP. It's SUCH a disadvantage, I would rather we didn't challenge at all at that point unless it's something 100% definitive and not open to interpretation.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Berube said that Crosby’s foot was in the crease. I haven’t seen that view, but apparently that’s what he believed when he decided to challenge.

 

[Brian39]

It's absolutely not a penalty but you can't run into a goalie and make him drop a puck and then score, inside or outside of the crease. It should have been deemed no goal and had a face off with no penalty since it was incidental contact.

This is incorrect. That is absolutely not the written rule nor the spirit of the goalie interference rule. From Rule 69:

"Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact...The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player." Italics are mine.

The rule explains that the primary focus is to protect the goalie within the crease and creates limited situations where contact outside the crease can be deemed goalie interference. It is absolutely untrue to say that you can't run in to a goalie outside the crease and have the goal count. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule.

You've acknowledged that this was incidental contact. That means that any perceived reasonable effort to avoid such contact makes it a good goal. He has no ability to create more distance between himself and Binner. He had body position on Mikkola to drive the front of the net and then Mikkola prevented him from being able to slide further away from the crease. There isn't a ref in the league who would say that Crosby's only reasonable path is to slam the brakes and avoid the net front area at all. Making a reasonable effort to avoid contact does not mean that you have to avoid driving the net. You can't use a stationary D man in the spot you wanted to go to as an excuse to just plow the goalie. But when you gain body position on a D man and drive the net (outside of the crease through a spot that the goalie hasn't established position at), that D man then eliminating your avenue to avoid contact with the goalie is on them, not the forward.

If Mikkola isn't there at all then I think you can say that Crosby would have been expected to drift higher out to avoid contact. There is a reasonable path to avoid the contact without fully abandoning an offensive attack. You can still screen and be in position for a prime scoring chance. But with Mikkola closing the available space after Crosby began his drive, you can't say that Crosby was expected to simply not go to the front of the net area (while remaining out of the crease).

 

[ChicagoBlues]

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?

And by sticking out his glove to play the puck he opens himself to contact.

Donut Koharski said the determining factor is initiation of contact. Binny's glove was in Crosby's right-of-way. He didn't attempt to hit Crosby (active initiation), but Binny did passively initiate contact by putting his glove into Crosby's right-of-way.

That's how I look at it.

We have different views. Big deal.

It was not just a bad challenge, it was a momentum-swinging bad challenge.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Your response made no sense.

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

That's weird. Sorry, bud, but I don't know how to speak illogical, hyperbolic, sentence-question language.

That said, the Crosby trigger thing is simple, basic human psychology. Like 101 kinda shit.

 

[Xerloris]

This is incorrect. That is absolutely not the written rule nor the spirit of the goalie interference rule. From Rule 69:

"Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact ...The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player." Italics are mine.

The rule explains that the primary focus is to protect the goalie within the crease and creates limited situations where contact outside the crease can be deemed goalie interference. It is absolutely untrue to say that you can't run in to a goalie outside the crease and have the goal count. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule.

You've acknowledged that this was incidental contact. That means that any perceived reasonable effort to avoid such contact makes it a good goal. He has no ability to create more distance between himself and Binner. He had body position on Mikkola to drive the front of the net and then Mikkola prevented him from being able to slide further away from the crease. There isn't a ref in the league who would say that Crosby's only reasonable path is to slam the brakes and avoid the net front area at all. Making a reasonable effort to avoid contact does not mean that you have to avoid driving the net. You can't use a stationary D man in the spot you wanted to go to as an excuse to just plow the goalie. But when you gain body position on a D man and drive the net (outside of the crease through a spot that the goalie hasn't established position at), that D man then eliminating your avenue to avoid contact with the goalie is on them, not the forward.

If Mikkola isn't there at all then I think you can say that Crosby would have been expected to drift higher out to avoid contact. There is a reasonable path to avoid the contact without fully abandoning an offensive attack. You can still screen and be in position for a prime scoring chance. But with Mikkola closing the available space after Crosby began his drive, you can't say that Crosby was expected to simply not go to the front of the net area (while remaining out of the crease).

