The Athletic - Boston Buckley: The undisciplined penalty that may mark the end of the Bruins’ season

[17of26]

The inconsistent penalty calling in the NHL drives me crazy. There are things that happen dozens of times per game that are NEVER called unless a player gets hurt. Either an action is illegal or it's not. I hate the model of "it's fine unless the other player is hurt".

Two examples of this are crosschecks/hits from behind into the boards and hits long after the puck is gone. Players can do it all game without getting called unless the player they hit happens to get hurt.

During the playoffs, you'll see forwards consistently crashing into defensemen with hits that are a lot later than Ritchie's. As long as no one is hurt, no call.

During puck battles along the boards, you'll see hundreds of forceful cross-checks happening throughout the game. No penalty unless the player that gets cross-checked happens to fall.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The effort against Carolina was not really fine. It was underwhelming and there were several players whose games looked like baked ass. Against Carolina, which is a decent but not great team, it works out. Against a team that is tier up like TB it isn't. The Bruins are just as good as TB, better on a given night. Right now TB is missing their top goal scorer and the D corps they are are rolling out is nothing special. Take away Hedman and it's aboslutely Leafs-level garbage. Bruins are not bringing it, simple as.

Can't agree that they are as good as Tampa, especially with a backup goalie that has developed a blind spot.

Tampa's D is better than that. Sergachev is a star in the making. Cernak is the young muscle. The rest are veterans who can play the simple, hard playoff style. They don't have to be great with their forwards and Vasilevskiy in goal.

 

[BMC]

The Ritchie hit & penalty is not why the Bruins lost that game and are looking at elimination tonight. Not even close. The team hasn't scored or played defense worth a damn since this series began. That's why they are in the position they are in now.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Ritchie hit & penalty is not why the Bruins lost that game and are looking at elimination tonight. Not even close. The team hasn't scored or played defense worth a damn since this series began. That's why they are in the position they are in now.

And have bad goaltending.

Its a miracle they won a game.

 

[RoccoF14]

The Ritchie hit & penalty is not why the Bruins lost that game and are looking at elimination tonight. Not even close. The team hasn't scored or played defense worth a damn since this series began. That's why they are in the position they are in now.

Agreed. I agree with the premise that the B's have taken a lot of bad penalties in this series, but to point the finger only at Ritchie is just wrong. Clifton, McAvoy and even Bergeron have taken some bad penalties this series that you simply can't take.

I'd argue that the cross checking penalty that Cliffy took earlier in the 2nd was the worst of them all. We were absolutely buzzing in the 2nd period of Game 4 until Cliffy takes that penalty. That simply can't happen in that situation.

 

[HumBucker]

I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of Ritchie's hit on Gourde and Paquette's on Kuhlman. NHL said the Ritchie hit was 0.6 seconds after puck release. Yes, it was close to the boards, but so was Paquette's.

 

[KnightofBoston]

Series will be lost because the Bruins thought they could carry their lackadaisical effort from the round robin into the playoffs against a hungry team in Tampa and win.

Well im not sure this is the right take, considering they did play a round, and win in 5 games. But I agree with you that they think they can just play the system and grind out wins. They need way more urgency and puck hungriness





The thing that concerns me though, is Halak. There have been stretches that they have played hungry and urgent, then Halak lets in a goal he should have had. It's a lot harder to play like that when your goalie lets in a goal everytime the opponent gets the puck back for a few minutes and youve been dominating play for a stretch with nothing to show for it

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of Ritchie's hit on Gourde and Paquette's on Kuhlman. NHL said the Ritchie hit was 0.6 seconds after puck release. Yes, it was close to the boards, but so was Paquette's.

Ritchie’s hit was further away from the boards than Paquette’s. In an instance of a hit like that, the closer you are to the boards the less dangerous it typically is.

I thought the hit was just not very smart given the game situation. It was late because Ritchie doesn’t move fast enough to get to the puck carrier on time.

 

[RoccoF14]

I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of Ritchie's hit on Gourde and Paquette's on Kuhlman. NHL said the Ritchie hit was 0.6 seconds after puck release. Yes, it was close to the boards, but so was Paquette's.

Best I could do.

The main difference is Kuhlman still has the puck at his feet when Paquette hits him. Neither of them were from behind and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Paquette hit in my book. That's just good physical hockey.

The Ritchie hit is late, and Gourde was further away from the boards than Kuhlman was.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Ritchie got a penalty. I DO have a problem with the fact that it wasn't called on the ice when it actually happened, and was only called after the review. The only explanation for missing it on the ice was that the puck was so far up the ice that neither ref was looking behind the play when it happened. That said, I still don't know where it says that you can call a penalty based on replay review.

To me, the Ritchie hit is definitely a penalty and the Paquette one isn't. Feel free to disagree if you want. Doesn't much matter now.....

