Auston Matthews Suspended for Two Games for His Crosscheck on Dahlin

[Spoonman]

20 minutes ago, Spoonman said:

 

NHL discipline vid: https://www.nhl.com/video/t-277440360

Silly basic explanation….. still 2 games & we check his a$$ all next game. Have Hayden mirror him.

 

April 12 @ AreLna - need to make it 3-1 season series w win.

[Eleven]

27 minutes ago, Spoonman said:

 

NHL discipline vid: https://www.nhl.com/video/t-277440360

Silly basic explanation….. still 2 games & we check his a$$ all next game. Have Hayden mirror him.

 

These videos are so silly that they're almost camp.

[North Buffalo]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

I dunno.  The wood Hespeler in my basement didn’t have a flex rating.

I play with 85 flex 5 lie...

[Weave]

20 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

I play with 85 flex 5 lie...

Your wife must be happy?

[inkman]

I’m absolutely here for a long standing Dahlin Matthews feud. 

[nfreeman]

So that’s the no-goal that somehow turned into a critical goal in the 3rd period, plus a major star who is a Hart candidate for the Leafs getting his first suspension ever for cross checking a Sabre.

I ask again:  does anyone still think the refs are biased against the Sabres?

[Pimlach]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So that’s the no-goal that somehow turned into a critical goal in the 3rd period, plus a major star who is a Hart candidate for the Leafs getting his first suspension ever for cross checking a Sabre.

I ask again:  does anyone still think the refs are biased against the Sabres?c

Ask after the next Leaves game.  

[SwampD]

16 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So that’s the no-goal that somehow turned into a critical goal in the 3rd period, plus a major star who is a Hart candidate for the Leafs getting his first suspension ever for cross checking a Sabre.

I ask again:  does anyone still think the refs are biased against the Sabres?

By rule, that was a goal, so bias does not come into account.

Nice loaded question. Way to make it sound like every ref, every call, every game.

I think the officiating has been great lately. Seriously. Even was when the crowd was all upset in the Vegas game.

Refs are biased. They just are. We know this. They know this. There are emails and every article Kerry Fraser writes to prove it. It's more for certain other teams than it is against the Sabres. And it hasn't come in to play for a while now. It's been nice.

[Ogre]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Refs are biased. They just are. We know this.

I go to a ton of games and get the game notes as a rite. I pay special attention to the officiating crew and there are a few refs (linesmen seem to have more variety) that are regulars and there are two that are especially biased toward the Amerks. They just are. 
They're probably D-bags in every day life too. (That’s the irrational part of my analysis).

[bunomatic]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Ask after the next Leaves game.  

The Leafs have been very vocal through the media about missed calls which is a strategy. It was good to see the officials make sure they never missed any infractions the Leafs made in Hamilton on Sunday. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

So that’s the no-goal that somehow turned into a critical goal in the 3rd period, plus a major star who is a Hart candidate for the Leafs getting his first suspension ever for cross checking a Sabre.

I ask again:  does anyone still think the refs are biased against the Sabres?

Well yes, in general. In most cases I'd say its unconscious on the ref's part and more sinister in Toronto. As for the 3rd period goal, it fell into an odd gray area, in which due to it being an outdoor game, the goalie can easily jettison the net from its moorings. So it ends up becoming a judgement of Mrazek's intent. Because the refs had the call on the ice be a goal; Toronto was left with two options:

1. Disallow the goal based on the net being pushed off the moorings prior to the puck crossing the line

2. Allow the goal on 1 of a few different supporting rules. (Intentional Net Dislodging, The Shot being inbound prior to the net coming off??, Even the general sense that the puck entered the center of the net without the goalie or puck being interfered with)

In the end we got lucky because the NHL chose to allow the call on the ice to stand. (Not to mention they likely are more likely to rule in our favor more often after the snafu from the Rangers game.)

[nfreeman]

16 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Well yes, in general. In most cases I'd say its unconscious on the ref's part and more sinister in Toronto. As for the 3rd period goal, it fell into an odd gray area, in which due to it being an outdoor game, the goalie can easily jettison the net from its moorings. So it ends up becoming a judgement of Mrazek's intent. Because the refs had the call on the ice be a goal; Toronto was left with two options:

1. Disallow the goal based on the net being pushed off the moorings prior to the puck crossing the line

2. Allow the goal on 1 of a few different supporting rules. (Intentional Net Dislodging, The Shot being inbound prior to the net coming off??, Even the general sense that the puck entered the center of the net without the goalie or puck being interfered with)

In the end we got lucky because the NHL chose to allow the call on the ice to stand. (Not to mention they likely are more likely to rule in our favor more often after the snafu from the Rangers game.)

