Doohickie Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 This game was almost a perfect Cliff Notes of the Sabres' Season... So if the season continues to follow the narrative, we'll find a way in to the playoffs, and we will in the extended season. I had exactly the same thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Having the lower ROW is a bad thing. ROW = Regular and Overtime Wins. The league decided after the debacle a few years back that the best tiebreaker is to throw out the shootout wins, and just count the ROW. If you have a lower ROW when it comes to the tiebreaker, you're out. Ottawa can finish no higher than 7th, and I don't believe they can hit eighth, without some extenuating circumstances that are highly unlikely. ROW = regulation or overtime wins. Bottom line is you want a higher ROW. In the offseason ROW was implemented because GMs complained that shootouts were determining playoff spots, so shootout wins were removed from the tiebreaker. Edit: Yea, what dEnnis said. Thanks guys, I just read the tiebreaker wrong. Well either way we need 4 points and Washington can only get 3. So we need to win out either way for the most part. Hopefully since Philly and Boston don't have much anything left(other than being a spoiler to us) to play for they will coast through these last two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Which is stupid, because if a shoot out counts as a win, then it should be a factor in tie breakers. Why have the shoot out if you're going to make a stat that excludes it? I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment...and The Sabres broadcasting crew did the same last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Simple: The ref was actually giving the Leafs a break. The puck was sitting under a defenseman in the crease. The D-man was crouched over it, but did not lay down on it, so the puck was available. Had he flopped on it, it would have been a penalty shot. Had the ref blown the whistle with the puck under a D-man, it would have been (arguably) a penalty shot. The ref could see the puck, so he refused to blow the whistle because he didn't want to get involved in a penalty shot controversy. I looked at the replay and from the time Foligno shot the puck into the crease until the goal scored was full 11 seconds. Wow. Quite possibly the longest 11 seconds of my life. The amazing thing about that play is that it NEVER ends that way. The Ref eventually blows the whistle, but not last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Which is stupid, because if a shoot out counts as a win, then it should be a factor in tie breakers. Why have the shoot out if you're going to make a stat that excludes it? I think the intent of the rule is that "team wins" (I.e., Regulation and Overtime) are more highly valued than "individual skills wins" (an individual player against the goalie). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Quite possibly the longest 11 seconds of my life. The amazing thing about that play is that it NEVER ends that way. The Ref eventually blows the whistle, but not last night. It was long enough that I was able to exclaim "This ref is the man! This ref is THE MAN!" in sheer amazement as play continued. I couldn't believe he saw the puck so well but he just stood there and watched with all the confidence in the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Quite possibly the longest 11 seconds of my life. The amazing thing about that play is that it NEVER ends that way. The Ref eventually blows the whistle, but not last night. It was a delicious 11 seconds though, the way it turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 I think the intent of the rule is that "team wins" (I.e., Regulation and Overtime) are more highly valued than "individual skills wins" (an individual player against the goalie). Then why have the shoot out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 I think the intent of the rule is that "team wins" (I.e., Regulation and Overtime) are more highly valued than "individual skills wins" (an individual player against the goalie). Oh, the intent is exactly that, but still, I don't like how the shootout wins count for everyone, except when there's a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 It was long enough that I was able to exclaim "This ref is the man! This ref is THE MAN!" in sheer amazement as play continued. I couldn't believe he saw the puck so well but he just stood there and watched with all the confidence in the world! It's not implausible. In the replay, I could see where the puck was under the defenseman. If the ref had the right view, he could see it as well. The D-man was kind of damned if he did, damned if he didn't; he was trying to block out the puck from the Sabres, but couldn't freeze it, and ended up blocking it from the goalie as well so the goalie couldn't freeze it. So there it sat until Leo found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 "Frattin is stepping into a hornet's nest" Toronto announcer. lol http://youtu.be/B3frmLrl7K4 Ahhh yes, that video reminds me of how awful that interference call was. Bozak played the puck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 It's not implausible. In the replay, I could see where the puck was under the defenseman. If the ref had the right view, he could see it as well. The D-man was kind of damned if he did, damned if he didn't; he was trying to block out the puck from the Sabres, but couldn't freeze it, and ended up blocking it from the goalie as well so the goalie couldn't freeze it. So there it sat until Leo found it. I can't think of a better way to stick it to the Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Then why have the shoot out? That's a philosophical argument I'm not prepared to tackle, but in general, they want ALL the games to come to resolution somehow. Look at it this way: The sooner you can win it, the more value that is on the win. Regulation: Winner gets 2 pts, loser gets none, plus the winner accrues a ROW. OT: Winner gets 2 pts, loser gets one, plus winner gets a ROW. Shootout: 2 pts to winner, 1 to loser, no ROW. So the longer it took the winner to get the win, the less value the win has relative the the rest of the league, comparatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoYouBelieve Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Thanks guys, I just read the tiebreaker wrong. Well either way we need 4 points and Washington can only get 3. So we need to win out either way for the most part. Hopefully since Philly and Boston don't have much anything left(other than being a spoiler to us) to play for they will coast through these last two. I agree that I'd be much more comfortable to see the Sabres' win out, but Washington has played like chumps at various important junctures of this season. I wouldn't be shocked if they lose to both Florida and NYR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sooo, me and the OL had a little intermission interlude between the 2nd & 3rd periods. Convincing her we "need" to repeat this every game might take some doing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoYouBelieve Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Then why have the shoot out? I've been asking this question since its inception. Imagine a tied baseball game where there's 1 extra inning and then a homerun derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment...and The Sabres broadcasting crew did the same last night. And Harry made probably one of the best points. It's the only head to head/team vs team sport that awards a point to the losing team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredsounds Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 taken from the wikipedia page of one mike komisarek: 'On April 3, 2012 at a game in Buffalo, NY, Komisarek angered Sabres forward Marcus Foligno, for which he and the Leafs were made to look silly.' :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 I've been asking this question since its inception. Imagine a tied baseball game where there's 1 extra inning and then a homerun derby. When you think of it that way it really does blow my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Which is stupid, because if a shoot out counts as a win, then it should be a factor in tie breakers. Why have the shoot out if you're going to make a stat that excludes it? A shootout counts as a win for the purpose of adding 2 points to the victor. It makes some sense that they would exclude it from the tiebreaker since that's not how playoff games are decided. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing head-to-head as the first tiebreaker. Of course, I say that knowing we own that one over Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sooo, me and the OL had a little intermission interlude between the 2nd & 3rd periods. Convincing her we "need" to repeat this every game might take some doing... Maurice, you disgust me. (No, not really.) Good luck w/ the lobbying effort. :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Ahhh yes, that video reminds me of how awful that interference call was. Bozak played the puck! Right?? he quite obvioulsy moved the puck down the boards for his player to pick up.... why the interference??? and why no instigator?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 I've been asking this question since its inception. Imagine a tied baseball game where there's 1 extra inning and then a homerun derby. Or one extra inning where you play with 2 outfielders and 3 infielders and then a home run derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 taken from the wikipedia page of one mike komisarek: 'On April 3, 2012 at a game in Buffalo, NY, Komisarek angered Sabres forward Marcus Foligno, for which he and the Leafs were made to look silly.' :lol: Watching the end of the game replay right now, and all I gotta say is Komisarek is a son of a b*tch. I hope he gets his ass kicked by every player on the Sabres next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Or one extra inning where you play with 2 outfielders and 3 infielders and then a home run derby. Except a home run derby is basically how the game is played anyway. Pitcher throws, batter tries to hit. The Shootout is not something that actually happens during the course of a normal hockey game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.