 

[BruinDust]

Well im not sure this is the right take, considering they did play a round, and win in 5 games. But I agree with you that they think they can just play the system and grind out wins. They need way more urgency and puck hungriness





The thing that concerns me though, is Halak. There have been stretches that they have played hungry and urgent, then Halak lets in a goal he should have had. It's a lot harder to play like that when your goalie lets in a goal everytime the opponent gets the puck back for a few minutes and youve been dominating play for a stretch with nothing to show for it

There are very few things in hockey that can demoralize a team more than watching their goaltender consistently allowing goals that he should of saved 99.9 times out of 100.

 

[Dr Hook]

Can't agree that they are as good as Tampa, especially with a backup goalie that has developed a blind spot.

Tampa's D is better than that. Sergachev is a star in the making. Cernak is the young muscle. The rest are veterans who can play the simple, hard playoff style. They don't have to be great with their forwards and Vasilevskiy in goal.

Okay, I'll concede the goalie part. Halak has not been as good as I have expected him to be. That said, I stand by my belief that if the Bruins had been showing up with the team as it was back in the Spring, Halak or not, this series would look a lot different.

 

[BMC]

And have bad goaltending.

Its a miracle they won a game.

I give Halak a pass because he was just thrown into a difficult situation. It's one thing when your #1 goaltender goes down with an injury in practice or a game, another when he unexpectedly leaves the team for whatever reasons.

 

[BMC]

Okay, I'll concede the goalie part. Halak has not been as good as I have expected him to be. That said, I stand by my belief that if the Bruins had been showing up with the team as it was back in the Spring, Halak or not, this series would look a lot different.

Yup. They should have taken the play in much more seriously than they did, I think that definitely impacted their attitude.

 

[HumBucker]

Best I could do.

The main difference is Kuhlman still has the puck at his feet when Paquette hits him. Neither of them were from behind and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Paquette hit in my book. That's just good physical hockey.

The Ritchie hit is late, and Gourde was a little further away from the boards than Kuhlman was.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Ritchie got a penalty. I DO have a problem with the fact that it wasn't called on the ice when it actually happened, and was only called after the review. The only explanation for missing it on the ice was that the puck was so far up the ice that neither ref was looking behind the play when it happened. That said, I still don't know where it says that you can call a penalty based on replay review.

That said I think the Ritchie hit is definitely a penalty and the Paquette one isn't. Feel free to disagree if you want. Doesn't much matter now.....

Thanks! Perfect. Yeah, seeing this, I agree the hit on Kuhlman was not illegal. I disagree that the Ritchie hit was late. Half a second is late? And despite what the pbp guys are saying, it was not from behind. Distance from the boards was the problem there.

Also agree about the review when there was no call on the ice. Maybe that's a major 5-minute, but I think we've also seen that called a minor.

 

[JRull86]

Ritchie's hit should've been a 2 minute minor for interference since it was late, and nothing else.

If he hits Gourde the same way and distance from the boards, but Gourde has the puck, are we even talking about this? No, because it'd be a heavy hard hit from a guy who has 60 pounds on Gourde.

I thought it was utterly ridiculous that it was reviewed into a 5 minute major.

 

[shoulders7]

Ritchie's hit should've been a 2 minute minor for interference since it was late, and nothing else.

If he hits Gourde the same way and distance from the boards, but Gourde has the puck, are we even talking about this? No, because it'd be a heavy hard hit from a guy who has 60 pounds on Gourde.

I thought it was utterly ridiculous that it was reviewed into a 5 minute major.

Right, a 2 minute penalty at worst. But 99% of this board has an irrational hatred for Nick Ritchie so they agree with it.

 

[sarge88]

Ritchie's hit should've been a 2 minute minor for interference since it was late, and nothing else.

If he hits Gourde the same way and distance from the boards, but Gourde has the puck, are we even talking about this? No, because it'd be a heavy hard hit from a guy who has 60 pounds on Gourde.

I thought it was utterly ridiculous that it was reviewed into a 5 minute major.

The bolded is a great point.

If it wouldn't be boarding if the guy had the puck, it shouldn't be boarding if he doesn't. Interference would have been the right call.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

If the refs knew that Gourde would pop back up and play the rest of the game fine, that’s most likely a 2 minute penalty.

Doesn’t change the fact that imo Ritchie is not a smart player. The best “physical” guys are ones that can take the temp of the game and know when to take “liberties” or deliver a borderline hit, and when not to.

I think that physical forwards that can punish opposing players (particularly D on the forecheck) still have a place in the game. Where I think the B’s are missing the boat is thinking that these guys need to be bigger slower guys in the Ritchie and Maroon mold. Those days are gone.

Ideally, I want my Bottom 6 physical guys to be players that are 6’1” or 2” and are 200-210 pounds that can skate and get in on the forecheck. Guys like Paille, Kuraly, etc. Hell, Nordstrom is a way more effective forechecker than Ritchie.

Frederic is not a speed skater, but he’s faster than Ritchie, will stick up for teammates and is a physical kid. You want bangers, develop guys from within like Frederic, Senyshyn, similar instead of trading assets like Heinen, Reilly Smith and others or valuable free agent $ for plugs that can’t play in today’s faster NHL.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Right, a 2 minute penalty at worst. But 99% of this board has an irrational hatred for Nick Ritchie so they agree with it.

