Cage
-
Posts
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cage
-
-
The Sabres were only in the zone for 6 seconds (apparently) before the goal was scored, so last night would have turned out the same 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
-
Robi on GR moments ago. Simon quoted Bylsma as saying last night, in effect, it was disappointing, sure, but better to get it right. Robi agreed.
Seems like hockey people are more inclined to want correct calls; purity and integrity.
Fans? I think we're more inclined to accept some occasional missed calls for the sake of a more entertaining game.
The NHL is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
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"
-
I have officially reached temper tantrum status over this rule.
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!
-
Ullmark is playing well, but he's too scrambly and floppy. That's just part of being a young goaltender, he needs to be playing a ton and he can do that in Roch while he fine tunes his game. It's just a matter of time before he lays an egg at the NHL level and you don't need to crush his confidence while he's young.
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 think the rule on this should be, you call for a review as soon as it happens. When play stops review it. Don't have some dumb butt idea of calling it only after a goal is scored. Swamp where I have my biggest disagreement with you is either it's an offside review or not. If Ennis in this case doesn't score, they never would have reviewed it, play would have gone on as if nothing happened.
Call for an offside review immediately or live with the consequences. That technology exists today, heck they've used a push button on Jeopardy for years.
I'd like to get rid of the rule, but if they won't do that, maybe they can adjust it to make teams think twice about using it. Take away the goal if they get it right, and give a delay of game penalty if they get it wrong.
Here is a compromise. The rule stays the same, but a challenge can be only be upheld if the entire body is offsides (both skates if on the ice, one skate if the other leg is in the air).
Anything else is too close to overturn.
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
-
this^
I really don't care they called back specifically 2 Sabre goals and I realized that when I saw the replay of Ovechkin's stuff. I was like "really? this is dumb" and it really kills momentum. All they need to do is say something like offsides can't be reviewed if the play stays in the offensive zone for 10 seconds prior to the goal being scored. Fixed.
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've tried to recall a controversial goal where a play was off sides leading up to it and I can't. I remember in like 1981 in game five against the Nordiques Mike Foligino scored a late goal but he was off side but aside from that.
So I just don't think this was a glaring situation that required a solution. Don't fix what isn't broken
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.
-
They missed a very close offside, then a whole lot of other stuff happened in the Sens zone that ultimately resulted in a Sabres goal. That's where the NFL analogy breaks down as every down is a discrete play subject to the rules and challenges. Why draw the line at a frozen puck and ignore the face off that occurred where it shouldn't have because of the missed offside? Big inconsistency. But that's just a small reason why I hate the rule, I mainly hate it because it took too darn long and I have no faith that will improve.
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.
-
2 out of 11 is 18% or almost 1 out of 5. That would be brutal if 1 out of 5 games had outcomes changed because of this stupidity.
Look at what it did to the Sabres last night. The momentum mid-third period was all Buffalo, the team was getting its act together, the early jitters gone, chemistry was beginning... The score was tied - the team and the fans were energized.... I had the feeling the Sabres were going to rally and win the game.
And then, there's a lengthy delay in the game - and the entire Sabres team gets a kick in the teeth - No goal; momentum killed, players angry, tired and frustrated. Rally killed - thanks to the Zebras.
What a horrible way to start the season; in unprecedented fashion.
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?
-
If the toward-center-ice edge of each blue line were the point of reference, both for the offense entering and for the defense clearing, it would benefit offense, no?
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.
-
If you're going to use replay this is the way to use it. Review the entire play. It sucked last night but it was 100% the right call. I'd hate to lose a game on a goal that resulted from an offsides.
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?!?
-
That second line looks like a smart opposing coach's wet dream. I don't know how much matching and specialization Nolan plans on doing, but that second line needs heavily protected minutes.
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!
-
Personally I think the washington team will suck without backstrom and two rookie centers having to do it all.
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...
-
Nikita and Zemgus and Samson and ...
In 2 years it will be Brendan... hoping!
-
GMTM said "...they know we will be adding 2-3 very good players through the draft for the next 3-4 years." Did he just let slip that he expects us to suck for 3-4 MORE YEARS? I don't know about you guys, but a five year tank would be unbearable to me...
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
-
Ummm it's pick 31
Barbashev
Ooops, mixing up my NFL team count.... stand corrected
Coaches Challenge on Offsides
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by 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.