The NHL's rulebook lists nine different infractions that should result in a penalty shot being awarded.
No. 9 says that a penalty shot should be award to a "player on a breakaway who is fouled from behind."
For that infraction, the NHL gets even more specific, listing another level of four conditions that must be met for an official to award a penalty shot to a player who is fouled from behind:
1. The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line.
2. The infraction must have been committed from behind.
3. The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded).
4. The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.
In Saturday's 4-2 loss to the Devils at PPG Paints Arena, Sidney Crosby was called for a tripping Devils winger Jesper Bratt from behind late in the third period, when the game was still tied 2-2. Referee Corey Syvret awarded Bratt a penalty shot:
Reading Crosby's lips after the call was made, he kept repeating "It was a push," to Syvret.
The call proved costly. Bratt skated wide into the Penguins' zone, cut toward the net and tucked the puck past Tristan Jarry's pad after Jarry dropped to his knees. With just three minutes remaining in the game, it would stand to be the game-winner, with the Devils tacking on an empty-netter shortly after to make it a 4-2 game.
Looking at the original play, and what the rulebook says, it does appear to meet those more specific four conditions that must be met for a penalty shot to be awarded to a player who was fouled from behind.
What I don't agree with -- and what made the call so controversial -- is whether the play meets the initial definition of a "player on a breakaway who is fouled from behind."
Is that rush up ice even an actual clear "breakaway" for Bratt? If it's not, then that second level of conditions becomes irrelevant, and the infraction should just result in a minor penalty.
Around the league, we've seen infractions that are far less ambiguous not result in a penalty shot. In a tied game with just three minutes remaining in regulation, it was just unusual to see something not so clear-cut result in a penalty shot.
Mike Sullivan said after the loss that he didn't receive any explanation from the officials as to why a penalty shot was awarded over a minor penalty.
I asked Crosby what his thoughts were on the call after the game.
"It's too late to do anything about it now," he said. "I think maybe a penalty? Maybe? I didn't agree with the call."
It is too late to do anything about it. But the Penguins would be justified in any frustration over the way this game was decided.