There’s nothing “irrational” about it. The guy can’t skate and can’t do what the Bruins supposedly brought him here for (to play a heavy, punishing game, without taking dumb penalties).

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

The whole “find one thing to blame everything on” thing is such a dumb concept.

 

[bp13]

Series will be lost because the Bruins thought they could carry their lackadaisical effort from the round robin into the playoffs against a hungry team in Tampa and win.

IMO, series will be lost because their #1 goalie went home. You can't expect to win a series against top 3 NHL team, which the Bruins also are, with a backup goalie who doesn't even play to that level during the series. We can criticize the top 9 forwards all we want and bemoan lack of secondary scoring, stupid penalties or whatever else, but the series was basically lost when Rask decided to go home. Sure they had a shot if Halak played well given TB lacking a few key pieces, but Halak's been terrible.

 

[BruinDust]

If the refs knew that Gourde would pop back up and play the rest of the game fine, that’s most likely a 2 minute penalty.

Doesn’t change the fact that imo Ritchie is not a smart player. The best “physical” guys are ones that can take the temp of the game and know when to take “liberties” or deliver a borderline hit, and when not to.

I think that physical forwards that can punish opposing players (particularly D on the forecheck) still have a place in the game. Where I think the B’s are missing the boat is thinking that these guys need to be bigger slower guys in the Ritchie and Maroon mold. Those days are gone.

Ideally, I want my Bottom 6 physical guys to be players that are 6’1” or 2” and are 200-210 pounds that can skate and get in on the forecheck. Guys like Paille, Kuraly, etc. Hell, Nordstrom is a way more effective forechecker than Ritchie.

Frederic is not a speed skater, but he’s faster than Ritchie, will stick up for teammates and is a physical kid. You want bangers, develop guys from within like Frederic, Senyshyn, similar instead of trading assets like Heinen, Reilly Smith and others or valuable free agent $ for plugs that can’t play in today’s faster NHL.

I'll be honest I had no idea when the trade was made that Nick Ritchie was as slow and as poor of a skater as he is. I've asked a couple times what folks believe is the reason for his hit totals to drop so drastically after his first two years. Might just simply be a case of the game got faster and Ritchie is anything stayed the same speed, but most likely actually got slower. Just watching a Youtube video of him playing in Peterborough and he looks faster there. Possibly attributed to weight gain. He's listed at 230 but I think he's well over that. Kinda like the rumor that Byfuglien would show up to camp at 260 but by the end of the season he was pushing 300 lbs. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Ritchie was north of 250.

Slow, out-of-shape, lacking hockey IQ, and no role on the 4th line the way Cassidy uses that line defensively. Unless Ritchie decides to hunker down and drop significant weight this "off-season", I think his future in Boston is questionable.

Your spot on though, about drafting and developing these types of guys yourself, rather than waste good assets (like Smith and Heinen) trying to bring someone in from the outside.

Good to see you posting again!

 

[bp13]

I'll be honest I had no idea when the trade was made that Nick Ritchie was as slow and as poor of a skater as he is. I've asked a couple times what folks believe is the reason for his hit totals to drop so drastically after his first two years. Might just simply be a case of the game got faster and Ritchie is anything stayed the same speed, but most likely actually got slower. Just watching a Youtube video of him playing in Peterborough and he looks faster there. Possibly attributed to weight gain. He's listed at 230 but I think he's well over that. Kinda like the rumor that Byfuglien would show up to camp at 260 but by the end of the season he was pushing 300 lbs. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Ritchie was north of 250.

Slow, out-of-shape, lacking hockey IQ, and no role on the 4th line the way Cassidy uses that line defensively. Unless Ritchie decides to hunker down and drop significant weight this "off-season", I think his future in Boston is questionable.

Your spot on though, about drafting and developing these types of guys yourself, rather than waste good assets (like Smith and Heinen) trying to bring someone in from the outside.

Good to see you posting again!

He seems like a slower, less useful version of Matt Beleskey. Which is, obviously, not a good thing.

 

[BruinDust]

He seems like a slower, less useful version of Matt Beleskey. Which is, obviously, not a good thing.

Less useful than Belesky, but yet still more useful than Jimmy Hayes! The bar is low with this one.

 

[mt77850]

IMO, series will be lost because their #1 goalie went home. You can't expect to win a series against top 3 NHL team, which the Bruins also are, with a backup goalie who doesn't even play to that level during the series. We can criticize the top 9 forwards all we want and bemoan lack of secondary scoring, stupid penalties or whatever else, but the series was basically lost when Rask decided to go home. Sure they had a shot if Halak played well given TB lacking a few key pieces, but Halak's been terrible.

I agree, not having Tuukka has been a killer, I don't blame him for leaving but it's clearly had a huge impact on the team. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Halak has let in at least 1 if not 2 or 3 soft goals a game......he has a sub .900 save percentage in the series and not being able to come up with timely saves really hurts. It doesn't let guys like Pastrnak and Krug off the hook for missing wide open nets, but you can't expect to with a series against at top 5 team in the league with your goalie playing like that.