Drawing Penalties: The Illegitimate Child of Offensive Play

When you live  Boston series for a few days in a row, you really get the sense of living in a completely different world from the opposing fanbase. Besides the difference in player drafting and development philosophies, it's the complete divergence on what is hockey and what is not.

To the Bruins, there should be no penalties. Their players know the rules and that should be enough. Let them be the ones to interpret how things can be taken -- given the game situation. The Canadiens believe quite firmly in penalties and are happy to derive strategies with the fact-of-NHL-life at the centre.

Carbonneau vs. Subban

One of the long-running problems with the Montreal Canadiens is the franchise's impossible association with its past. 24 championships from a time where championships were easier to come by has come again and again to haunt the organization throughout.

Not least among the component problems there is that players once part of such championships take on the belief that championships are easy, and if everyone would just take their advice, they'd tell the team how to get back at multi-year runs. I'm not sure if that comes from honest belief or verbal diarrhea, but whatever it is, RDS's fatal requirement for 12 daily hours of hockey commentary leads the conversation to places that are not useful for the current group of players trying to deal with games every other day.

Game #13 Remember, Remember The 5th of November, Habs Take Lessons From Rangers Game

Details

Date: 5/11/2011
Opponent: Rangers
Location: New York

Loss: 3-5

Habs Goalie: Price (L)
Opposition Goalie: Lundqvist (W)

Habs goalscorers: Pacioretty, Kostitsyn, Gionta
Opposition goalscorers: Christensen, Girardi, Del Zotto, Richards, Callahan (EN)

Play of the game

It ended with a slick passing play and a fairly straightforward tap in (that should happen more often). I can only imagine how this play began, perhaps: Cunneyworth: :Hey Jacques, have you ever thought about trying Andrei Kostitsyn on the PP?". Prior to this game, Kostitsyn was roughly equal to Mathieu Darche in PP time. This despite being among the best forwards for nearly every game since the beginning of the season, and proving in the past that he could score on the PP. Recognizing the passive triangle defence was a good catch by the coaching team, and placing the better equipped Kostitsyn to man it was also good. It may well have been a mistake in deployment looking back, actually, because strangely Andrei didn't get back on the PP again after that.

Dome hockey team

The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the dome

Forwards

Erik Cole - Game Puck
Bear with me. The Habs found themselves behind by 3 goals about a quarter of the way through the game. They knew by that point, the refs would not be handing their favours to them (penalty for stopping in front of goalie?). This wasn't going to be a normal game where the normal gameplan would unfold as the past four. To me, Cole recognised this first and ended up being one of only a few who looked beyond lucky bounces to get back. He didn't score a goal or get an assist, but he got the two best chances made from nothing that didn't go in.

Max Pacioretty
Besides ideas, a team behind needs opportunism and instinct to claw back such a big lead. Pacioretty played that role again in this one. Gionta's shot was a brilliant read of a goalie, but it took a player in high form to ensure he'd be in the sweet spot to pounce. He did it a few more times in the game too. 7 shots in all.

Brian Gionta
A last gasp goal and an amazing shot pass are enough to get Gionta recognised here. His play in the crease was also pivotal, as his penalty drawn led to the 5-on-3 and probably the play of the game. I'd have liked more creativity from the captain, but it's hard to ask for everything from the guy who essentially prepared all the goals.

Defencemen

Josh Gorges
It wasn't that bad a defensive game for the Habs. But there were a lot of little goofs that ended up costing the team. In general, Josh Gorges looked least likely to give up something too dangerous and made his forays into the offensive zone with the finest calculation.

Hal Gill
Because he was on Gaborik duty, he gets more leeway than others. I should say that generally this year, I think Gill has been worse than last year. I think placing him with Diaz is a big misread of what Gill's role on the team can be. However, in this game, he did well. He wasn't on for any goals against, including 8.5 minutes short-handed. It was a sort of Gill style night on D, lots of battles conceded to control the front of the net area.

Goaltender

Carey Price
We'll call this giving the benefit of the doubt. 4 goals against is not good. First though considering the circumstances it was more like 3 goals, that 5-on-3 would never happen again with semi-competent refs (oh wait, this is still the NHL, I guess it will happen then, probably next game). Then, considering the defence that led to the goals, we could point to a couple of things out of the goalie's control. It was still a plain game from Carey, but I feel that's because the rest of the time he was plainly good in his usual way.

Comments

Remember, remember the 5th of November as they say. I thought this game could be one for the archives and one to review when things get real.

