GDT Game 53: 2/1/18 | 6:00 PM CT | @ Bruins | FSMW/KMOX

[theohall]

BOSTON -- The Blues have brought their fathers along, which could mean trouble for the Boston Bruins when they meet St. Louis at TD Garden on Thursday night.

This trip to Boston and Buffalo (Saturday) is the third one the Blues' dads have made -- and the team is 4-0 on the first two trips.

"We want to put on a good show for them," Blues captain Alex Pietrangelo said. "Maybe (their perfect record) is just good luck, good karma, I don't know what it is. When players have family in town, everybody wants to play well in front of them.

"Every single one of us knows that our dads put in a lot of time and effort when we were kids to help us get us to this point. We don't want to let them down."

This will be the first of two matchups between teams that appear to have a real chance at a lengthy playoff run in the spring.

The Blues, who defeated the Montreal Canadiens in St. Louis on Tuesday night, have won three straight and five out of six, and sit three points behind the Winnipeg Jets in the Central Division. The Bruins had an 18-game point streak snapped with a 3-1 loss to the Anaheim Ducks in the opener of Boston's three-game homestand Tuesday.

The Bruins, on a 14-0-4 run, shook off a poor first period and played well enough to win the game, only to come up a goal (plus an empty netter) short against goaltenders John Gibson and Ryan Miller.

"We just didn't have it early," Bruins coach Bruce Cassidy said. "I don't know if it's credit to them, or just our guys, or the (All-Star) break, whatever the case was, wasn't good enough. We addressed it.

"I thought we were a lot better after that but, to get back to your question, maybe the break did have something to do with it. It didn't seem to affect them as much, although I don't think they were dynamic by any means, but they were better than us."

The Bruins (29-11-8) are short-handed, with Brad Marchand serving the third contest of a five-game league suspension Thursday and rookie Charlie McAvoy still recovering from a heart procedure. Noel Acciari, who missed his second straight game with a lower body injury Tuesday, and Anders Bjork, injured in the game, are doubtful and the club recalled Peter Cehlarik from Providence.

Former Blues captain David Backes, sent to the quiet room after a hit by Nick Ritchie on Tuesday, said Wednesday he'll fine. He was upset there was no penalty called on the play and while it looked like shoulder to shoulder, it also looked late.

Tuukka Rask, 16-0-2 in his last 18 starts, will be in goal for the Bruins and brings a 4-2-3 record, a 2.39 goals-against average and .913 save percentage in 10 career outings against the Blues into the game.

At the other end, backup Carter Hutton has made the last six, seven of the last eight and 10 of the last 12 starts in the St. Louis goal over a struggling Jake Allen.

Hutton has allowed seven goals in the six starts and leads the NHL in GAA (1.70) and save percentage (.945).

Blues coach Mike Yeo doesn't tip his hand on a starting goalie until the day of the game but did say Allen and Hutton will both play a game on this trip.

Allen is 3-1-0 with a 1.92 GAA and .940 save percentage lifetime against the Bruins, while Hutton is 1-2, 3.30, .875.

The Bruins come into this game second in the league in goals against, while St. Louis is third.

The Blues, who have won two straight and three of the last four in Boston, sent center Oskar Sundqvist to San Antonio of the AHL on Wednesday.

[gaijin]

Sundqvist sent down to San Antonio. That clears up a little more permanent room for one of the young guys.

Allen or Hutton? Boston is definitely the tougher of the next two teams we face (the other being Buffalo). I'd say you have to ride the hot hand. Hutton would have had another shutout the other night, if not for Sobotka's inability to clear the puck.

[glen a richter]

Looks like Jake is getting the nod tonight.

Thankfully for January Jake, it's February.

[Robb_K]

So - he's called Bar-BAAAH-shev, eh???

[Robb_K]

Now he's called Bar-BAAAAH-Shoff!!!
But Boston scores with 3 of their forwards right in front of the net.

[cardsfan04]

I'd like to hear the explanation on the goal being upheld. I thought that was interference too. Only thing I can think of is that the Bruin player's feet got tangled up with Pietro's and they're calling the contact with Allen as incidental to that.

[evil roy]

On the + side the NHL will be able to use the tape of that goal to teach referees what goaltender interference looks like

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Robb_K]

Allen makes an excellent reflex save! He's been better this game, especially more square to the shooters. But, he looks tentative, and not seeing things all that well. I hope The Blues can score a few quick goals and take the pressure off.

[tjk002]

Is there a chat room anymore? The old room I had linked is dead. Its Feb, time to start gearing up.

[Robb_K]

Allen makes a couple great saves near the end of The 2nd, to preserve the 1-goal deficit. Blues playing okay, but they've got to score, somehow.

[Robb_K]

Allen has been good this game. The Blues need to score for him.

And Tarasenko goes to the box on a Boston dive, and, of course they score a power play goal.

[Robb_K]

Schwartz deflects in Schenn's deflection! Blues within 1!!!

[Robb_K]

Another tough loss with a lack of goal scoring with a good goaltending effort. too bad.

[theohall]

The argument for it not being goalie interference - Allen made zero effort to get back into the play. If Allen makes any push back towards the net, instead of just continuing his slide away from it... it's an easy interference call.

Rest of the game, though, so-so effort from the Blues who were outworked most of the game and it showed. Some times, dumping and chasing then doing the hard work is necessary to beat a team lining up at their own blue line. Blues didn't do this simple thing enough and kept playing right into the hands of the Bruins strategy of simply denying the blueline. You can't carry the puck into the zone every play.

