ShareThis Page

Canadiens beat Penguins in shootout

| Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014, 10:00 p.m.

The Penguins looked plenty sloppy on Thursday in their first game in 20 days.

According to some of the Penguins, the officials were a little sloppy, too.

Montreal emerged with a 6-5 shootout victory at Consol Energy Center, but the talk following the game revolved around a third-period penalty to Tanner Glass.

With the Penguins protecting a one-goal lead, Glass was given a five-minute major for elbowing and a game misconduct for a hit against Montreal's Alexei Emelin. Replays showed that Glass never made contact with Emelin's head, and that Emelin actually struck himself with his hands and stick.

“There were some calls out there that you struggle to see where they're coming from,” Glass said. “But they've had some time off, too.”

Danny Briere scored his second goal of the game to even the contest with 5:54 remaining, and the Canadiens eventually emerged with a shootout goal thanks to David Desharnais' tally. Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin had two points each in the contest but were blanked in the shootout.

Had Glass not been assessed the penalty, the Penguins might have emerged with two points.

“I understand why he called it from his angle,” Glass said. “It looked bad with the follow-through. I didn't make any contact with his head at all. He put his sticks and gloves up.

“That's why I followed through the way I did, to keep the stick away from my face.”

Coach Dan Bylsma didn't like the call, simply stating that referees “don't get to see the replay.”

Defenseman Rob Scuderi said the hit didn't “merit a five-minute penalty.”

Still, the Penguins hardly played a game that will leave them pleased, questionable officiating or not.

Montreal scored two power-play goals against the league's second-best penalty killing unit and scored a third goal only a moment after Malkin emerged from the penalty box.

Even if the penalty against Glass was debatable, Crosby and Malkin were guilty of frustration slashing penalties in the third period.

“It certainly wasn't our best game,” defenseman Robert Bortuzzo said. “It was different out there. We gave up too many quality chances. It's tough. When you're putting up five goals, you should win. As for the penalty kill, we had a good plan. We didn't get any bounces, and there were a couple of unfortunate plays.”

The Penguins players that participated in the Olympics looked sharp. Crosby, Malkin, Olli Maatta and Jussi Jokinen combined for seven points.

However, other members of the Penguins looked rusty.

Goalie Marc-Andre Fleury stopped only 24 of 29 shots.

The Penguins also received a subpar night for their bottom-six, something that has been a concern for most of the season. Although third-line center Brandon Sutter scored a short-handed goal, the five-on-five work from the bottom two lines wasn't strong.

Glass and fourth-line center Joe Vitale were both in the penalty box while goals were scored.

The third line was on the ice during Montreal's first goal of the game, and the fourth line was on the ice during the Canadiens' second goal.

Although the Penguins' performance easily could be attributed to rust, they refused to make such an excuse.

“I don't think so,” Scuderi said. “I think the coaches did a good job of starting us slow and revving us up as the week went on. Certainly, though, we were a little off as far as team chemistry goes.”

Josh Yohe is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @JoshYohe_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.