Hi
@catfish1957 Some info below your post.
@EdJames
Ed, being new to game of Hockey, I have a few questions......
(1) Seems STL is way more physical and agressive on the glass than BOS is. Given Sundvquist suspension, and every hit being reviewed, is that a good strategy?
(2) Seems icing is "exempt" on power plays. Since that is the case, why don't short handed teams just "kamikaze" the puck and sling it down the rink every time?
(3) Tripping penalties. Seems it could be called 50 times a game every time during contact. How come refs call it it certain cases and not others.
(4). Delay of game when the puck leaves the rink- I still haven't figured how that is discerned.
(5) Fighting penalties- See no. 3.
(6) Taking Binnington out in Game 3. I liken this to taking a rookie pitcher out of a crucial situation. Often that can hurt the kids confidience. Different in this case?
Thanks for your expertise on this thread.
(1) It is a part of the St. Louis strategy to wear down the opponent physically. Makes sense for them versus Boston as Bruins have some very skilled Defensemen that can really join the rush and get the puck up in the offensive very quickly. So, playing the body against the end boards on them is a useful tactic.
In general though, the NHL Playoffs are very much a series of series of attrition. If you think about it, you are talking about 2 more months of hockey added to the schedule (first round games started around April 9 or 10 and Game 7 of the Cup Final is scheduled for June 12). And playoff hockey is always much more intense and competitive! That intensity includes playing the body hard, as much as possible. If you watched the prior Blues series against San Jose, they wore them down to the point that the Sharks (a very good team) had nothing left in the tank.
So, yes, as long as you keep you board work within the rules, it is fine to keep taking the body as much as possible.
(2) Some teams do try to just get the puck out of the zone and as far down the ice as possible during the penalty kill (because as you noted, they won't be penalized for icing). There are two aspects of it though that make it not happen as much as you would think. One is that the penalty killer needs good possession on the stick to be able to get enough on it to clear the zone, and they also need a "clear path" out. During the quickness and intensity of the play, those two aspects don't come together as often as you would think. (Recall all of the plays where the team on the power play somehow blocks or knocks down (from the air) those clearing attempts.)
The other aspect is that just clearing the puck down the ice doesn't take away as much of the time as the power play team often has the goalie passing the puck up to get it out of the zone and back on the attack within a few seconds. So often the penalty killers will try to play the puck ahead and out of the zone: quick pass to open teammate (even in the zone) with the hope that they skate it out or can make a cleaner pass out. The team on the PK can often eat up 30+ seconds by attempting to lug the puck into the offensive zone and get it behind the net and tied up, and harass the power play unit as they try to mount their attack. And of course, if the PP team isn't careful, the PK team may find a shorthanded opportunity open up as they work to move the puck (under their control) down the ice.
(3) Calling tripping in hockey is almost like calling holding on offensive lineman in football: as you point out it could be called constantly throughout the game!
A good ref (even in a regular season game) will only call it if it is flagrant, and impacts the play. Incidental trips where one player stumbles over a stick or leg are often not called at all (especially if the player that trips is not clearly a big part of the play going forward).
In fact, NHL refs try to apply that "unwritten" approach throughout the playoffs for most of the infractions: if you are blatant in your action, and your action has a direct impact on the play's progress, you are apt to get a call against you. Otherwise, if the infraction is incidental and not a big part of the play's progress: "let them play the game" tends to rule.
(4) That one varies a bit. See Rule 63.
Rule 63 – Delaying the Game
63.1 Delaying the Game – A player or a team may be penalized when, in the opinion of the Referee, is delaying the game in any manner.
63.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area.
A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck outside the playing area (from anywhere on the ice surface) during the play or after a stoppage of play.
When any player shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface from his defending zone, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. The determining factor shall be the position of the puck when it was shot or batted by the offending player. If contact with the puck occurs while the puck is inside the defending zone, and subsequently goes out of play, the minor penalty shall be assessed. When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed. When the puck goes out of the playing area directly off a face-off, no penalty shall be assessed.
Where the "judgement" aspect comes into play is when the player is in the defensive zone and shots the puck indirectly out of play (i.e., it is deflected out), if the ref things the attempt was deliberate, he will assess the penalty.
(5) Fighting penalties (i.e., a 5 minute major is assessed) is more rare in the playoffs than the regular season. And, they decrease as each round progresses. That is, in the first round, you may see 2-3 actual fights (which means that one or both of the players has "dropped the gloves" and starts trying to punch an opponent) per series. In round 2 you may see 1-2 actual fights. In round three maybe 0-1 fights. And in the Finals (round 4) it is rare to see an actual fight.
The reason is pretty clear: no one wants to get taken out of the game for a 5 minute major penalty (and maybe even a 10 minute or game misconduct added on) for an actual fight, with so much at stake.
So what you will see is the players taking as many liberties as possible (e.g., punching while keeping your glove on, massaging a player's face with your glove on, pushing a player as hard as you can into the boards or onto the ice, grabbing a players jersey and trying to pull him around, trying to knock a player's helmet off, etc.) while not putting themselves into a position where the fighting major can be called. That is, they keep the gloves on and neither guy squares off with the dukes up like you see a real hockey fight happen.
And again, the refs don't want to impact the game as much as they possibly can avoid, so if there seems to be an "equal" level of hostility between two players doing the things above (typically after a whistle), then it is no harm, no foul, play on. If there is obviously one player that is the 'aggressor' in the scrum, they may give him a 2 minute roughing minor. Sometimes if two guys refuse to let go of each other and keep screaming and lunging as the linemen try to separate them, the ref may give them both 2 minute roughing minors.
(6) Pulling Binnington. I was actually hoping that Berube would have pulled him sooner. I can see the parallels between a pitcher and goalie in this regard, and both players can be impacted by the play of the rest of the team.
For this goalie (young rookie) it is more likely that he will recover for the next game (as he did) better off if he isn't left in to just get shelled for 3 full periods. What went on in game 3 was that Boston was extremely "on," especially their power play. 3 of the 5 goals that Binnington let in were on the PP. Situation: Boston was stoked (I believe in part because of what happened to Gryzlyk in Game 2) and their PP was bound to return to form. The Blues were pretty much flat after the first 10 minutes when their flurry didn't give them any goals.
So what was pretty likely to happen is that the Blues would be giving up more power plays as the game went on (playing desperately from far behind) and their PK was certainly off. Hence Binnington would likely keep getting shelled and could have given up even more goals.
Berube took him out and likely said after the game: look kid, you'll bounce back, we sucked tonight and didn't give you the support that you needed.... you had no chance on a few on them.... Game 4 is a new game....