Also, someone tell Jaskin if you are carrying the puck into the zone in the middle of the ice and the defense parts like the Red Sea - go to the damn net with it. Don't pass the puck to the wing where the defense went. This was another example of what the Bruins were doing - defending the wings along the blueline, because the Blues tend to over-play trying to carry the puck in on the wings. Blues were doing the same for the 1st 17 minutes of the last game. It's something that needs to get corrected in-game whenever it starts.

[theohall]

Once again, the 4 forward power play sucks. If you want to talk about a coach completely misusing a player on the power play, see Jaden Schwartz on the left point on the power play. Schwartz's best work is creating space in the zone, not passing from the point. And the fact he doesn't usually play the point, like a defenseman should be playing, a puck was cleared. One that likely wouldn't have been cleared if a left-handed defenseman like Edmundson would have been there.

I simply don't understand this insistence on running a 4 forward power play which has struggled for months. It was struggling even before the Schwartz injury. The Blues aren't the Penguins (who I understand why they ran a 4 forward PP when Yeo was there) and the Blues have 4 defenseman very capable of running the power play. Why not use all 4? It's working it's way from 29th to 31st and the coach keeps trying the same thing. Yet, the recent PP goals that were scored - I only recall one of them being with 4 forwards on the ice and that was during a change when Stastny had come on for Steen. The rest were by a 3 F, 2 D unit, unless my memory is super faulty. If the 2nd unit with 2 defenseman is scoring goals, maybe the same should be done with the 1st unit. Ya think?? How many months do you trot out the same players having them "play through it" before you say it's broken and actually fix it by doing something different that isn't using the same 4 forwards.

[cardsfan04]

https://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/959267401463484416 This doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, as a Blues fan, I'd like to see a little more urgency from Allen in that situation. But, I don't understand how that impacts the call. He was out of the crease because of the Bruin player sliding into him. And, I don't see any mention in the rule of a requirement of the goalie to try to get back into the crease.

[theohall]

If the goalie isn't making any effort, it matters. Especially when it comes down to a judgement call by the referee. The referee deemed that Allen couldn't have made a save on the play, regardless of the interference, based on the video evidence. That video evidence shows Allen not even trying to make a save. Just like players are supposed to avoid contact, goaltenders can't just quit and expect to get the call.

Should it have been interference. Heck, yes.

Allen quitting on the play is a problem all by itself.

[cardsfan04]

If the goalie isn't making any effort, it matters. Especially when it comes down to a judgement call by the referee. The referee deemed that Allen couldn't have made a save on the play, regardless of the interference, based on the video evidence. That video evidence shows Allen not even trying to make a save. Just like players are supposed to avoid contact, goaltenders can't just quit and expect to get the call.

Should it have been interference. Heck, yes.

Allen quitting on the play is a problem all by itself.

It doesn't say that in the rulebook though. That's my biggest issue with it, and is the epitome of why this rule needs fixing. Maybe it's a reasonable interpretation that the goalie trying to get back to the crease is a requirement. That's not my interpretation, but I can see the argument. But, if that's the interpretation, they should clarify it in the rules, because I don't think you'd see that interpretation from all of the referees which is very much a problem. Goals shouldn't be dependent upon which referees were assigned the game.

To me, a goalie shouldn't be allowed to stay out of the crease indefinitely, but there should be a lot of latitude given to the goalie if he's pushed out. He obviously can't get pushed out of the crease and just stand in the corner for 30 seconds with an implied wall over the net. But, if there's only a few seconds between him getting pushed out and the puck going in, that shouldn't count. At the least, it needs clarifying.

[theohall]

If the goalie isn't making any effort, it matters. Especially when it comes down to a judgement call by the referee. The referee deemed that Allen couldn't have made a save on the play, regardless of the interference, based on the video evidence. That video evidence shows Allen not even trying to make a save. Just like players are supposed to avoid contact, goaltenders can't just quit and expect to get the call.

Should it have been interference. Heck, yes.

Allen quitting on the play is a problem all by itself.

It doesn't say that in the rulebook though. That's my biggest issue with it, and is the epitome of why this rule needs fixing. Maybe it's a reasonable interpretation that the goalie trying to get back to the crease is a requirement. That's not my interpretation, but I can see the argument. But, if that's the interpretation, they should clarify it in the rules, because I don't think you'd see that interpretation from all of the referees which is very much a problem. Goals shouldn't be dependent upon which referees were assigned the game.

To me, a goalie shouldn't be allowed to stay out of the crease indefinitely, but there should be a lot of latitude given to the goalie if he's pushed out. He obviously can't get pushed out of the crease and just stand in the corner for 30 seconds with an implied wall over the net. But, if there's only a few seconds between him getting pushed out and the puck going in, that shouldn't count. At the least, it needs clarifying.

A similar thing happened to Hellebuyck vs Vegas. He was on knees sliding out just a bit. James Neal slashed him right across the chest - no call on the slash. Puck moves around a bit and Hellebuyck never makes any effort to try and make a save after being slashed. Ruled a good goal - even though that slash was both a slash and blatant goalie interference. I know it's not in the rules, but the goalie can't just expect the call if he isn't even trying and quits on the play.

Just look at tripping/hooking/slashing calls... skaters are told to keep skating and work through it, don't just expect the call. Shouldn't the same apply to goalies? Unless they are prevented from even making the effort, which is something else completely. That "play through it" thing isn't in the rules, either.