Despite several questionable calls on Saturday night, the Montreal Canadiens push past Ottawa with a four-goal third period.
The name of this post is probably a bit misleading. I don’t want to give the impression that the Montreal Canadiens merely got away with a win. They didn’t. They dominated. However, it wasn’t until the last twenty minutes of regulation that their incredible effort was rewarded.
Their defense, aside from a slow start for Jeff Petry, was pretty solid. And I am not yet convinced that Jordie Benn has earned a permanent spot on the third pairing. He seems sluggish on the back-check and struggles to get the puck out of the zone cleanly.
On the offensive side of things, I am most impressed with the fourth line. With the addition of Matthew Peca, there is a lot more speed than, say, with Nicolas Deslauriers (who I don’t miss in any capacity).
Overall, the Montreal Canadiens are playing good hockey. Might I even say great (in terms of what was expected of them at the start of the season)?
Moving on…
The First Questionable Call:
The first of the two (arguably) terrible calls was Brady Tkachuk jamming his stick into the skate of Carey Price, which led to an Ottawa goal.
Perhaps there needs to be some kind of recourse for plays like this. It would have been very easy, upon first glance, to assume Price ’embellished’ here. I was convinced he had slipped. But when you get a better look, it’s obvious that Tkachuk’s stick clearly jams into the goaltender’s skate. Would it be such a bad idea for refs to be able to review plays like this?
More important than Tkachuk’s dirty play leading to Ottawa’s go-ahead goal, it very well could have ended in a serious injury. It’s not clear that the ‘jam’ was intentional, but nevertheless.
I don’t think it would be completely absurd for refs to reserve the right to review any play that results in the injury of a player. This could also prevent further embellishment, as refs would be able to make a call based on the review.
The Second Questionable Call:
The second occurred at a more crucial time in the game than the first. It featured Artturi Lehkonen and would have given the Montreal Canadiens the lead. What’s more exciting is that this was a short-handed effort.
There was no one else in the building who thought this was an embellishment on the part of Lehkonen and there was ‘booing’ for the rest of the game because of this.
More from A Winning Habit
- Montreal Canadiens: Biggest Questions Going Into 2023-24
- Montreal Canadiens: Quentin Miller’s Poise And Confidence Fuel His Game
- Montreal Canadiens: Laval Rocket Top Defence Pair Could Be Set
- Montreal Canadiens: Worst Move Of The Pierre Gauthier Era
- Montreal Canadiens: Could Casey DeSmith End Up In Colorado?
It was just an athletic play by Lehkonen. But the goal was taken back, and not only that, but Lehkonen was penalized for embellishment. Not only do you (refs) rob a player of a goal, but you take away the incentive for players to make a hard push when short-handed. It appears that even the rules disadvantage the short-handed team when having to kill a penalty.
There is no doubt that taking away a goal in exchange for a penalty would have ended in teams losing motivation to continue. I think this speaks to the resilience of this young team, and their ability to fight through adversity.
Following this play, the Canadiens scored three goals to put the game away.
This team is fun to watch. No matter what happens, they push forward. This attitude is the watermark of a great team (potentially playoff-bound).
Concluding Thoughts:
I am not going to pretend, however, that the Montreal Canadiens did not make mistakes of their own. They certainly did. I counted over eight missed shots/passes due to the puck slipping off the stick. Blame it on the ice, or the player’s unawareness. It does not matter. They have to sharpen their awareness and mindfulness on the ice if they advance into post-season play.
The PP is approaching 1/30. It is awful to watch. But they continue to compete at 5-on-5, and so far, that has been enough.