Penguins' Sutter knew rule, knows he goofed
NEW YORK — Brandon Sutter screwed up Sunday.
He was aware of the new NHL rule that forbids centers from using a hand to help win a faceoff.
“We went over it the other day,” Sutter said. “We had talked about it. But it's instinct, and in the moment you're trying to win the draw, and I just reacted. I have to watch that.
“It was totally my bad.”
A new rule for this season, passed before the 119-day NHL lockout began in September, does not allow centers to bat the puck with a hand or hands while trying to win a faceoff until a third player touches the puck.
A player in violation of the Rule 76.4 is issued a minor penalty for “delay of game — faceoff violation.”
Sutter, who is from one of the NHL's most famous families, made more history Sunday at Madison Square Garden by becoming the first player to violate this rule.
At least it happened in a Penguins' victory.
With Penguins defenseman Simon Despres serving a minor penalty for interference, Sutter was tasked a defensive-zone faceoff at 9:23 of the first period. Sutter pulled back the puck and, with his hand, slid it through his legs, seemingly scoring a victory.
Play was immediately called dead, and an on-ice official called a penalty — and sent Sutter to the sin bin.
The Penguins were suddenly down by two players, and 40 seconds later Rangers captain Ryan Callahan scored on the 5-on-3 advantage.
Sutter shook his head in disbelief as Despres left the penalty box.
So, too, did many fans in attendance.
That was not the case on the Penguins' bench, where coach Dan Bylsma knew a foul had been committed.
Penguins general manager Ray Shero also had no problem with the call. Shero was on the committee that suggested the rule change last spring.
“It was a penalty,” he said. “Brandon knows it was a penalty. We talked to the players about the new rules.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.