The Bear Eats You: Blackhawks 3 – Maple Leafs 7

Box Score
Event Summary
Extra Skater
Shift Charts??

This one wasn’t too enjoyable, was it? The Leafs had been in a freefall and their week had them playing some of the top teams in the league in Boston, LA, St. Louis, Chicago and the Pens on Monday. They had lost every game so far coming into tonight. In the first, the Leafs managed some good possession shifts (shockingly) and took advantage of the second penalty from Chicago of the night, a stupid trip in front the net from Shaw. The Hawks would equalize on a power play of their own when a crossing pass from Kane deflected off Phaneuf and snuck in.

In the second, the wheels just came off. The Leafs put 14 shots on net and 4 of them found their way past Raanta, chasing him for the third. We won’t go through all of them on an individual basis since it was disaster and we’ve all get better things to do on this Saturday night. Sam wrote in the preview it would take something unpredictable for the Leafs to pull one out. I’d say 7 goals on 32 shots is pretty unpredictable from a team that averages 2.74 and 27 (third worse in the league). This sucks but lets move on and get ready for the Kings tomorrow.


  • Get ready for lots of people claiming the Hawks were just flat. TWTW just wasn’t there tonight for anyone.
  • Anyone other than Kane that is. He continues to play above anything we’ve ever seen. Since the game was pretty much over at the start of the third it gave Pat and Eddie plenty of time to heap some praise on Kane’s year so far. It’s been pretty incredible to watch him. He’s still sitting two points behind Crosby but could be closing in fast. Perhaps even that 100 point season if everything goes his way. He led the team with 8 shots tonight. Even in a lousy effort, he was fun to watch.
  • Has Kostka always tapped his stick on the ice as much as he did last night and I just never realized it? He was always looking for the puck in the offensive zone tonight. I know you got the game winner in the last Toronto game but don’t let it go to your head. Just try to keep up with Leddy.
  • Is there really a good reason why some plays are reviewable and others aren’t? Hossa’s goal… or rather Phaneuf’s second… looked good on just about every replay we were shown. But since the ref thought Hossa had gloved it in, it wasn’t eligible for review. But if they thought the goal was no good because it being played with a high stick, they’d take a look?
  • That’s also after the Hawks were penalized for a delay of game when it also appeared Kostka was clearly in front of the blue line. I’m definitely not blaming the officiating for the loss, the Hawks did just a fine job shitting the bed on their own, but I really don’t see why replay is used in just select situations. There was already plenty of time to review the plays on the broadcast… why can’t anyone else check them?
  • From my view, Keith had another solid game. Breaking up key plays, making some great passes.. but he still ended up a -4 for the night, worst of any of the Hawks.
  • Toews continues to take fewer faceoffs than normal but it didn’t impact the numbers too much. The Hawks still took the edge there. Toronto not having their top 2 centers might have something to do with that though… even if one of those centers is Dave Bolland.
  • Kent Simpson, yikes. Clearly, 20 minutes isn’t anything to judge an entire career on but that was not great. He’s way over his head at this point and needs time to improve. He’s not going to get that here. Expect LaBarbera as the back up soon. Not that a 33 year old with only 182 games in his career on his 6th team is going to really be an answer. Just a stop gap. Get well soon Crow.
  • That’s enough for now. Tomorrow’s another day. And it’s the Hawks 34th back-to-back this year.

  • Accipiter

    I don’t get it either. Hossa touches puck with hand, Phaneuf deflects puck off his own stick into the net. I’m fairly certain that is a goal. How that play can not be reviewable shows some major flaws in officiating. The evidence is at their fingertips, just have a look. I’m not saying it would have changed the outcome of the game, but the technology is there, we all saw it.

    • VerStig

      Can they review the goal or only the call made on the ice?

      • Accipiter

        I’m not exactly sure. I’m thinking they only check the call made on the ice, similar to the intent to blow the whistle rule we have seen in the past.

        • VerStig

          I couldn’t hear a word of what the ref said so I’m going to guess that they could only review whether the puck was batted or not, and the high stick part (which would have made it a good goal, we all think) was not reviewable.

      • fromheretoinfirmary

        The rule is that when the call on the ice is a gloved-in no-goal, it is not reviewable. Arbitrarily, other no-goal calls (like a goal batted in with a high stick) ARE reviewable. That’s Killion’s point: that it’s odd that some no-goal calls are reviewable while some aren’t, with no rational basis for the distinction.

