Goaltenders: The Sacred Cow?

by Jen Neale on Jun 9, 2011 10:23 PM PDT in Pardon the InterDUCKtion

AMERICA! F*CK YA! Tim Thomas gives Twin 1 (or 2?) a piece of American pie in the face.

JEN:
After watching Game 3 and Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Final, I think we all can agree - Tim Thomas is one bad ass motha...shut yo mouth.

I'm not talking about him giving up one goal in the two games or the inhuman goaltending. I mean, the way he put the beat down on Twin 1 in game 3 and again on Alex "Bite Me" Burrows in game 4. I LOVED IT. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was a Southie (not sure what that means-- I got it from The Departed) goalie from some beer league by the way he was brawling. That is one nasty Ginger you don't want to mess with. A goalie's crease is his domain. Those who dare to crash it (Corey...) will suffer the consequences - should the goalie be angry enough to fight back with more than just a stick to the ribs.

One of my favorite Ducks-related memories is the day after Thanksgiving game in 2009. JS Giguere was starting versus the Chicago Blackhawks. Five rows up from the ice, I could see Dustin Byfuglien's big butt constantly getting in Jiggy's way. By the third period, Jiggy had had enough. After giving a nasty cross check to the skater, Jiggy ripped off his mask and went chest to chest in a very one-sided shoving match with Big Buff. Jiggy was sticking his chin out, daring Byfuglien to take a shot. At that moment, Jiggy was invincible, because he knew had the law on his side.

Byfuglien couldn't take a swing at Jiggy for the mere fact that Jiggy is a goalie, and goalies are to be protected - no matter what. Robby, incidents like those of Tim Thomas and JS Giguere are few and far between. Are the current rules in place sufficient to protect the team's most important player on the ice, or does it set a dangerous precedent for goalie on skater violence going unpunished?

ROBBY:
While you may think Tim Thomas is a bad ass, I think he's just as ass. If I was a Bruins fan, this kind of crap would drive me insane. Thomas' style, while great for media exposure and headlines, can lead to dire consequences. And it's not just this series. Anyone remember last year's Winter Classic? Yeah, that would be the one where Thomas was busy checking a Flyer while the puck slid into the back of the net. But I digress.

I think the rules, as they are written, amount to diplomatic immunity on the ice. In other words, goalies can act tough and start trouble, knowing full well that their actions will go unpunished. This would be like some guy goading someone into a fight when he knows he has five friends ready to stand up for him. It can lead to a false bravado that is better understood as outright cowardice.

I'm not sure what the repercussions of Thomas' actions will be, but he's probably done a major disservice to goalies league-wide. I imagine this scenario will play out in one of two ways: A depth forward (*cough Jarko Ruutu *cough) takes a serious run at a goalie and injures them or a similar forward takes a run at the team's star player (since the goalie is untouchable).

I'm sort of at a loss at determining the best way to resolve these kinds of acts. On the one hand, goalies should be protected. They're handling rocketing pucks coming from bizarre angles, and if someone decides to target them, they really have nowhere to go and no means to defend themselves. On the other hand, if goalies are going to unilaterally abuse their status as a sacred cow, they should be severely punished. I'm not saying this means someone gets to take a free shot, but I am saying that there should be a major penalty and/or a suspension for actions like those of Tim Thomas over the past two games. It severely damages the integrity of the game to allow one player on the ice to take free shots at another without fear of retribution. Just as the league sent an overkill message to Rome for his hit on Horton, they should do the same to Thomas in this situation (though I'm not holding my breath).

Ultimately, I would love to see someone in the media with the stones to get frank responses from other goalies in the league. I'd be willing to bet that there are those who are unhappy with the door Thomas has opened in these playoffs.

JEN:
Robby, you ignorant slut.

The passion displayed by Thomas does nothing more than energize the team. Perhaps, if Roberto Luongo displayed the same kind of heated intensity when Milan Lucic is driving the net, the Vancouver Canucks would respond. Lord knows that they aren't responding when their best player is beat up by a goalie. Now is that because of the Sacred Cow that is Thomas or because they lack the balls to take a stand up for Twin 1?

Suspending Thomas for his actions is incredibly too harsh. Burrows and Twin 1 weren't injured on the play. Maybe give Thomas 2 minutes for Roughing or Reverse Goalie Interference or something, but don't remove him from the most important series of his career. Even if this was to happen in the regular season, it hardly warrants a suspension, let alone a penalty. The Bruins didn't gain any sort of advantage because of Thomas' actions. If this were to backfire, and he gets scored on, then it's his blame to accept.

