Cage

ahh NO... we're talking about what's reviewable to wipe out a goal. Your scenario would have been easily called by the linesman. These are microscopic infractions we're debating that aren't really tilting the playing field and then wiping out a goal after the fact. The linesmen are still there to call offsides in the normal way.

How about its only review able if the guy coming into the zone with the puck scores? That ways its immediate and most closely associated with the play. As soon as a pass is made (much less 2-3) then its no longer review-able

I think that one of the things that isn't getting enough discussion is the extent that this reversal just shatters momentum. Sports is a highly emotional activity, not just for the fans but the players especially. We've seen in every sport the impact of momentum on a game the confidence generated during a comeback. In all sports, teams call time-outs and change pitchers in order to stop a game and try to cool off momentum. In two of the three cases for the Sabres, the COST of getting the call right far exceeded the intent of this rule. It essentially killed their momentum, the crowd and the game in one fell swoop. These are microscopic infractions that overturn a hard-earned goal on a technicality. The purpose of the offsides rule in a free-flowing game is to not give the attacking team an undo advantage. If the infraction is so close that a linesman sitting on the Blue Line with the sole job of looking for offsides misses the call then its pretty clear that the attacking team didn't have an unfair advantage. I really have a hard time seeing how this is "getting it right"

When this happened back in the first game on Kane's goal (Girgensons was offside). Tim Murray weighed in and wasn't upset, claiming it was the correct call. Yo GMTM, you need to change your view on this and become an advocate for getting rid of this crazy technicality of a rule. Its cost your team three goals and possibly two losses!! This is NOT hockey! I'm just looking at the article on this in the BN this morning... this is the exact same thing that happened in the first game. "It’s disappointing after the fact, but it’s a major downer when it happens. The roaring crowd went silent. The pumped-up Sabres suddenly had air let out. They tried to focus on continuing their power play and getting the goal back, but they never really challenged again." They're being way too kind to this abomination of a rule. When you read this it shows that the COST of this infraction is far greater than just erasing a goal. Its changing the entire momentum of the game

I don't understand hockey's cryptic explanation of injuries. What is the purpose of this evasion and what strategic value does it add to the team doing the evading? And the only explanation of an injury's duration is "long-term" and "week-to-week"? We can't know know exactly what a player's injury is? There's no more strategic and psychological game than football, but we know exactly what each player's injury is.... "MCL sprain on the left knee, out 3-4 weeks". Its clear and specific... I don't get it!

Exactly... and I believe that Johnson is in the last year of his contract. He'll be right back up to the Sabres next year as Johnson won't be re-signed.

I like all of these ideas way better. If its deemed that at team needs to be able to challenge an offsides then A) having them do it right away B) putting a consequence to them if they're wrong and C) making sure its overwhelmingly blatant are all good ideas...... but I still think they should just bag the rule

Talk about killing momentum. Go back to the first time it happened when Kane scored and Girgenson's was offside. It was a total momentum killer. We had a lackluster 1st period, went down 2-0, Eichel scores his first ever, the crowd is into it, a few minutes later Kane scores to tie the game, crowd goes nuts.....................................and then 7 minutes of review takes the goal off the board on what most would consider a technicality. While the Sabres did have time to score another to tie the game. The reversal was a massive momentum killer

... I don't care that we discussed and clarified rule earlier in the year. This is still BS. They need to fix this rule. Its the 2nd time its cost us and it just seems like overturning a hard-fought goal on a technicality. Feels like a professional wrestling outcome....

I agree.... and I think the more unfortunate problem with this particular call is that it affected the momentum of the game and perhaps ultimately the outcome.

The way I would tie it to footballl is that you can challenge what the person scoring the TD with the ball did (cross the goalline, have possession of the ball, have both feet down), but you can't challenge anciallary thing that the referees missed. The TD can't be challenged and negated because the refs missed a false start or a holding call on the OL. That's part of refs making mistakes that happens in every sport. Only the incident of the goal or TD can be challenged.... which is not what happened last night.

This whole thing is BS.... I'm looking around a couple of NHL sites and they actually seem to be validating the coaches challenge in getting it right. I can't believe there aren't opinion pieces out there railing about what a mistake it was to mess up a game through rules like this. How on earth does this add to the game?

YES,... totally agree! The blue line (all of it) should be just like "the plane of the goal-line" in football. The puck was on the blueline when Girgenson's was crossing. He had fully crossed before the puck fully crossed. If we used a "plane of the goal-line" type rule, it would have been a goal and it should have been.

I'll ask my question again... if the Sabres came in offsides and spent two full minutes moving/passing the puck around in the Ottawa zone and then finallly scored. Could the offsides be challenged from 2 minutes ago??

I'm absolutely shocked that a goal can be challenged on the basis of a missed offsides call as the puck entered the zone. That's just going back way too far. I thought that challenges were only related to the direct scoring play; goaltender interference, kicking in the puck, players in the crease and such. To be able to challenge all the away back to the offsides, just takes too much away from the game. If the Sabres had come in offsides and then spent a full minute or two passing around in the Ottawa zone before scoring you can initiate a challenge wiping out the last 2 minutes?? Some missed calls are just part of the circumstances of a game that is officiated by other humans and can't be corrected that far back. This rule is just wrong and I can't understand why any rules committee would adopt it and think they're improving the game. It wrecked the entire momentum the Sabres built up, the crowd with it, essentially on a technicality.... just wrong!

Sam Reinhart! Either that or an own goal by the Senators with Lehner being the last to touch the puck?!?

I guess I don't understand this comment. That 2nd line could pretty good. I think that's a pretty legitimate 2nd line in any building. I don't seen how Grigorenko can be sent down after all the talk of "earning your position" That's been repeated 100 times by Murray and Nolan. They can't possibly look the guy in the eye and tell he's the on that has to go down between Dalpe, Reinhart, Mtichell, Flynn and him. It would defy all credibility. They guy did the work, acknowledged his previous immaturity and has done everything anyone could request to make the team

Rapidly becoming one of my favorite players! If Reinhart gets sent back to Jrs, would love to see Stewart with Grigorenko (who's staying) and Hodgson.... that would be a pretty good line!

What do we need to do to get the Capitals 1st round pick this year... because our may not be in the bottom two

I know I've seen an explanation for this, but I'll ask anyhow.... why was Girgenson's able to turn pro and go straight to Rochester while Grigorenko and Zadorov can only play on the Sabres, who they may not be ready for, or with their Junior teams, who they've outgrown? Obviously the season in Rochester helped Girgenson's tremendously....

His Presser's are awesome.... all that's missing is a bit swearing thrown in for good measure. I hope he boycotts whatever media training they want to put him through. Keep it real...

In 2 years it will be Brendan... hoping!

I don't think the guy who made that announcement on our first pick Friday is going to plan on sucking for 3-4 more years....

I agree that Lemieux is polished and I'm looking forward to what he will bring the same way we were hopeful about Zack Kassian when he was drafted... I hope he doesn't follow the same trajectory. I don't agree with your impression on Martin. The interview did not come across as arrogant or entitled to me. Surely he's confident and that's something we should want. I'm not sure what the odds are on 3rd rounders, but I'm fine with what I heard in that interview

Ooops, mixing up my NFL team count.... stand corrected