The Rangers won, then lost a game Saturday night that seemed to have more subplots come out of it than should rightly be the case in regular season, shoot out loss. The 3-2 defeat made the Rangers, 2-2-4 in their last eight, all four losses, as evidenced by the record, coming in the shootout. Remember those days when New York was all but unbeatable in the shootout?
Where should I start? I guess let's work backwards, starting with the shootout, first the overturned call and the shootout in general:
The overturned goal:
The Rule is 24.2. which states: Procedure - The Referee shall ask to have announced over the public address system the name of the player designated by him or selected by the team entitled to take the shot (as appropriate). He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee (by blowing his whistle), play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper. The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete.
The bolded piece is the key, since it's clear that Boyle double-hit the puck, the second coming after it hit the post. That is not in dispute. As Russ Cohen wrote today and as many of you have commented, the delay in the call last night is the key. I am all of getting the call right, however, my questions, and maybe one of you has the answer, are: do all shootout goals get reviewed, if so, why did it take so long, and if not, who informed Toronto to conduct the review?
Both sides were adversely affected with having to come back on the ice. Pittsburgh obviously handled it better than New York, with Brandon Sutter scoring and Marc-Andre Fleury making a stop while Henrik Lundqvist and Rick Nash weren't up to the task. However, waiting until both sides leave the ice and the three stars are announced seems ridiculous if all goals are to be reviewed immediately.
The shootout itself.
The shootout has been a topic of healthy debate ever since it came to being. The fan base loves to and loathes it at the same time. The hard core can't stand it because it turns the end of a game into a skills competition while the casual fan loves it because it turns the end of the game into a skills competition.
If your team wins a shootout, you feel as if you stole a point. If you lose it, you bemoan the loss pif a point, especially if you rallied to force overtime and the shootout. The NHL has shown no clear inclination to make a change here, despite trying out 3-on-3 overtime.
So what to do? The two main ideas tossed out are the 3-on-3 and the 3,2,1 scoring format. I personally don't love the 3-on-3, because it really doesn't mirror the game. When would you ever see a 3-on-3? If going that route, then extend the 4-on-4 for five more minutes, forcing coaches to use more players and not just rotate a few lines, thereby making it more like the 60 minutes the teams just played. If the teams don't settle it, then revert back to ties, but at least there has been a realistic attempt at winning the game.
The 3-2-1 option is another one I wouldn't mind. It rewards trying to win a game in regulation, but awarding an additional point. Late in the season, you will have teams fighting for playoff berths pulling a goalie at times to get the extra point. I understand the view that going that route still rewards a team for making it to the shootout, but that's similar to if there was a tie in years gone by. If that is something that's distasteful, then see the prior solution because not giving a point for a shootout loss seems less fair than awarding one.
The referees.
If people aren't reading Rick Carpinello's post-game blog, usually posted around 3:30 AM after a game, they are missing great insight. What he wrote last night and what was commented on earlier in the blog is dead on. Carp wrote:
And while I, again, don’t blame anybody for how it ended—because they got it right—some of the stuff that happened during the game was pretty poorly officiated. Though, I must say first, the officials made the correct non-call on Evgeni Malkin’s hit on Dan Girardi, made the correct penalty on the Chris Kreider breakaway. Made most of the correct calls all night, though they missed a few (Malkin’s spear on Carl Hagelin. What bugged me most was the refs allowing Sidney Crosby to intimidate them. He yapped at them at the end of the first until they warned him, with a whistle, to leave the ice. Later, when he didn’t get a call, he slammed his stick against the glass while hollering at the referee. No call.
5) Crosby is the only player in the NHL who can show up a ref like that and not get called for it. So @seamusmcduff tweeted me, asking what Paul Stewart would have done. He copied @PaulStewart22, and when I replied that Stewie would have slapped him with a two or a 10, Stewart replied “I tossed Gretz. Mario and Yzerman when they pushed it too far. Crosby would be no different.” How great is Stewie? That’s why, even though he was a character and perhaps a bit liberal with the application of the rulebook, I think he was a better referee than the one who was inducted into the Hall of Fame this week
11) As for the Malkin spear on Hagelin, I can only imagine what the Pittsburgh media might have thought if the roles were reversed. I also wonder what would happen if it was Dan Carcillo who banged his stick on the glass, or if it was John Moore who speared Malkin. And I wonder why Hagelin doesn’t take a dive after the spear and force a call to be made
For every call the officials get right, they miss two more. The Malkin hit on Girardi was legal and to me, not even borderline offensive. It was a hockey play, one that should never be outlawed even though it was a hard hit that could have caused an injury. Girardi had his head down and Malkin was going full steam. He hit him in the chest, not in the chin or the head, the chest, making it legal. In addition, I would love to say the Kreider breakaway should have been a penally shot, but that too would be having the Rangers' blinders on. They had a chance to score on the PP, and failed to do so, costing them the game.
Despite the two right calls, the missed ones are what chaps Rangers' fans and should chap fans of the NHL. The Malkin spear should have been called and wasn't. It's amazing that despite referees that should be trained to see plays like that, they missed. I am not getting into if a call should be a major or not, because if you miss the call to begin win, the severity of it is cleared missed. But that may not be the most egregious one.
Crosby has a history of going to the line and over it. I understand the league is buffeted by the superstars. Fans comes to see them and the league hypes them. Crosby is poster boy #1 in that regard. However, if the inmates run the asylum, you have a big issue. Stars deserve a bit of latitude but when that rope is up, a call should be made or the integrity of the league suffers. Last night, once again, that rope was used up early and yet nothing was called. It's amazing the garbage he gets away with. I know this won't win me many fans amongst my Rangers brethren, but I am a Crosby fan, due to his talent. But when the refs turn a blind eye to what should transpire on the ice, regardless of the talent of that player, then the league as a whole suffers.
Inconsistency.
Once again, the Rangers played up to the level of their competition. That would be great if they were already in the playoffs, but in an 82-game season, it's a recipe for disaster. The constant inconsistency has to be changed to become constantly consistent. I realize that facing a Pittsburgh gets the juices going, and it may have more meaning due to it being a division game, but you can't then follow that up with a stinker, like against Edmonton, where they completely fail to show up. If you want to be viewed and elite team, or one that at worse will make the playoffs, cleaning up that inconstancy will be key moving forward. Of course, with Tamp coming in Monday, getting up for the game should not be an issue.
Good and bad.
Lundqvist was both good and bad. The first goal he game up short side to Blake Comeau clearly is the bad. But he rebounded to be strong the rest of the game, especially when he stoned Crosby early and Kris Letang late in the OT.
Boyle had a major whiff, giving up the puck to Malkin for the tying goal. He almost was the shootout hero. Beyond that, you see the difference he makes on the power play with his patience, his passing and his shot. It will take Boyle a while to get fully back in the groove, but it's very evident the difference he can make when he is on the ice.
Kevin Hayes is getting better daily. I would love to see him with Carl Hagelin and Anthony Duclair, as I believe that line would be extremely dangerous offensively. In addition, that would allow Lee Stempniak to move down to the fourth line with Dominic Moore. I thought Tanner Glass was good last night and could see either him or Jesper Fast remaining in the lineup, depending on which one can forecheck and help turn a game with a big shift like the fourth line used to do.
Tampa Bay in on Monday, anyone on that team that looks familiar?
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»