To alter the rule that protects the goaltender would set off a series of other issues. Since the action of the game primarily takes place in front of the net, would one of the officials be required to watch the goalie at all times? How do you determine if it's retaliation instead of just protecting his crease or getting run into by a skater? Too many gray areas.

Perhaps in Robby's World, he's brought back the "no one in the crease when scoring" rule (remember that, Dallas and Buffalo?). You can only assume this would take away from tempting the goalie into retaliation...and goals. ZZzzzzz. Sorry, I fell asleep at the thought.

Just because Thomas is the one to push the rule doesn't mean he speaks for all goalies. He's just a smart one that uses this rule to his advantage.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Robby, you ignorant slut.

Glorious SNL reference.

I’d think he was a Southie

Somewhere between Roger & Me and Pets or Meat, Michael Moore gave me the impression that Flint, Michigan is a thousand times more dangerous than South Boston. And Tim Thomas strikes me as the kind of Flint boy who originally bought the rabbit as a pet, but then, well, y’know…

Anaheim Calling

by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Jun 9, 2011 10:25 PM PDT reply actions

Funny you mention Thomas. If he can play another two years at a high level (and after this years amazing season he just might), he could have a real chance playing for Team USA in the next Olympics at the age of 103 or whatever he is. Im pulling for Boston (something I thought I would never say) just because of Thomas. What a year he has had.

by Newport Rebel on Jun 10, 2011 4:27 AM PDT reply actions

Well Roberto Luongo could always skate across and do something.

by pearljamfan80 on Jun 10, 2011 7:50 AM PDT reply actions

So am I the only person

That thinks Thomas is a douche?

by PhantomPretender on Jun 10, 2011 10:03 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

I do, but the Canucks are all too big of pussies to do anything about it. I really think Thomas would be half the goalie he is if he wasnt playing behind that defense and that system, Tampa Bay had the right idea and would have won the series if their Defense and Goaltending didn’t fail them. Get Thomas moving, he’s always over challenging, it’s frustrating to watch the Canucks not being able to figure it out, especailly on the PP.

by kvd123 on Jun 10, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions

You say that the canucks

won’t do anything about it. Do you mean his antics or his goaltending?

If it’s the former, what can they do? As a goalie, Thomas is unilaterally protected, even if the things he’s doing are chicken shit. That’s sort of my entire point. Thomas gets to act like a tough guy because he knows nobody is allowed to respond. That’s the crux of my whole issue with him and the fact that he has gone unpunished by the league.

by PhantomPretender on Jun 10, 2011 2:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

There are things the Canucks can do, and they did do some of those things in game 5. Snowing him at whistles and some late whacks at his glove after the whistle, they also did a better job at taking his space in front of the crease away so he couldn’t challenge as much, the refs seem to be letting it go both ways other than that horseshit call on Kesler. Take a page out of the Bolts book and make it uncomfortable for Thomas in front of the net.

by kvd123 on Jun 11, 2011 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions

I don’t think Kesler should have been called for interference, but he should have been called for high sticking. Either way, he should have gotten 2.

by Daniel AC on Jun 11, 2011 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Both.

by kvd123 on Jun 11, 2011 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions

No.

I agree with you 100 percent.

by Nava22 on Jun 10, 2011 1:00 PM PDT reply actions

Damn i meant to reply to PhantomPretender.

by Nava22 on Jun 10, 2011 1:07 PM PDT reply actions

Southie.

Southie is short for South Boston. You can be from Southie, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone called a Southie. Southie is known for it’s tough, working-class, Irish/American neighborhoods and the Irish Mobsters that have also been known to inhabit the area.
No doubt, the people of Southie are absolutely loving the rough and tumble style of Tim Thomas right now. I grew up about 30 miles south of Southie and I’m loving this!

by Crabby on Jun 10, 2011 5:21 PM PDT reply actions

Don't

forget that it is also a penalty to contact the goalie at any time inside the crease when the puck is outside the crease. As a person that plays the goalie postions, i like thomas’ style of play, bottom line you get in the crease or mess with the goalie then you get whats coming to you period, So if people dont like how he protects his crease then they just need to stay out of it.

by jwood8103 on Jun 10, 2011 9:19 PM PDT reply actions

I think we both know that Thomas is rarely in his crease when contact happens…if a goalie challenges as far out of his crease as Thomas does, he should be fair game and incedental contact should not be called, or if it is called, it should go both ways.

by kvd123 on Jun 11, 2011 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Definitely agree with you Robby

Although I don’t think a suspension should be in the conversation. Maybe a fine or some other sort of stiff penalty to send the message that the shit he pulls won’t be tolerated. However, I wish this conversation started in the 2005-2006 post-season when Rollie Pollie (Roloson) was at it with his antics. Both he and Turco regularly engage in physical confrontation with opposing players and I just wish they’d get clocked to just keep them honest.