Lesson 1:
Don't count on the refs. Sometimes the refs are going to miss calls, sometimes they are going to err on the side of the opposition. Once it happens, there's no reason to dwell on it. More importantly, recognise that you'll have to do something other than fall over and await the PP to get back into the game. Also recognise when the refs are touchy and back off on the snowing the goalie.

Lesson 2:
It takes effort to get scoring chances. I'm not really talking about "scoring chances" like the ones defined as any shot weak or strong from a defined area of the ice. But scoring chances, the ones that look like they could go in, even to the opposing goalie. As I mentioned Cole got a few because he poured on effort at the right time, Pacioretty got a goal because Gionta remembered to shoot low. It takes more effort from behind. As it should.

Lesson 3:
The third period is long, but not that long. A third goal did come from some pressure, but far too late. Until that point, the third largely looked like a long wait for a happy bounce. If you're behind by two to start the third, most times you'll lose. With this in mind, the pressure should look to last as long as the twenty minutes.


I'm sure there are more lessons. But to this group of slow learners, I think 3 learning objectives are quite sufficient. Remember how you didn't win and why, remember what worked and how it looked for a time like the come back was on, remember to try not to play the whole first period a man down. Then forget points left on the table and move onto the next task.

It's Amazing What Gets Written

If you haven't heard already, you'll be hearing from elsewhere soon. Blogger mc79 of the Edmonton Oilers stats fraternity has written an expose on Colin Campbell and his favourite and least favourite NHL players.

The piece may be interesting if it's picked up by the media (or even if it isn't) because of the answers Mr. Campbell will have to provide. We'll keep an eye.

Anyway, I am not qualified to pick up that ball and run with, so I leave you in mc79's able hands if you so wish. But as always, I like to take a sidelong glance at these issues and see if there's anything else.

Our investigative blogger friend mentioned as his source the Canadian Legal Information Institute (or CanLII). Not news to lawyers, (I'm sure, but to the rest of us perhaps. Searching the engine for "NHL" turns up quite a bit, seaching for "Campbell" and "Walkom" turns up this case and a couple of others.

It's an interesting read. I didn't read through the whole file, but there were a few things that jumped out for in this "Warren v. National Hockey League" case.

Now, we astute observers already know that NHL officiating is an interesting case study. We think we can see instances where rules are clearly ignored because one team just had 3 penalties, or is on the PK, or maybe close to putting the game into OT. Some might have dismissed this as fanciful fans seeing games through their own prism.

Guess what, though? We're right. And they write it down here.

"59. There are many aspects to being a good referee. Referees must call penalties correctly and be in the proper location on the ice to make the right call. This is true of all officials in all professional sports. Apart from the speed of the game, where NHL officials may differ from officials in other professional sports is in the exercise of discretion. Historically referees have been expected to “take the flow and characteristics of the game” and the effect of the infraction on the game into account in assessing whether to call a penalty. A penalty in the first period may not be a penalty in the second or third period. It appears that a penalty in the regular season may not always be a penalty in the playoffs. Mr. Gregson noted that if the referees called all the penalties the entertainment would be taken out of the game because, given the speed and physical nature of hockey, a penalty could be called on virtually every play. An assessment of whether a referee is good at making the right calls at the right time is extremely subjective."

OK, pretty obvious stuff here. The pandering to the Don Cherrys of the world who don't think players could adapt to any rule thrown at them. Guess that's why hockey players all throw body checks on golf courses...

Anyway, in addition to this, it seems that Mr. Warren's very tendency to call games by the rulebook -- the way the fans that I know want the game to be called -- got him fired:

"90. In 2005/2006, Mr. Warren was selected to work the playoffs. The reason for his selection to the playoffs was clearly that he was in the top half of the League’s officials. Mr. Walkom testified that in that year, the first year after the lock-out, Mr. Warren was successful because there was no judgement in the officiating of games. There was only black and white. The League expected that all penalties would be called to the letter of the rule regardless of the game situation. In Mr. Walkom’s view, Mr. Warren excelled in the circumstances which were in place during the regular season. However, Mr. Walkom’s assessment of his performance during the playoffs was not good.

This is by no means a scandal, as it was plain for all to see anyway. But for me it cheapens a lot of what goes on.

How the league expects consistent and fair results when they isnsist on applying the rules differently in different situations is mind boggling. How is a GM supposed to build a team?

And as to the notion apllication of the rules would undermine the entertainment in the game, I suggest only that if that is the case then it is the rules and not the application of them that needs to be addressed.

I leave you to enjoy the impending debacle now.

