The Hit Heard 'Round The Crease

Milan Lucic argued it wasn't intentional.

Ryan Miller would disagree.

Lucic's bodycheck on Miller, Brendan Shanahan believes, was "nothing egregious."

Miller, sitting at home with a big headache, would disagree. Given that egregious is defined as "conspicuously bad," and that I haven't seen a goalie nailed like that in years, it's worth wondering what would be an egregious hit on an NHL goalie.

That Shanahan, the NHL's hanging judge, ultimately saw the weekend incident all Lucic's way and not Miller's is, really, the latest example of a process that began 12 years ago when Brett Hull had a toe in the crease and they counted his Stanley Cup winning goal anyway.

Against the Sabres, by the way.

Back then, that toe was controversial because all season the league had enforced a philosophy in which the blue paint was there for the goalie and the goalie only, and any interloper was to be sanctioned. It was too hard to call consistently, and too many goals that were viewed as good hockey plays were wiped out on itsy-bitsy infractions.

The Hull goal, approved that weird night in Buffalo by a phantom memo similar to last year's "hitting zone" memo that allowed Raffi Torres to skate unpunished after a head shot on Brent Seabrook, was the beginning of the end for the toe-in-the-crease philosophy.

That the crease wasn't there for only the goalies really picked up steam two seasons after the 2004-05 lockout when the league began to notice scoring was slipping again after the first season following the work stoppage included all kinds of offensive fireworks largely because of new rules and an enforcement on hooking and interference fouls. Teams adjusted defensively, and rather than do something radical (and logical) like expand the size of the nets to fit the much larger modern goalie, the NHL quietly started allowing more contact in the crease. The goalies suddenly were required to deal with a great deal more interference and body contact, often trying to play the position with enemy attackers standing in the middle of the crease.

That philosophy - such an immense departure from the toe-in-the-crease days - has hit a crescendo this season with more contact on goalies than has been seen in the history of the sport. Goalies are now seen as often without their masks as with, which is good, perhaps, for the marketing end of things if you want to get a closer look at these fellows' faces, but also an indication of how often they're being hit and hit hard.

Concussions suffered this season by two high-profile NHL goalies - Miller because he's outstanding, James Reimer because any goalie who tends goal for the Maple Leafs, good or bad, is by definition high-profile - is the result of the philosophy that goalies are not to be protected. Reimer was elbowed in the head by Brian Gionta, who was assessed only an interference penalty. The league was basically silent on that one. Lucic just hit Miller like he would any player on the ice, and while he received a minor penalty, the B's were more than rewarded for the hulking winger's decision to hit Miller when the Buffalo goalie had to leave the game.

That sets up a nice scenario next week in Buffalo when Boston's goalie, whether it's Tim Thomas or Tukka Rask, will undoubtedly get run and a brawl will ensue. The NHL doesn't mind this stuff. Sells tickets, as will that game between Washington and Pittsburgh in early December will at least partially because it will be the first between the two clubs since Arron Asham's most unfortunate mocking of a concussed Jay Beagle after a fight.

But with respect to goalies, the NHL is walking an intriguing line, here. It clearly doesn't view netminders as equivalent to football quarterbacks and thus in need of special protection. Rather, it views the ability of NHL forwards to create chaos in the blue paint as integral to the sport, although it's interesting that a decade ago under the very same Bettman administration goalies were protected in a very different way.

Coaches are again proving to be more successful at producing choking defence than creative offence, as proven vividly by the embarrassing display by the Tampa Bay Lightning last week, and the NHL undoubtedly worries that doing more to allow men to stop the puck without being battered will only further reduce scoring. Moreover, it seems to believes goalies are far more replaceable than No. 1 goalies, and maybe they have a point. Jhonas Enroth may have inadvertently demonstrated that Monday night in Montreal, and the the ups and downs of goalies in recent years has some convinced that the days of star goalies able to dominate the position for years are over.

That's another debate, however.

On Lucic, he deserved the penalty, and probably at least a fine from the NHL. He deliberately ran over Miller, and it's surprising Shanahan saw it so differently. That Lucic then essentially taunted the Sabres, saying the Bruins would never stand for such an insult to their goalie, will help produce fireworks next week that NHL.com will gleefully both promote and then feature on its website.

But in it's "war" against concussions, the league seems to have excluded goalies from the endangered list. Right now, given the Reimer and Miller incidents/injuries, you'd have to argue there's evidence that taking a run at the other guy's goalie is more than worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Conn Smythe]

'Miller was free to be checked like any other player since he was playing the puck outside of his crease.' No, he wasn't 'free' to be checked because he was out of the crease. Why would he be? I'm not sure what the big fuss was about - yes Lucic hit Miller. And he was penalized, rightly so. But a suspension? Really? That was a hit that should be suspended?