      • Toews still makes funny faces!

        actually not only can it be reviewed, it should have been reviewed per Part IV

        38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review – The following situations are

        subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

        (i) Puck crossing the goal line.

        (ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.

        (iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the


        (iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately

        batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a

        foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent

        goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one

        which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his

        skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put

        into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it

        must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck,

        after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and

        then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2.

        (v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.

        (vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an

        attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is

        where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the

        crossbar. If the puck makes contact with the portion of the stick that is

        at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal

        shall be allowed.

        (vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the

        game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.

        (viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in

        determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they

        are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that

        enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the

        net from underneath the net frame, pucks that enter the net

        undetected by the referee, etc.

    • 1benmenno

      67.6 Disallowed Goal – A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be allowed.

      • Preacher

        I believe the announcers said this right away, that it shouldn’t be good because it can’t be batted off another player and in. As to why it’s not reviewable (which is what the ref said), I don’t know.

        • Hawkeytalk

          As much as it sucks, you can see the reason for the rule. Hockey isn’t handball. Just like no kicking motion.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Unfortunately, the call actual does not fit the intent of this rule and brings to light a gray area. Obviously a puck can be gloved and then batted into the net with the stick, as Hossa did a couple of years ago, but at what point does the gloved puck become playable again? In this case, the puck drops straight down, if only for 4 or 5 inches, before Phaneuf jabs it into the goal with his stick. It is not heading for the goal before Phaneuf hits it and Hossa clearly intended to drop the puck to his stick. If Hossa batted it down and Phaneuf swung at it hitting it towards the Hawks goal and it went the Hawks goal, would that also be called off? If the rule is defending against unintended deflections, Phaneuf actually intended to hit the puck as he jabbed at it in mid air. It wasn’t an accidental touch and should have, therefore, counted. Whatever. Spilled milk.

          • Toews still makes funny faces!

            “at what point does the gloved puck become playable again?”

            A- When it hits the ice or the players stick. recall the Goal scored by Hossa catching it dropping it and batting it in with his stick and the puck did not touch the ice. When the puck touches the ice, it is also okay, (provided it was not thrown directly into the net)

            If the rule is defending against unintended deflections, Phaneuf actually intended to hit the puck as he jabbed at it in mid air.

            A- Intent is not part of the rule, only actual actions. The rule does not say “in the Referee’s opinion….”

          • flahawkfan

            I didn’t think Hossa actually “gloved” the puck, and he certainly didn’t “bat” it. It looked more like the puck was falling and hit Hossa’s wrist on the way down, not changing direction at all until Phaneuf put it past his own goalie.

            It didn’t make much difference in the whole scheme of things but I didn’t think the puck was “batted” in this case.

          • mazer_rackham

            It pretty clearly goes off his wrist and then off of Phaneuf’s stick in several replays. Bad call, but not a game changer.


        • Toews still makes funny faces!

          Since it was a batted deflection in, that is what the Ref saw, a review does not matter and is not provided for in the Rules.

      • Accipiter

        That makes sense. I didn’t hear an explanation during the game and wasn’t entirely sure what rules were in place for that situation.

        • VerStig

          Hmm… I guess since it deflected off Phaneuf’s stick (instead of the stick directing it in), it makes sense given the rule…

        • Toews still makes funny faces!

          HNIC immediately called this (not by number, but by context)

          • Korab22

            On the local broadcast, the best analyst working today, at least according to Pat Foley, got it completely wrong which added to the frustration of the call.

  • Preacher

    How many goals have we had disallowed in the last 2 seasons? Counting the playoffs, it’s got to be more than a handful now. Where are the stat guys on this? How do we compare to other teams on disallowed goals? Conspiracy alert!

  • 1benmenno


  • mightymikeD

    Well, that honked. Fuck it, moving on.

  • laaarmer

    Well Troy said Duncan Keith was awful. Seabrook bad too. I didn’t see the game, I only heard the reap in the car.

    If Troy is right, that explains a lot.

    • 10thMountainFire

      They were certainly far from their best but I wouldn’t characterize either as ‘awful’. Passing lanes were wide open, transitions were bad, but that was an entire team flop last night.