Game #37 A Win, A Shutout, A Captain; Better Than A DVD Boxset

Details

Date: 19/12/09
Opponent: Islanders
Location: New York


Win: 3-0

Habs Goalie: Halak (W)
Opposition Goalie: Biron (L)

Habs goalscorers: Markov (2), Metropolit
Opposition goalscorers: None

Play of the game

Despite the Islanders territorial domination, the Habs really did give a lot to choose from tonight. Perhaps it was because things happened in a more smash and grab way for the Canadiens, rather than the settle in, stay-a-while approach from the Isles. The play of the game for me, after several reviews of the goals and plays was Jaroslav Halak's save on Matt Moulson. Which one you say? Well, indeed. The one which was built by the first passer, then Tavares, the Moulson as the tic-tac-toe candidate for goal of the month - that one. As the pass came behind the net, Halak had every reason to surge to his left to cover the post where Tavares was going. He did, and fast. But unlike some goalies who would commit all to that save, he calculated the slide to stop him at the post, taking away Tavares wrap-around dream without abandoning the shooter in front. As Tavares' sublime pass came one touch form behind, Halak moved in synchrony with it, keeping his balance so as to play the shooter with all his body. Moulson, then, was met with surprise as he did everything right in lifting the puck over the sliding pad. He was left to shake his head as Halak's blocker calmly guided the puck skyward.

Dome hockey team

The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the dome


Forwards

Glen Metropolit
Some players take a demotion as a reason to sulk. Some actually take it as a call to wake up. Glen falls into the latter group. Following his games of costly penalties and underwhelming play, he has awoken. In the first period he was player of the game with his energy and tempo. He was stealing pucks, winning pucks in the offensive zone and creating chances (if not goals). In the end the scoresheet did this selection justice, too, as he scored a simple, yet timely goal.

Scott Gomez
If this guy was only paid $2 million a year, you can mark my words, there'd be raving reviews. His play off the puck at times is exemplary, and I'm glad Sergei Kostitsyn gets such a close up view of this. In a game where the Canadiens played mostly without control, it seems only fitting to include one of the best harrowers. His work on the PK was once again a sight to see, and if you want to understand that recent streak of stinginess look beyond just Gill and see the Gomez injury timeline. In the end, the scoresheet also rewarded Scott, as he created the insurance goal through his other main skill.

Sergei Kostitsyn
This last position was more difficult to settle on. Plekanec likely would have had the biggest shout, but for his run in with unfortunate refereeing. In the end, it goes to a penalty killer. There was little to tease apart between the excellent work of Lapierre, Moen and Sergei here. But think a minute about that phrase: Sergei Kostitsyn? PK? Excellent? I think it's high time we recognise what a turnaround, what an achievement Sergei has here. Not only did he stow his sulk in a bus undercarriage, he has come to the Canadiens and is turning in games as the top penalty killer. He played 5:32 overall, a full 2 minutes more than Max, 3 more than Moen. Brunet may get on him for a rushed clearance, but this man of confidence causes no such complaint from Jacques Martin, I think.

Defencemen

Andrei Markov
How good it feels to write this. Yet this is no sympathy vote, Markov was the best offensive player tonight, and a solid defender as well. For those who had forgotten, or stats toters who never watch players before computing their value, Markov showed why the Montreal PP though good in his absence, was once great. On defence, he played not to cut shots, but a shutout in this game is reflective at least in part to the doggedness of Andrei to hone in on loose pucks. Oh, and you'll have noticed the headline. I am convinced that our captain returned this game. There's a reason why all three letters are still 'A's for the Habs in December, and it must be linked to the fact their captain would rather take the role in all but name. His play, his celebrations, his discourse on the sidelines, I saw a captain for the first time in a while.

Jaroslav Spacek
Playing with Markov must surely help, but I think Andrei could tank his partner similarly. Apart from his early fall, I thought Spacek had a good game. What set him apart from the others for me was his exceptional puck control on the PP - it didn't directly result in goals this time, but he was on the ice for that last pretty goal. Going forward, I think it will be important to have a player who complements Markov well to really turn this system around. As you know, I feel Jaro is that player. I think our first shutout in an eon gives a lot of credence to that.

Goaltender

Jaroslav Halak - Game Puck
They do make us wait, don't they? The Canadiens last shutout was last February 24th vs the Vancouver Canucks - it was Jaro then, too. In the meantime we've seen goalies play in shutout form a lot - mostly against us. What a pleasure then to watch a goalie come in and keep his concentration for a whole game. There was shutout written on more saves tonight than in most games we've seen since this tandem came along for us. Jaro almost seemed to will this one. That's not to say he was lucky. not at all. All he did was take the positional instruction and execute it without flaw. Apart from the play of the game, his saves on shorthanded breakaways stood out, his quick legs on cross-crease work made impression.