I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell

by Natesaduck on Jun 11, 2011 1:43 AM PDT reply actions

Agree that a suspension may be stiff

But after the league got the vapors when bobby stepped on someone, I figured this was fair game. After all, everyone said re: bobby that you’re taught not to misuse your equipment. I’m not sure how you could perceive a vicious slash to the back of a guy’s knee in a different context.

But then again, that would be asking the league to show some kind of disciplinary consistency.

by PhantomPretender on Jun 11, 2011 7:29 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I wish we made it to the finals so our enforcer Ray Emery could have put Thomas in check.

by kvd123 on Jun 11, 2011 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

It’s a battle. Sometimes the goalies win and sometimes the players win. There was a stretch from about 1997-2006 where Tomas Holmstrom could back into the crease and never be called for interference. Goalies should be protected by the league, but they should also have to protect their crease, even the area in front of it. A goalie takes a risk when he decides to whack a guy with the stick, or even take the body like Thomas did on Sedin, because it takes him out of position. A goalie, who is trying to play his position, even if he isn’t in the paint, should be off limits. The guy is 100% focused on the puck and can’t protect himself the way another player can. If the goalie decides to fight for territory the way other players do, then he is taking a risk that is inherently its own form of punishment. I don’t see any reason to go after a goalie for physical play until he uses his stick as a weapon. I don’t mean the little slashes at the back of the legs, I mean Belfour spearing a dude in the crotch.

by Daniel AC on Jun 11, 2011 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

I'm not advocating taking runs at them

It’s actually why I think the league needs to do something. Because if Thomas continues to be allowed to do what he’s done with no punishment, then someone will end up running him or some other goalie when they play the tough guy act.

I’m not as upset about the sedin hit. I guess you could justify that. But the slash on burrows was malicious and was nothing but an intent to injure. It’s not an accident he got him on the back of the knee. It’s almost the reverse of the rome hit. A much more dangerous play but because nobody got hurt, it went unpunished.

by PhantomPretender on Jun 11, 2011 9:34 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I play goalie and I would have to agree that Thomas is walking a fine line between protecting his crease and attacking players. I will give Thomas the benefit of the fact that it was retaliatory. The review of the play clearly showed Burrows hit the butt of Thomas stick knocking the paddle off the ice and removing it from the passing lane that it protected. If a pass had gone through at that point it would have been a direct result of Thomas stick being out of position, while he is in his crease I might add. The slash looked bad but Burrows doesn’t seem to be worse for wear. For all we know is that Thomas put enough force in it to let him know that he was there and he wasn’t accepting what Burrows was doing. Give em both 2 and be done with it. I might also add that I have seen numerous replays of Canucks players roaming in the slot and taking out the legs of Bruins defenders as they roam in the high slot making room for themselves and creating possible scoring chances right in front of the net because the Bruin defender is out of position.

by DavidBL on Jun 12, 2011 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Thomas just acted like he was from southie...

It is too bad Vancouver never drops em, because that would be one fight I would have rewound over and over, he deserved to have his over-padded butt kicked. He knocked the stick out of his hand, not like he broke it in two, or even slashed him, a two handed chop, he should have gotten four minutes….then maybe he wouldn’t feel free to guv the equivalent of an open ice hit from the crease, the refs should have called both, and instead did neither. Even if it cost a scrub to sit out for him, the PP would be worth it, that is why it should have been two. Someone in Vancouver needs to beat up a Bruin, they have been taking all the post whistle abuse, the Sedins and Kesler have all been continually jabbed checked and face washed at every turn, that is usually saved for Lapierre or those like him, game 7 will look like game 6 unless they come out physical. PS I can’t stand Vancouver, but Boston still ranks lower.

by Buick22 on Jun 14, 2011 3:07 PM PDT reply actions

I’m not positive but I don’t think it is anywhere in the rules that a goalie can’t check a player. They usually don’t because it puts them out of position which is a real bad idea. You can’t call Thomas for 4 minutes on a slash just because he’s a goalie, if they want to say there is intent to injure sure. He could have easily been given 2 and I won’t argue that, he deserved at least that, but Burrows could have gotten 2 for the interference. Point is the refs missed both or decided to let both go. I’m not going to condemn Thomas for the way he played it.

by DavidBL on Jun 14, 2011 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I still maintain it's a chicken shit thing to do

Thomas is probably 99% sure that he can do whatever the fuck he wants out there without a) worry about retaliation from the Canucks (because they’ll throw the book at him) or b) punishment from the league (because they’re in love with his story).