      • mazer_rackham

        Four cross-ice turds
        Three blown coverages
        Two awful PKs
        and a lazy backcheck by P Kane

        • 10thMountainFire


  • 1benmenno

    I guess it was a trap.

    • VanDorp’sMullet

      Any time the Hawks think they don’t have to play their best is a trap. It’s sort of the Achilles heel with this team… they are so good that they can overcome many one or two goal leads so sometimes they coast until they get to that point then turn it on. Sometimes (Avs, here, am I missing one?) they just can’t turn it around in time. I’m not too worried as hopefully they won’t play like that during the playoffs. But if they do, it’ll be a short stay.

      • lizmcneill


  • VanDorp’sMullet

    Totally unfair for Simpson to even be playing in an NHL game at this point. He was a backup in the AHL. A backup. I’m just glad he survived. To be honest, I think that trade was a little late by Stan. Not gonna derail the season or anything, but if I were him, I would have moved a little quicker. After all, it’s not like Edmonton held out for a first round pick… it’s a PTBNL…

    • DJ

      It’s not even that; reportedly, Edmonton will settle for the Hawks picking up the entirety of LaBarbara’s salary.

    • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

      It took this long either because Stan was pointing to Raanta and saying, look, we’d like to do you a favor and take that turkey off your hands, but we don’t really need another goalie.

      Or… they just found out Crow will be out longer than 3 weeks. A lot longer….

      • VanDorp’sMullet

        I think it’s fair to say we don’t know why it took this long though your guesses are good ones. Really, my point is that we shouldn’t have ever had a 4th string goalie as our backup. Particularly not when you’re already playing your 3rd string goalie. I’m not overly worried about it… just a small point, but I think a valid one.

      • ballyb11

        A lot longer….

  • MySpoonIsTooBig

    Tim Peel is the worst official in the NHL. I know his shittiness isn’t the ‘Hawks lost, they sucked plenty on their own, but the fact that this dipshit is going to Sochi is a fucking joke

  • Country_Bumpkin

    TSN’s power ranking today:
    1. St. Louis
    2. St. Jose
    3. Chicago
    4. wat?

    • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

      They’ve been picking the Blues forever. Ignore them. The one thing they have right, all the best teams are in the west.

      • VanDorp’sMullet

        Yup. Gotta do something to get people talking. Nothing more than that.

  • justforkicks


  • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

    A win tonight will restore honor and prove that most of the time, when we lose, it ain’t them, but us.

  • Jim

    I think the game can be summed up by:

    Our goalies sucked
    Their goalie was pretty good

    • justforkicks

      not so not so

    • putmeinthemadhouse

      That’s not really accurate as it obsolves blame of the horrendous team d that left numerous leafs wide open in close.

    • zacked

      I’m often the one to play this card, but it doesn’t apply tonight. They were outshot at EV by the Toronto Maple Leafs. That should not happen.

      Now the Leafs got a lot of bounces, I can’t count the number of times a hawk D-man broke up a play directly to another Leaf, but this wasn’t all on the goalies or luck.

    • 10thMountainFire

      I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Bob.

    • Toews still makes funny faces!

      7 goals is not all on the goalie, that also means the play in front of him was pretty shitty too!

  • Imagine the pounding if they’d had Bozak, Bolland, Clarkson and Orr! I kid. But what an ugly game. If they’re going to be ugly I prefer this kind, they’re easier to dismiss as aberrations.

    Some systemic defensive play and goaltending issues in there, though … games like this might be useful, if only because they force all layers of a team–coaching, management, and players–to focus on problem areas more intently.

    • ballyb11

      It’s seldom you don’t make sense.

      • I’m going to quote you the next time my dad and I talk about politics.

        • bizarrohairhelmet

          you know ballyb11 is just a scriptbot programmed to make internet commentators feel good about themselves, right?

  • BrandonPirri

    HBO 24/7, for those (such as myself) who haven’t seen it yet.

    • 10thMountainFire

      I really, really hate those two teams but that was good.

  • CornelisonsFlagPointer

    Is it unrealistic to think that by the time Q pulled Anti and the Leafs started piling on, the Blackhawks went into ‘test’ mode? I know that it’s a long season with a lot of games, so they could’ve seen it as an opportunity. It didn’t look to me like they laid down until it was way too late, but I’m new enough to still wear my name tag to the meetings.