Comments

How many times to repeat the cliche? Christmas has come early.

The analogy is a good one though, because like children tossing restlessly in expectant sleep, we have been anticipating the moment of Markov's return ever since he wobbled off the ice in October. And though his return would have been enough on his own to warrant such a header, he did so much better. As he skated for us, we were a better team for having a top pairing of dynamism, and better second and third pairings. As mentioned, he also brings the general back to the defence and the team - a captain in all but name.

Before we get carried away, perhaps to address the slant of the ice in this contest. The Islanders did really have the initiative, the shots and the possession. I will support Jacques Martin's men in this one though. Perhaps not a pleasure to watch, they did certain things very well here. In giving away possession for instance, I found they often forced low quality shots while being very proactive on rebounds. No they wouldn't have gotten away with sitting on a lead as they did against the Sharks, Red Wings or Hawks; but this was the Islanders and the strategy of sit and counter-attack didn't seem so crazy as I watched. Because they scored when they did, they didn't need to press extra men up, and they seemed to be acting on instruction that they shouldn't. What's more, apart from the refs who saw penalties in run-of-the-mill plays and falls on their own whims, the Canadiens were disciplined on the whole, I thought.

Together with the previous positives from losses, the team does have a direction of travel now, and with Markov (and perhaps Hamrlik soon), it looks more and more like up.

Canadiens Must Not Allow Bruins To Paint Themselves Victims

The Boston Bruins are in the process of taking a large page from John Stevens' ultra-successful contra-Canadiens playoff strategy book:

Play on the feeling that the league may just favour the Canadiens

After all, how else did this team win so many Cups? How did they scout and recruit better than everyone else for 30 years? Why did French Canadian stars want to play for this team exclusively?

The current rendition of the story has the league and their henchmen (that'd be the refs) turning a blind eye to the despicable and dangerous play form the dirty dirty Canadiens (or Europeans, if you prefer the xenophobic take).

As a ploy from the opposition coach, it is top notch. In theory, at its best it can distract the refs and make them see every Canadiens tumble as a dive. In practice, it seems to have done just that so far.

After all, how do we come out of a game where the Canadiens were assessed 5 of the discretionary penalties (I classify high-sticking as non-discretionary) to the Bruins zero with the Boston coach ranting about how his team has been cheated and treated unfairly?

There is no doubt that Sergei Kostitsyn, Glen Metropolit, Alex Tanguay and Kovalev all hooked, but as was pointed out in the broadcast, many of the calls were recognising plays that had just happened 50 times over in the preceding minutes. Even if the Canadiens were guilty of two thirds of the offenses, their rate of penalization was still disproportional.

The rate of penalty calls was also out of balance in Game #1, where we were all a bit perplexed to see the 47th crosscheck of the game called mid-way through the third period of a pivotal tie hockey game. And Plekanec was certainly the only player called for stick touching opponent's hip.


What should the response be?

This is much tougher than it seems. The Canadiens cannot simply stop taking penalties. They cannot stop hooking or interfering either quite simply because the vast majority of that stuff is not called and so not doing it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

No, what I think they must do is meet the Bruins at their level. Feel a crosscheck in your back, go down. Player through the crease, flop out. Not quite getting around the player in the corner, go to the ice. If diving is a new standard of play, we should not be left behind. After all, the worst that happens when you dive is no call, or worse a coincidental minor?!?

It's not the high standard the ambassadors of the teams discuss with youngsters in schools, but desperate times call for desperate measures, eh? Besides, teams of the 60s and 70s couldn't have won so much without a little flex in their interpretation of the rules.


In addition, I feel someone from the organisation needs to meet Claude Julien head on and address the media in the following way:

"We feel that Milan Lucic got the suspension he deserved, because intentional or not sticks to the head need to be removed from the game. We also feel that it is insulting to have to listen to the coach of a team that enjoyed all the powerplays of the previous game insinuate that we are being favoured."

All of this nonsense comes out of the very gray area the league has left itself in with regard to calling penalties int he playoffs. In some circles, there is an understanding (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the rules from the season are put away from now on. And on certain nights, that seems to be the case.

Obviously, the league needs to be more consistent. I see only two ways to do that: 1) call everything, or 2) call nothing. All this in between leaves no one satisfied and more than a few with a sour taste in their mouths.


Anyway, here's to a better spectacle this evening. Go Habs Go.