[Nathan]

Cox and the rest of the media are once again making a mountain out of the molehill, if Lucic is suspended the question would have been why the suspension? If he is not suspended they ask why not? You can't win with these delusional reporters.

[Sanj]

Why don't you ask Reimer 's mom? Seems like everyone else does! :-P

[Westcoast Leaf]

Goalies are fair game if they are out of their crease. But consider this rule change option that allow goalies to wander, yet still protect them. 1) Expand the blue-ice crease semi-circle out another 5'. Seems like a lot, but wait...within this new crease, a defender would be allowed to interfere (cross-checking, picking .etc) with any opposition player within that area, so long as all contact was to the shoulders and below. This would give the goalie an expanded area of control knowing full well that if he advanced past this area he was fair game for legal contact. In addition, this would make the cease less congested. An opposition player that entered the crease knows fair well what they'd be in for. To keep the game moving goalies would not be allowed to stop the puck behind their net adn a new rule established that goalies would be penalized a 2min minor penalty if they advanced into the area behind the icing line. Give it some thought. It's a combination of new rules to satisfy the fan that likes the speed of the game, and is a bit of a throwback to an era where if you chose to stand in front of a goalie, you were going to take a beating by a defenseman.

[Peter]

That call by the NHL shows that the inmates are still running the asylum. The hit was intentional and as dirty as they get.

[whatthe!]

did you see miller swing his stick at lucic !!! that should be a suspension?? what would your article be about IF miller had of connected with Lucic's head/face with that wicked FULL mad as hell stick swing I have seen in streethockey

[darrell]

"it's war" should be "its war" near the end of the article

[Thane]

Personally, I think if a goalie is playing goal, he ought to be protected. However, if he's playing the puck, then he's just a heavily padded defenceman.

If goalies are to be protected 100% of the time, then what's to stop a goalie from skating the puck all the way up to the attacking zone? After all, he can't be hit.

[T F]

Agree with most comments - Miller was way out of crease and playing a puck in High risk situation - nothing to do with interference in the crease. if goalies pay the ouch they should be prepared to br body checked.

Agree that in the crease interference should be more enforced. Not so sure on toe in crease - my recollection may be wrong - but thought goal scorer can enter crease and pursue puck or complete a move - but another player in the crease while goal scored makes it ineligible?

[Tabber]

It's undeniable that both goalies were targeted in the head (try actually watching the replays) and no suspensions were issued, so the NHL has now condoned targeting goalies' heads. Any coach that does not now get his players to target the opposing goalie's head should be fired for not doing his job. End of story. Now quit your whining, you neanderthals, admit the FACTS, and enjoy watching the games with below average goaltending. It is what it is, and Bettman must have played the game - there is no other explanation for his behaviour than that he was repeatedly concussed at a young age and we're seeing the results now. I hope you're all happy now, watching men's lives being destroyed.

[Geoff Read]

People: many of you seem to be unaware that NHL rules clearly prohibit hitting goaltenders no matter where they are. In the crease, outside of it, playing the puck, not playing the puck, it's all irrelevant. Bottom line: hitting the goalie is against the rules and to me, you have to be incredibly naive (hello Brendan Shanahan) to buy Lucic's explanation that his hit on Miller was just incidental contact. He runs right into him, and appears to target his head to boot.

[Hal Steadman]

Come on, you would have to be a blind man not to see that was a deliberate shot by Lucic. His BS comments just give you a clear picture of what he is all about, he went down to the last rung of respect i had for him and his play.

Shanaham is really the one in my view that really lost respect. This was a real opportunity to really cement his and the leagues intent in stomping out intent to injure type checks.

It's the same old crock, talk is cheap with the NHL I think time has caught up with Cherry too, his comments are starting to lose their value, too often now he's trying to ride the fence, or he just makes statements that fit with the image Hockey Night in Canada has help create.

Dougie no doubt was a very good hockey journeyman player on a very poor hockey team during a time when the league had a bunch of weak teams,

To say he was the greatest leaf player is an insult to the many truly great players the Leafs have had.

Doug has been elevated to the "great" status by Cherry, and by a generation of leaf fans who I can not blame for their admiration for Dougie because of the teams they have been subjected too for the last 40 years.

Most weren't around in the 40/50's or 60's. In the last 40 years Leaf Nation has really been a 3rd World Hockey Nation. Great Leaf team teams in the 70's, 80's or 90's are you kidding me

And today our Leaf team has been turned into an American team, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Leaf uniform include a Stars & Stripe patch in the middle of the Maple Leaf logo.