The bolded is mine and explains perfectly well why it should have been no goal.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

That's weird. Sorry, bud, but I don't know how to speak illogical, hyperbolic, sentence-question language.

That said, the Crosby trigger thing is simple, basic human psychology. Like 101 kinda shit.

Thankfully, Miko doesn't care. He will go toe-to-toe with anyone. I like that.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

And by sticking out his glove to play the puck he opens himself to contact.

Donut Koharski said the determining factor is initiation of contact. Binny's glove was in Crosby's right-of-way. He didn't attempt to hit Crosby (active initiation), but Binny did passively initiate contact by putting his glove into Crosby's right-of-way.

That's how I look at it.

We have different views. Big deal.

It was not just a bad challenge, it was a momentum-swinging bad challenge.

I didn't think it was GI, either, for the very reasons both you and Brian39 mention. The contact was incidental, Binnington extending his arm and glove was the initiating event, Crosby was outside of the crease, and he was hemmed into the path he was taking. The case that Crosby could have avoided Binnington's arm/glove would be a lot stronger if Mikkola was not almost checking Crosby into Binnington when it happened.......not unlike what happened when Mikkola was called for GI.

The only real difference was Mikkola was in the crease for his, but that should not have been GI, either. That one is the call I had heartburn with.

I was never sure if Binnington's reaction was to the fact his glove was contacted or that his stick got hung up in skates. Problem was it if twas the latter, it looked like they were Mikkola's skates.

Then there was the challenge. If, as SY said, Berube thought he saw Crosby's skate in the crease, it makes sense. It makes no sense otherwise. Being on our heels, severely outplayed at that point, and having just given up the tying goal, to risk immediately going on the PK makes no sense except for the skate in the crease thought. I saw no angle that he was even close to that, but I am not in a mad dash trying to see a replay on a tablet, either.

We could not stay out of the box after the challenge. Bozak's hold was not the brightest play I have ever seen, especially given the game situation. They said on TV that Matheson may have deserved a diving penalty on the same play, but that would have been a gutsy call.

Krug's cross check in the 2nd was a weak call, but given the ref's angle, I understand it. As was said earlier, that call gets made more times than not.

I actually got to see all this game down here. We were outplayed most of the game, but had a chance to pull a "first period game seven" by coming out of it with a lead and deflating the opponent. After the Mikkola-Crosby dust-up that changed, and it really changed when Jarry entered the game. We did very little after that, and I was hoping the time would run off Big Ben before the wheels came off and we could steal two points. Obviously, I did not get my wish.

 

[Brian39]

The bolded is mine and explains perfectly well why it should have been no goal.

Look how far away Crosby is from the crease at the point of contact and how he has no space to go further away because Mikkola is backing him to the goal.

It is ludicrous to say that there was no reasonable effort made to avoid contact. The reasonable effort is that Crosby adjusted his path to stay as far away from the crease as he could toward the defender. Binner then reached directly into his path to try and catch a puck and they tangled. The only way Crosby could have avoided contact here would have been to slam on the brakes and avoid the net front at all. That is an insane expectation and in no way what the rule intends.

 

[MissouriMook]

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.

It doesn't change the fact that the GI standard was changed a number of years ago for exactly this kind of situation - i.e. the skater was not in the wrong but the goalie was still denied the opportunity to defend the goal via incidental contact. That's all I'm saying. Crosby was in fair ice, but Binny wasn't wandering in his attempt to stop the puck. It's pretty much a "shit happens" scenario where the officials are given the latitude (by the GI standard adjustment I have been referring to) to basically retroactively blow the play dead when the goalie lost the opportunity to defend the goal and wave off the goal with no penalty to the offense. It is my opinion that if this were someone like Blueger or Rust, the goal would have been overturned, but that the officials didn't apply this standard because it was Crosby that scored the goal. I also feel like the challenge rules force the officials too far in the direction of letting things like this go and allowing the offended team to challenge, but the punishment (the DOG penalty as opposed to the old way where you lost your timeout) is now too punitive for them to take that position.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Look how far away Crosby is from the crease at the point of contact and how he has no space to go further away because Mikkola is backing him to the goal.

