The Utah Mammoth’s revenge tour came to a halt Wednesday night against the Montreal Canadiens.

They got the Vegas Golden Knights back last game after losing handily a few days prior. Their intent was to do the same with the Habs, who beat them 6-2 earlier in the month, but they just couldn’t get it done.

Here’s the story.

Quick catchup

Montreal Canadiens: 4

Utah Mammoth: 3

This one was a tale of three wildly different periods.

The Mammoth found themselves in a two-goal hole by the end of the first, but they took the lead in the second. The third went back-and-forth, but the Canadiens did enough to retake the lead and keep it.

Nine different players factored into the scoring on Utah’s goals.

Sean Durzi returned from an upper-body injury that he suffered in the second game of the season. He registered 21:34 of ice time — the second-most among Mammoth defensemen. His presence could bolster a roster that has needed help defensively.

Tidbits and takeaways

Broken streaks

Going into this game, the Mammoth hadn’t scored a 5-on-4 goal since Oct. 26 — precisely a month. They also hadn’t allowed a goal at 5-on-4 since the same day.

Both of those streaks ended against the Canadiens.

Additionally, Barrett Hayton’s cold spell ended with his goal. He hadn’t gotten on the score sheet — goal or assist — since Oct. 28.

The penalty kill, which ranked sixth in the league when the team woke up Wednesday morning, allowed three goals, though one was disallowed due to an extremely close offside and an excellent coach’s challenge.

Head coach André Tourigny wasn’t too bothered, given the PK’s recent record.

“It’s once a month, we’ll live with that,” he said.

Better second period, worse first and third

How many Mammoth game recaps have pointed to the second period as their weakness? On Wednesday, the middle frame was their best.

Going into this game, they were net +7 in first-period goals, -10 in the second period and +6 in the third.

All three of their goals came within a span of 4:09 in the second period, though they allowed multiple goals against in both the first and third periods.

“Obviously, that was something we reviewed, something we had to be better at,” Hayton said of the second period. “Overall, game-wise, we need a second to reflect on exactly what it is.”

What’s going on with the goaltending?

Mammoth fans have seen both sides of Karel Vejmelka this season: the one that can steal a game and the one that can’t stop a beach ball.

They got the latter on Wednesday.

Looking at full-season stats, Vejmelka currently sits at the middle of the pack in the most telling stats. Out of the 38 goalies to play at least 10 games this season, he’s:

• 20th in goals-against average (2.84),
• 27th in save percentage (.886),
• 27th in goals saved above average (-5.62),
• 20th in high-danger save percentage (.814).

While he has shown that he’s capable of playing at an elite level, he hasn’t done it consistently enough to deserve the starter’s net every night.

In this game in particular, he struggled to track passes and rebounds, which led to a few goals that he could have otherwise saved.

Tourigny offered an explanation a few days prior, saying that when the team suppresses shots the way Utah does, it hurts the goaltenders’ stats. In a conversation with Vejmelka a few days later, he refused to blame it on the math.

Instead, he said he just needed to play better.

Vítek Vaněček hasn’t been great, either, so it’s hard to rely on him in Vejmelka’s stead. If Utah is going to make the playoffs, they either need one of these guys to step up or they need to bring in someone else that can get the job done.

Goal of the game

Yamamoto from Guenther and Cooley

Kailer Yamamoto did a good job to find open space, but the goal wouldn’t have happened without Logan Cooley’s hard work in the corner and Dylan Guenther’s brilliant pass.

The governor acknowledged Republican lawmakers are frustrated with the court, but “I didn’t have that same consternation.”

Gov. Spencer Cox said he supports expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven justices — something he had previously stopped short of committing to — and does not consider it to be “packing” the court in the aftermath of bitter disputes between the justices and the Legislature.

“It’s something that I do support,” Cox said during a news conference Tuesday. “I support getting more resources to the courts generally.”

That includes, he said, expanding the court of appeals and the district courts, as well, to speed up how long it takes for cases to make their way through the courts.

“We’re not the state we were 40 years ago. We’re not the state we were 20 years ago, from a size perspective,” Cox said. “There’s a reason most medium-sized states to larger states start to move to the seven-to-nine justice range.”

The expansion of Utah’s high court was originally proposed earlier this year after the court had dealt a series of defeats to Republican lawmakers — halting a law banning almost all abortions in the state and limiting the court’s ability to repeal citizen-passed ballot measures.

Because the number of justices on the court is set in law, and not the Constitution, it would not take an amendment to change the number.

When the idea was floated of expanding the U.S. Supreme Court during President Joe Biden’s administration, Republicans cried foul, accusing Democrats of trying to tip the balance of the court by packing it with liberal justices.

Cox said it would be “weird” to look at expanding Utah’s courts that way, because all five of the current justices have been appointed by Republican governors and confirmed by Republican senators. He acknowledged there is frustration among Republican legislators with the court, but “I didn’t have that same consternation, and I think it’s a good idea.”

The Utah Supreme Court has issued 58 opinions so far this year, 47 last year, but 27 in 2023. The average number of decisions over the past decade is 61, and over the last 20 years, the average was 72 rulings.

Last month, when Cox announced the nomination of Judge John J. Nielsen to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, he said expansion was an idea “worth considering,” but didn’t endorse expansion.

In an interview at the time, Chief Justice Michael Durrant said expansion would likely slow down the court.

“We care about how quickly we get [a ruling] out very much, but more than anything else, we want to get it right under the law, under the Constitution,” he said. “Seven can make it longer, more people to disagree. … Five seems to be a sweet spot, at least for Utah, right now.”

Cox said that when he was interviewing candidates for the most recent vacancy on the court, “five of the six of them said their number one concern with the Supreme Court was the time it was taking to get decisions. So this is not me.”

With Nielsen set to take his seat on the court, Cox will have appointed three of the five justices. Expansion would mean he would have filled five of the seven seats and, with Durrant expected to retire in the coming years, would have put six of the seven on the bench.

States have not frequently expanded their high courts, but in 2016, both Arizona and Georgia added two justices to their courts.

Arizona went from five to seven amid criticism from Republican lawmakers that the court was not conservative enough. Georgia’s grew from seven to nine, which flipped a 4-3 Democratic majority on the court to a 5-4 Republican advantage.

The number of rulings issued by Arizona’s court increased from 39 to 43 on average since the expansion. Georgia’s court has averaged fewer decisions since justices were added.