I know people love the rugged, crazy goalie storyline. I see how attractive it is to have a player in a position that is normally so fragile and protected act like anyone else on the ice. But that’s the problem. They’re not like anyone else on the ice. If a forward takes a two-handed swing at the back of someone’s knee, it’s probably a misconduct at the very least, with a likely league review. But because it’s a) a goalie, b) Tim Thomas, and c) the Stanley Cup Finals, he gets away with murder.

I hear the CBC guys floated the idea of running Thomas last night. I think that’s absolutely the wrong solution here. But when the league won’t do anything about it, that’s the kind of resolution that is likely to occur.

by PhantomPretender on Jun 14, 2011 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Thomas is a lightweight when it comes to hacking guys. Belfour and Roy were dangerous. Thomas is a kitten by comparison.

Personally, I think the Canucks should run Thomas. If he’s willing to engage in a dangerous tactic, he should expect that retaliation is coming. At the end of the day, there is no way to regulate this. If you start calling too many penalties on goalies, players will tale too many liberties. If refs tighten up on interference, then there are no more net battles. I think people are over reacting to an act that wasn’t nearly as dangerous as what Bobby Ryan did against Nashville.

Players should pay a price for going to the net and goalies need to pay a price for defending their crease. It’s those battles that make the game worth watching in the first place.

by Daniel AC on Jun 14, 2011 11:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I agree that there should have been a call, but I DON"T remember seeing a 2 handed swing at Burrows. I saw hack at the back of his leg/knee, definitely deserved a penalty. I feel the sneaky infractions people don’t see are just as bad as the ones people do see. Burrows interfered in a major way with Thomas in a situation that could directly lead to a goal. No he didn’t hurt him, no he didn’t break his stick but if a pass had gotten through Vancouver could have been right back into a game where Boston was fighting to stay alive and force the game 7. You think any player is going to take that lightly in the Finals? If the goalie is going to take shots at players call him for the penalties sure. I don’t, in any way, think he plays that way because he thinks he’s protected. Players will get their chances to return the favor in other ways. against Thomas, the best way to hurt him is to score on him. There are other ways the can mess with him.

by DavidBL on Jun 14, 2011 8:52 PM PDT reply actions

I disagree

Contact with goaltenders is part and parcel of that position. No goalie thinks they’re going to get through a game without someone trying to pester them. But how many goalies decide that this contact is enough to take a swing at a guy’s knee? It’s not like you see this happen all the time.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “there are other ways to mess with him” argument. Really? How can you mess with him in a way that is commensurate with taking a slash to the back of your leg or being on the receiving end of a high body check from a goalie? Snowing a guy isn’t going to make up for that.

If Thomas wants to be a tough guy and act like anyone else on the ice, then he shouldn’t be a goalie. I had no issue when he got into it with DiPietro because he was going after another goalie in what was a mutual situation. But it’s total cowardice to take cheap shots at Vancouver forwards because he knows nobody will touch him.

I went into this series mildly rooting for Vancouver, but not really caring about the outcome one way or the other. But the crap Boston has gotten away with in this series, and the way people are fawning all over Thomas’ antics, have totally turned me off. I think I sympathize with Vancouver because they’re getting the Ducks treatment right now. If they do anything borderline, it’s automatically a penalty. But Boston is getting a way with so much shit after the whistle, it’s ridiculous. It just feels like a Ducks/Wings series to me.

by PhantomPretender on Jun 14, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m sorry but I just don’t see it that way. Just because Thomas is willing to take matters into his own hands instead of relying on his teammates to stick up for him he’s chicken shit? You said it yourself, no goalie goes into a game thinking the other team is not going to try and mess with them. It’s not like Thomas is taking a swipe at every Vancouver player that skates within 2 feet of his crease. He checked a player who had the puck in his hand and was dropping it to his stick 1 foot in front of him, if that puck is handled there is very little chance that Thomas could handle it. He took a slash and gave one out, yes it was a bit more severe, but there is no telling how many little jabs led up to that slash before he finally took that shot. There is such a thing as a boiling point. I just don’t see the spoiled entitlement attitude of Mommy and Daddy ( the league and the refs) will protect me so I can do what ever I want. I think Burrows has the right idea, keep doing the things that set him off, anger can easily mess with a players focus. I honestly think Vancouver is just more concerned with the rest of the Boston team than what Thomas may do to them.
I feel that its more of they don’t want to do anything about Thomas rather then the CAN’T do anything about his behavior. Thomas’ biggest weakness is getting out of position, largely because he is so aggressive. I think Vancouver has failed to capitalize on that flaw consistently.
But honestly, I don’t want to fight with a Ducks fan over a Bruin who will likely never be a Duck, so we can agree to disagree?

by DavidBL on Jun 15, 2011 2:56 AM PDT up reply actions