It is ludicrous to say that there was no reasonable effort made to avoid contact. The reasonable effort is that Crosby adjusted his path to stay as far away from the crease as he could toward the defender. Binner then reached directly into his path to try and catch a puck and they tangled. The only way Crosby could have avoided contact here would have been to slam on the brakes and avoid the net front at all. That is an insane expectation and in no way what the rule intends.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your argument if that was my experience with the league's standard here. But I've seen them call all kinds of things, and NOT call all kinds of things. I recall Jake Allen getting sandwiched by two Bruins and sliding about 8 feet out of the crease, and the goal standing. Even in the same game, the Mikkola call was pretty ridiculous.

If Binnington/"any goalie" had his arm extended and caught the puck prior to contact, and then Crosby/"any skater" hits him and knocks the puck out of the glove....I don't understand how that play can continue.

But I'm disappointed Berube challenged the call, and more disappointed the team didn't sack up and kill the penalty.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

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.

lol right? I talk about Angry Binnington like he's an entirely separate person.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Also - for those of you whining about the call - there's a pretty good Athletic article that Sean Mcindoe breaks down what generally is and what generally isn't GI. I've found it to be quite helpful and by using that article as a guide, this isn't GI. Binny's arm/hand is way outside the crease. The player can't TRY to nuke his hand in that case, but he also doesn't need to completely avoid it either. Think if a goalie was reaching behind the goal to catch a puck midair from a flip play. If a player slashes at his hand, or clearly changes direction to come into contact with his hand, then that's GI. But if the player is skating behind the net anyway and he collides with the glove, it's not GI.

I get that people are all upset about the reffing and all that, but it was the right call.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Whoops tried to edit out a period and instead replied to my own message. That'll teach me to proofread!

 

[BlueDream]

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.

This is not a realistic take. Look at how hard Crosby was hacking and whacking him, and put yourself in that position and tell me you think you would just back down and skate away and get him back another time (we only play Pittsburgh twice a season and Mikkola's future in the NHL is still up in the air, so there probably wouldn't have been as many opportunities as you are insinuating). I mean, maybe if you're a soft player like Robert Thomas you would let it go, but we're talking about Mikkola, a player whose physicality and aggressiveness in front of the net is one of his bigger strengths and something a lot of our other d-men lack.

You would have a point if Crosby is the one who goaded Mikkola into the only penalty in a 2-0 game. THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Mikkola for Crosby is a trade off that literally benefits the Blues. Why are we giving Pittsburgh credit for letting that light a fire under them, while simultaneously not blaming the rest of the Blues roster for showing absolutely no fight and getting dominated afterwards? Your young defenseman just showed some snarl to make life rough on ofe of the best players in the league, took him off the ice for a couple shifts, and it's his fault the tide turned?

Luckily I think Berube and the coaching staff would disagree with you because that's just a terrible precedent to make. "Hey guys, if we're winning, you can just go ahead and let the other team's best players push you around because we definitely don't want to poke the bear and make them dominate us."

No. That's not hockey. That would be soft bullshit. You play good players even harder, not the other way around. That's why McDavid came out and complained that he gets hacked and whacked a lot and doesn't think he gets enough calls. Because other teams are going to do what they can to make life rough on him, which is the only possible way to slow him down...by, essentially, injuring him. If he's healthy, you're not stopping him.

 

[Xerloris]

Look how far away Crosby is from the crease at the point of contact and how he has no space to go further away because Mikkola is backing him to the goal.

It is ludicrous to say that there was no reasonable effort made to avoid contact. The reasonable effort is that Crosby adjusted his path to stay as far away from the crease as he could toward the defender. Binner then reached directly into his path to try and catch a puck and they tangled. The only way Crosby could have avoided contact here would have been to slam on the brakes and avoid the net front at all. That is an insane expectation and in no way what the rule intends.

I have seen what Crosby can do on his skates, he easily could have fully avoided Binnington if he wanted and I am not saying he should have, as he did not cause injury but he made no effort at all to avoid contact and as per the rules it should have been no goal.

