Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

A Bad Night For Pekka Rinne

from Ron Cook of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,

Going into Game 1 of the Stanley Cup final Monday night, the on-line betting site Bovada had Nashville goaltender Pekka Rinne as the favorite to win the Conn Smythe Trophy as the NHL’s postseason MVP. His 1.70 goals-against average and his .941 save percentage were the best in these playoffs. He had stopped 446 of 474 shots in series wins against Chicago, St. Louis and Anaheim.

But then Rinne got to Pittsburgh.

Unbelievable things happen to him when he plays the Penguins.

A five-on-three power-play goal that was set up by teammate James Neal’s undisciplined stupidity, a goal by a player who hadn’t scored one all spring and an own-goal by teammate Mattias Ekholm happened to him Monday night....

The next shot that Rinne saw didn’t come until 3:17 was left in the game. A beautiful wrister by Jake Guentzel — a player who hadn’t scored in eight games and one many speculated would be scratched before the game — was the deciding goal in the Penguins’ 5-3 win.

That’s beyond surreal.

“It’s tough. He’s been a rock for us,” Nashville coach Peter Laviolette said of Rinne. “There’s no question about Pekks in net and what he’s capable of. He’s the backbone of this team.”

read on

Filed in: NHL Teams, Nashville Predators, Pittsburgh Penguins, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: pekka+rinne

Comments

OlderThanChelios's avatar

“A five-on-three power-play goal that was set up by teammate James Neal’s undisciplined stupidity…

...and Trevor Daley’s dive after the contact. That was followed by the refs completely ignoring Cindy Crosby’s interference during the 5 on 3.”

There. Finished that for the sake of accuracy.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 05/30/17 at 10:04 AM ET

Paul's avatar

And how about the call against Jarnkrok which was the first penalty called against Nashville, then the Neal penalty followed.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 05/30/17 at 10:07 AM ET

OlderThanChelios's avatar

And how about the call against Jarnkrok which was the first penalty called against Nashville…

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 05/30/17 at 10:07 AM ET

The whole game was a “gong show” from the refs where the Preds were concerned. I’ve never ascribed to the theory that Butthead is trying to “direct” the outcome in favor of the Pens, but that first period sure gave the tin-foil hat crowd a lot of ammunition.

Just the ruling on the Preds first goal when there was no clear evidence that his foot was raised or that he didn’t have control of the puck was beyond ridiculous.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 05/30/17 at 10:25 AM ET

Avatar

The refs really did hand Pittsburgh this game and it could easily be a turning point for the entire series. Going into Pittsburgh and winning game one would have be a huge boost for Nashville. Now they’ll likely face a better Pittsburgh team in game 2 while being slightly demoralized by the outcome of game 1.

Good officiating is when you don’t notice the officials in a game. This was the polar opposite. If they are going to do “make up” calls to Nashville in game 2 they’ll have to award them a handful of penalty shots.

Disgusting.

Posted by evileye on 05/30/17 at 10:42 AM ET

Avatar

I don’t think it matters.  Especially after the reffing in the rest of the playoffs which has been abysmal, and dictates these bizarre wins where the better team loses - we’ve seen it over and over again all spring. 

Anyone that watched that game and thinks the Pens can actually win the series has never watched a game.  Gotta figure, Preds probably wouldn’t sweep, so a loss was going to happen one way or the other.  The Pens scored on their only shot after 37 mins.  Even if the refs spotted them a goal, the Preds were still well on their way to victory with more than enough time left if Rinne makes a single save.  Shame on Nashville for not scoring 6 against Ron Hainsey and a team that legitimately didn’t want to do anything after the first period.

Posted by PMP5030 on 05/30/17 at 11:10 AM ET

Avatar

ugh.  typical.  just when you think differently.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 05/30/17 at 11:13 AM ET

Avatar

When Sullivan challenged, I figured there was an equal chance the refs would either call the goal off or give Nashville 2 goals.  But I honestly, did not imagine the NHL would call off the first goal of the finals even if the play was an offsides, goalie interference, direct kicking motion field goal kick of a goal.  Really from that moment, you knew the refs were dying to put their hands on the outcome.

Posted by PMP5030 on 05/30/17 at 11:16 AM ET

Avatar

I’ve never ascribed to the theory that Butthead is trying to “direct” the outcome in favor of the Pens,

Yet both of your posts in this thread clearly show that, in fact, you do.

I’m assuming that you all believe that Mattias Ekholm is a Bettman insider who’s infiltrated Nashville’s team too? Why else would he score into his own net?! Gary’s reach has no bounds!!

Posted by godblender on 05/30/17 at 12:24 PM ET

duhduhduh's avatar

ugh.  typical.  just when you think differently.

In fairness: I was watching that game on CBC, and both announcers thought the first goal could have stood, because ....
  1. there was an argument that even if his right skate was off the ice, he could be considered onside by virtue of his stick being on the blue line, and
  2. without another view, the evidence didn’t look conclusive enough that his foot was off the ice, anyways.

... they also thought enhancement could have been called on the Daley penalty. 

And we’re talking about a very Pittsburgh-friendly crew at CBC.  So, it’s not all lunacy.

All that said, tho: Nashville wins this game comfortably if Rinne makes two easy saves that he whiffed on, and the first goal is allowed, which it probably should have been.

 

Posted by duhduhduh on 05/30/17 at 12:30 PM ET

Avatar

I think the one thing about his stick being behind the line is that I thought that only pertained to the puck carrier, not a player in the act of receiving a pass.

Posted by PMP5030 on 05/30/17 at 01:27 PM ET

OlderThanChelios's avatar

  I’ve never ascribed to the theory that Butthead is trying to “direct” the outcome in favor of the Pens,

Yet both of your posts in this thread clearly show that, in fact, you do.

Posted by godblender on 05/30/17 at 12:24 PM ET

Nothing about what I said pointed to a “conspiracy” theory. I simply pointed to what actually happened and noted that the tin-foil hat crowd might use those facts to claim a conspiracy.

My conclusion isn’t that there was a “conspiracy” against the Preds. My conclusion is that there was simply really, really bad officiating – and that most of that bad officiating ended up favoring the Pens. It’s a simple observation of what I saw, not an accusation of conspiracy against the refs.

I’m assuming that you all believe that Mattias Ekholm is a Bettman insider who’s infiltrated Nashville’s team too? Why else would he score into his own net?! Gary’s reach has no bounds!!

Posted by godblender on 05/30/17 at 12:24 PM ET

Making nonsense statements like that suggests that you’re not any more interested in what actually happened than the tin-foil hat crowd is. You’re just making noise for the sake of making noise.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 05/30/17 at 01:52 PM ET

duhduhduh's avatar

I think the one thing about his stick being behind the line is that I thought that only pertained to the puck carrier, not a player in the act of receiving a pass.

but their point was that, if you could back into the offensive zone carrying the puck behind you and be on side, to be in possession of the puck must imply that your stick is considered part of you.  If that is true, then wouldn’t your stick on the blue line be equivalent to you being on the blue line?  It’s an interesting question.

Posted by duhduhduh on 05/30/17 at 01:57 PM ET

bigfrog's avatar

but their point was that, if you could back into the offensive zone carrying the puck behind you and be on side, to be in possession of the puck must imply that your stick is considered part of you.  If that is true, then wouldn’t your stick on the blue line be equivalent to you being on the blue line?  It’s an interesting question.

Exactly, and that’s the reason I thought the goal should of counted, but after all it’s Pittsburgh so no goal for you Nashville.  shock

Posted by bigfrog on 05/30/17 at 07:35 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com