Anthony Travalgia: Not Today Tuukka Rask had his best game of the playoffs as the Bruins took game 4 and evened their series with the Blue Jackets, 2-2.

Rask is the best goalie in the playoffs right now. Even Bob, for all his highlights, has let a few squeakers through. I’ve definitely questioned Rask the last few years and he’s answered in a big way

I think Pasta is still struggling with his hand injury. I think he’s giving it his all out there, he’s doing all he can, but he looks uncharacteristicly uncomfortable with the puck on his stick. The one timer was good to see, but he’s had so many turnovers on the PP, it makes me wonder if the issue is lack of feeling more than pain. Keep him on the top line but I’d swap in Krejci on PP1

I think Pasta is still struggling with his hand injury. I think he’s giving it his all out there, he’s doing all he can, but he looks uncharacteristicly uncomfortable with the puck on his stick. The one timer was good to see, but he’s had so many turnovers on the PP, it makes me wonder if the issue is lack of feeling more than pain. Keep him on the top line but I’d swap in Krejci on PP1
- Shaundre93

I've been thinking this same thing. Could also be a re-aggravation early in the first round since he looked like his usual self when he first came back from the injury. Hopefully last night was a positive step to getting comfortable with the current condition, or getting through the mental element.

I thought Toronto had the power to review all goals?

I'm just generally confused by that ruling. I thought if the puck goes up into the netting the play is dead. Why would it matter if was deflected or shot or whatever. It's the equivalent of the puck leaving the rink.

Is there a rule that legitimizes that ruling?

I'm just generally confused by that ruling. I thought if the puck goes up into the netting the play is dead. Why would it matter if was deflected or shot or whatever. It's the equivalent of the puck leaving the rink.

Is there a rule that legitimizes that ruling?
- glove_was_stuck

Here is the official rule. It’s dumb.

Rule 38.4 (ix):

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 hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).

NOTE: For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following:

a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player;
b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
In both of the above scenarios, the NHL Situation Room must have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in order to disallow the goal.

Basically if the puck had hit the net and then directly went in, or hit the net, deflected off of a player and in the net, then The league can review it. Other than that, it’s up to the guys on the ice to see it correctly.

Here is the official rule. It’s dumb.

Rule 38.4 (ix):

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 hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).

NOTE: For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following:

a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player;
b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
In both of the above scenarios, the NHL Situation Room must have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in order to disallow the goal.

Basically if the puck had hit the net and then directly went in, or hit the net, deflected off of a player and in the net, then The league can review it. Other than that, it’s up to the guys on the ice to see it correctly.
- Anthony Travalgia

well considering they missed 45 cross checks, a slew foot and a knee on knee, its understandable how they missed the puck in the netting.

You don't think the officials are actually watching the game do you? They have their phones out binge watching seasons 1-7 of GoT so they can catch up.

Where are all the CBJ/Leafs fans discussing the ACTUAL head hunting shot that Backes took?

That was a top level game by Rask. He didn't lose is net once. You can tell when he is really on he doesn't slide to far and leave the net open. He also was ready for rebounds. Bob still made the more spectacular saves but that's fine, I will take Rask
focused like last night all day.

Pasta doesn't look like himself, don't know why. Could be something physical but aside from that he is making some major mental errors. You have to let him work thru it but the power play all year has been giving up tons of chances. Think sometime they look for that perfect backdoor play too much. Get it to the net. In the playoffs its deflections and rebounds. I would play two defensemen. I think it could be successful with Charlie and Krug.

The physical play is great. Everyone IS all in. Like the edge that Clifford brings,just
wish K. Miller wasn't so injury prone. This is the time we need him the most. Love
all the cry babies calling for Marchand to be thrown out of hockey for a tap
but an elbow to the face is nothing. Don't get me wrong I am not calling for suspensions, let them play but it just makes me laugh. The thing I hated
about Brad's play was that is not what bruin's do. Hit and hide. It was embarrassing. But its ridiculous to want a player to be suspended for that.
Game five a big one obviously, you don't want to make the same mistake twice.

Here is the official rule. It’s dumb.

Rule 38.4 (ix):

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 hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).

NOTE: For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following:

a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player;
b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
In both of the above scenarios, the NHL Situation Room must have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in order to disallow the goal.

Basically if the puck had hit the net and then directly went in, or hit the net, deflected off of a player and in the net, then The league can review it. Other than that, it’s up to the guys on the ice to see it correctly.
- Anthony Travalgia

Thank you. Yes this NFL trying to define a catch, dumb.

last night was pretty much how I expected the Bruins to play the whole series. They play like this we'll be watching hockey in shorts.

last night was pretty much how I expected the Bruins to play the whole series. They play like this we'll be watching hockey in shorts.
- 77emac77

I agree with the exception of the horrific power play performance. Yes, 2 for 6 is good (okay, great!) but the chances given up during the six were WAY too dangerous. Playing with fire there. I'm of the thinking that two D-men on the PP is the way to go during the playoffs.

And come on, it's New England and it's above 50...I'm in shorts already!

I agree with the exception of the horrific power play performance. Yes, 2 for 6 is good (okay, great!) but the chances given up during the six were WAY too dangerous. Playing with fire there. I'm of the thinking that two D-men on the PP is the way to go during the playoffs.

And come on, it's New England and it's above 50...I'm in shorts already!
- bluemoon737

How many (frank)ing breakaways are they going to give to Jenner?

How many (frank)ing breakaways are they going to give to Jenner?
- glove_was_stuck

It seems they struggle in the 2nd too, but the weathered the storm and had a strong 3rd

Pasta has taken some serious hits in the playoffs and I'm just wondering if he isn't playing with some tweetie birds flying around his head and didn't tell the staff and is trying to play through it. Some of his puck handling has been completely inexplicable. Maybe he isn't shooting as well (save for that bomb last night) since he isn't sure which of the three nets he's supposed to be aiming at.

Hey prock, where you at?

1. Rask has very quietly shut the haters and doubters up (so far). Dude has been lights out all series long. No softies, no throwing hands in the air after a goal, just solid technique and a calmness in the crease. Love it!

2. Bob has played well and has also made around 5 "10-bell saves", but in my opinion hadn't REALLY been tested until last night. Cracks in his game are beginning to appear and if the Bruins know what's best for them, they need to attack while blood is in the water.

3. What in the eff is going on with pasta? Talk about a jeckle and hyde game.

4. Brandon Carlo continues to impress and improve game after game. I was definitely down on him for stretches this season, and was skeptical that he'd be able to just hop in to his first playoffs and be a good dman, let alone come in and play as stellar as he has. Boy was I wrong.

5. Powerplays should be played in the opposition's zone, not your own. How many times are we going to see Boone Jenner lug his fat arse slowly down ice for a break on the PK?

6. Who the (frank) names their child Boone? I'm picturing a NASCAR fan from Alabama who just so happens to live in a trailer park. Just a guess.