This is not a realistic take. Look at how hard Crosby was hacking and whacking him, and put yourself in that position and tell me you think you would just back down and skate away and get him back another time (we only play Pittsburgh twice a season and Mikkola's future in the NHL is still up in the air, so there probably wouldn't have been as many opportunities as you are insinuating). I mean, maybe if you're a soft player like Robert Thomas you would let it go, but we're talking about Mikkola, a player whose physicality and aggressiveness in front of the net is one of his bigger strengths and something a lot of our other d-men lack.

You would have a point if Crosby is the one who goaded Mikkola into the only penalty in a 2-0 game. THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Mikkola for Crosby is a trade off that literally benefits the Blues. Why are we giving Pittsburgh credit for letting that light a fire under them, while simultaneously not blaming the rest of the Blues roster for showing absolutely no fight and getting dominated afterwards? Your young defenseman just showed some snarl to make life rough on ofe of the best players in the league, took him off the ice for a couple shifts, and it's his fault the tide turned?

Luckily I think Berube and the coaching staff would disagree with you because that's just a terrible precedent to make. "Hey guys, if we're winning, you can just go ahead and let the other team's best players push you around because we definitely don't want to poke the bear and make them dominate us."

No. That's not hockey. That would be soft bullshit. You play good players even harder, not the other way around. That's why McDavid came out and complained that he gets hacked and whacked a lot and doesn't think he gets enough calls. Because other teams are going to do what they can to make life rough on him, which is the only possible way to slow him down...by, essentially, injuring him. If he's healthy, you're not stopping him.

I'm so thankful to have Berune and Ott as coaches. Our team has some balls and are allowed to be aggressors. It just really seemed like under Hitch that even Reaves had his balls kept in Hitches purse.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Is it bad that I don't care about the GI anymore? Suck it up, put your big boy skates on, and beat the Caps tomorrow night. Let's Go Blues.

 

[i aint Dunn yet]

The whole: "Miko is terrible, he awoke a sleeping giant" take is all over the internet. It's dumb.

Miko did his job but came up short because he doesn't get preferential treatment by the NHL reffing crews.

i just dont get it ... if you sat there and hacked and wacked me .. you should expect a punch in the face

 

[ChicagoBlues]

i just dont get it ... if you sat there and hacked and wacked me .. you should expect a punch in the face

Of course! I am all for Niko's bullying of Crosby, but the Blues should have to be prepared for the reaction. I think Mikkola did the right thing to physically rough up Crosby. Who cares who it is? HOWEVER................there are consequences. We simply have to be smarter about it and be ready for the incoming onslaught.

I think I'm just repeating myself.

 

[Ranksu]

The whole: "Miko is terrible, he awoke a sleeping giant" take is all over the internet. It's dumb.

This +1

What if Pens wouldn't win?

Mikkola stand up would have been genius?

Blaming one man for lost in mind-blowing.

If Mikkola is paid like top2 dmen ~7mill.$ AAV then yes it's correct to criticize him, but as a 7th or 8th dmen playing heaviest opponent and paid AHL money is f***ing laughable.

Maybe it's showing how bad our heaviest paid dmen are compare to Mikkola.

 

[i aint Dunn yet]

Of course! I am all for Niko's bullying of Crosby, but the Blues should have to be prepared for the reaction. I think Mikkola did the right thing to physically rough up Crosby. Who cares who it is? HOWEVER................there are consequences. We simply have to be smarter about it and be ready for the incoming onslaught.

I think I'm just repeating myself.

when the shit gets real cindy will be watching with the rest of us ....

 

[Linkens Mastery]

when the shit gets real cindy will be watching with the rest of us ....

Didn't 'Cindy" win back to back cups and one during his rookie season all within the past 15 season. Come on bud, we're better than that.

 

[Renard]

I am very disappointed that the Blues lost the game, with Pitt starting their back-up goalie and no Malkin. Pittsburgh has a better team than I thought.

As far as the Mikkola-Crosby dust up, I say the referees protect stars. I remember when Orr was in his prime with Boston, it seemed to me that whenever he was knocked to the ice, the referee's arms would go up.

Mikkola will learn from this.

 

[i aint Dunn yet]

Didn't 'Cindy" win back to back cups and one during his rookie season all within the past 15 season. Come on bud, we're better than that.

meh .. the last game was obnoxious ....i hear ya