That Aud Smell

What?! Really?! That's kinda cool. He's likely* past his prime, but I do love Po. *Almost certainly.

Go, Sabres!! This is a team that they match up well against. C'mon, fellas!

The Wrexham reality show is really good. From a competitive standpoint, I think him taking a leading role in Senators ownership is bad news for the Sabres. So be it. It should be a very good thing for the NHL. He is smart, charming, and, yes, quite savvy with the business stuff. I was surprised not to like it. It landed flat for me. I was disappointed in myself.

Good post. This piece especially seems relevant. The same might be said for Stillman.

I agree with those opining that management is looking for Dahlin to be the next captain. It sure seems that way. (Quick thought to the contrary: Maybe Dahlin was the author of the open letter because he's been here throughout a lot of the suckitude, not because he's the presumed next Captain?) If it were a truly open competition and I was choosing (neither appear to be the case), I'd go with Cozens. His activity on that 3rd period power play last night had me thinking along that line. He was worth 2 skaters for most of that third period. What a competitor. As for Tuch, our erstwhile fellow poster had a funny take on the matter last night:

the skinner "between 2 ..." skit was fantastic. he really gets and conveys the original awkward vibe of zack g.

I wonder about this as well. I'll add: The refs seem to dislike him. It has settled down a bit of late, but, earlier in the season, it seemed palpable that certain refs had him on their sh1t list. I worry a little bit about having a captain that the (or at least some) refs despise.

He’s clearly been struggling.

This is how the playoff push ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

He is struggling a bit.

Thompson’s line tonight. Woof.

Krebs spent more time off his skates than on last shift.

Sir! ... Sir!

Best guess: It's a policy (accounting principle?) designed to discourage teams from paying massive up front bonuses and then offloading a player with manageable cash salary payments after a couple years. Those bonuses have to be amortized over the life of the contract. And if the franchise moves on from the player in year 2 or 3, then they still need to reckon with that amortization. Something like that.

Come ON. Let's Go, Buffalo!

It had its TV's - 2 or 3? - all tuned to a hockey game. Not the Sabres game. They must hear about it enough because, when I squinted (literally) to see what was on the TV's, one of the waitresses said to me, in a sort of world weary way, "yeah, we don't get a lot of the Sabre games." When I looked at her like "really?!" She just shrugged with a "hey, I just work here" look. That hotel draws a significant portion of business from people who are in town to see the Sabres. So I tend to disagree. I visited and was looking for the hockey game. And, like I said, it was apparent to me that they get the question, at least from time to time. The bar was empty when I arrived around 10:00 pm. 🥱 After the game ended, the bar area soon filled with people coming from the game. I guess they don't count as people who would want the Sabres broadcast on? (Otoh, they were ... at the game.) I suppose this gets to the heart of it. (Although I am unclear on a hotel bar having regular clientele.) The establishment was one I hope never to return to. My draft beer tasted like it had a cigar put out in it. When I politely asked for a replacement, that pour/glass had the same issue. I declined that one as well and asked for a bottle of Molson. I was there to visit with people who had been at the game for work, were staying at the hotel, and had early flights out. Their MO is to go to the hotel's bar after the game for something to eat and a couple drinks. It was not my choice, regrettably.

It was my OP. I wouldn’t use the word upset, but I was definitely aggravated. And really more mystified. Posters here - including you - are right to distinguish between PSE and the lessee/operator of that Marriott. From this consumer’s standpoint, though, those are PSE properties. It’s all part of Harborcenter. Pegula Land. It’s the hotel that all visiting teams use - except probably Ottawa (ha). And the bar there wasn’t showing the Sabre game being played a hundred yards to the south. It struck me as bizarre. It’s been related to me offline that Marriott corporate policies on cable subscriptions are rigid. Simple enough explanation. It’s still a bad look.

He most certainly did. The situation room people determined he did not do so deliberately insofar as the goal scoring was concerned.

But that is precisely what the rule says (in a bassackward sort of way). 78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons: (i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. When this occurs, if it is deemed to be done deliberately, then the decision shall be NO GOAL. A goal cannot be scored when the puck has been deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body into the ne

For the wrong reason (rule), evidently. The on ice ref called it off for a distinct kicking motion.

Based on the statement they gave to reporters, they were aware of the applicable rule (78.5(i)) and applied it as they saw fit. Their statement talked in terms of the puck deflecting off Fasching. In that way, they seemed to reject the notion that Fasching deliberately directed the puck. The puck deflected off of Fasching makes the puck the subject of the sentence and makes Fasching the (indirect?) object of the sentence. They weren't buying that Fasching was the actor (subject) of what happened. Which is nucking futs. But I think they had the right rule in mind. Maybe the rule book is shoved up their rectums and that's how they were able to read it while they were "reviewing" the video replay of the called-no-goal?

Oof. Having looked at the Video Review rules (which are not a model of clarity), I've concluded that there is no deference to the call on the ice. Toronto reviews every single goal. And they make their own determination of whether or not there was a good goal. Anyone know anything different? The DKM Rule is written in such a way that, when a goal is reviewed (as they all are!), and regardless of the call on ice, the burden is on the video replay (?!) to clearly establish that the player deliberately propelled the puck with a kick. So, it's gonna be a good goal unless the video clearly establishes a deliberate propelling with the boot or skate. No deference to what the on-ice ref called. 37.4 Distinct Kicking Motion – Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. Double oof. But, again, Toronto takes a fresh look at every single goal that's scored. They should know the rules? Apparently they do not. Or they somehow determined that Fasching did not deliberately direct that puck towards the net with his leg.

I also see a lot of talk here about what was "deserved" in terms of the game's outcome. And to that, I say nuts. Deserved's got nothing to do with it. Sometimes there are results that are against the run of play. That's part of an 82-game season. We were charting for such an outcome last night. Until Toronto took it away. Inexplicably. The Sabres are down to nut cutting time. Their margin for error is razor thin. They need every break they can get. Last night, they didn't just miss out on getting a break, the got fookin' hosed by the league.

I wanna keep it straight. The rule at issue talks about the action being done deliberately. Distinct kicking motion isn't in play here.

Holy hell - yes. Those guys are shills. And probably bozos as well when it comes to the applicable rule(s).