Well, the first call from a ref on that play was no goal — and that ref was right on top of the play.  Then they huddled and somehow it morphed into the call on the ice being good goal.

 

[SDS]

18 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, the first call from a ref on that play was no goal — and that ref was right on top of the play.  Then they huddled and somehow it morphed into the call on the ice being good goal.

 

It was good according to the rules. It was the correct interpretation.

[PASabreFan]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

It was good according to the rules. It was the correct interpretation.

Not sure that the net wasn't dislodged before the shot.

[nfreeman]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

Not sure that the net wasn't dislodged before the shot.

I thought that the ruling was that even if dislodged before the shot, if dislodged intentionally by the goalie, and the shot would’ve gone in, it’s a goal.  I could be wrong about that though.  If I’m right, there are plenty of subjective moving pieces in that call.

[PASabreFan]

12 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I thought that the ruling was that even if dislodged before the shot, if dislodged intentionally by the goalie, and the shot would’ve gone in, it’s a goal.  I could be wrong about that though.  If I’m right, there are plenty of subjective moving pieces in that call.

For now all I've got is:

63.7 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either
deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck
crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,
the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have
been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the attacking
player must have an imminent scoring opportunity prior to the goal
post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would
have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

It makes my head hurt.

[SDS]

All of that reads like a good goal to me.

[PASabreFan]

6 hours ago, SDS said:

All of that reads like a good goal to me.

The rule was changed recently. The word imminent is key. It went from black and white to shades of grey. Yeah that's not gonna end up biting the league.

 

[K-9]

7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

For now all I've got is:

63.7 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either
deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck
crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,
the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have
been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the attacking
player must have an imminent scoring opportunity prior to the goal
post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would
have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

It makes my head hurt.

Seems like a pretty simple explanation and it’s exactly what happened on the play, imo. The refs did well to gather, discuss, and enforce the proper ruling. 

[SwampD]

7 hours ago, SDS said:

All of that reads like a good goal to me.

 

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Seems like a pretty simple explanation and it’s exactly what happened on the play, imo. The refs did well to gather, discuss, and enforce the proper ruling. 

Sorry, free. There is no there there.

😂

[North Buffalo]

8 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Not sure that the net wasn't dislodged before the shot.

Yeh me too but problem is the puck went between his legs and would have gone in anyway... it wasnt near one of the posts so there was no judgement to be had there and the goalie clearly knocked post off

[Sabres Fan in NS]

19 hours ago, SDS said:

 

On 3/14/2022 at 9:14 AM, The Ghost of Doohickie said:

He'll get 2 games.  Book it.

The NHL will use his sorry ass to send a message.

I say 2 games because it was a star player with a dangerous hit on another star player.  Yes.  Rasmus is a star in the league and the NHL knows it.

LOL!!

It's funny that you are getting all the love for saying that I nailed it, but I am getting very little for actually nailing it.  Ha!!

Oh, well.  I am very,very, very seldom right (just ask my wife) so I will bask in this glow for a while.

[PASabreFan]

12 hours ago, SDS said:

All of that reads like a good goal to me.

Sure, but can a player have an actual scoring opportunity (the puck has been shot or is in the process of being shot)? Why mention an imminent opportunity only? What does that term even mean?

[MattPie]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Sure, but can a player have an actual scoring opportunity (the puck has been shot or is in the process of being shot)? Why mention an imminent opportunity only? What does that term even mean?

If I had to guess, imagine this scenario: player is skating in on a break-away or 2-on-1, etc. GT pushes the net off but the shot wasn't actually taken yet. Player shoots before any whistle or whatnot, and the puck goes in. By the old rule, there is no goal is disallowed, the NHL wants to make it even harder for a defender to knock the net off to avoid a goal. Second scenario is an Empty Net and defender pushes the net off before the player skating in shoots. I believe the ref can already award a goal if a defending player draws a penalty on an EN breakaway without a shot, so moving the net before a shot is just another application of that.

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Sure, but can a player have an actual scoring opportunity (the puck has been shot or is in the process of being shot)? Why mention an imminent opportunity only? What does that term even mean?

It’s open for interpretation, but it’s like porn; you know it when you see it. 

The net being dislodged had ZERO impact on the goalie’s ability to make the save or not. The puck would have crossed the line in the center of the crease whether the net was there or not. The goalie should have made the save, but couldn’t, and I imagine the refs got together to discuss just that and the video review confirmed what they discussed.