GDT: Sabres @ Islanders - Mar. 7, 2023, 7:30pm, ESPN+/Hulu WGR

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, SwampD said:

It absolutely is the issue, and if you are going to tell people that they need eye exams, then I am going to tell you that you need to re-read and learn the rule. If he intentionally raised his leg to make contact with the puck and then it went into the net, it is no goal. Period.

It doesn't matter if he didn't propel the puck into the net. A distinct kicking motion is irrelevant. You can only intentionally redirect a puck in with your stick.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

You can have whatever view you want on this issue. That's your prerogative. The league officials reviewed the play and came to a different conclusion. Their ruling stood. It's as simple as that. Sometimes rulings are called in your favor, and sometimes not. Official calls (in this case league review system) are part of hockey and sports in general. I didn't watch this game because of who was covering the game. But it is unlikely that this one call was the reason why the Sabres lost this game. 

[JohnC]

13 hours ago, Pimlach said:

They did not determine that John, the puck was directed into the net, and it was directed in by Fasching's shin, this is clear on replay.   No contact with the shin, and the puck goes wide of the net.   

The best and only takeaway you have, as a supporter of this call, is that he did not  deliberately direct the puck.  Read the rule.   The experts in Toronto can apparently determine it was not deliberate better than the officials on the ice.  Even though Fasching was looking at the puck, and he lifted his skate off the ice, and he struck the puck with his shin, and he did so with his leg angled in a manner that changed the pucks direction and sent it into the net.  Even with these 4 things clearly happening on video - Toronto says it was not deliberate,  it was a random deflection off of a leg and therefore a goal.   

Your last sentence is exactly the basis on which the Toronto review officials made their determination that it was a goal. You can disagree with how they saw the play and interpreted the play. I agree with the conclusion, and you don't. I'm okay with the different views. Interpretation of the rules and plays is what reviewing officials do. That's hockey and that's sports in general. 

As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants. In the end the call stands. And is usually the case the outcome was not determined by one call (good or bad). It should be noted that on NHL Network the play was showed. All 3 panelists agreed with the goal call. 

[Weave]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You can have whatever view you want on this issue. That's your prerogative. The league officials reviewed the play and came to a different conclusion. Their ruling stood. It's as simple as that. Sometimes rulings are called in your favor, and sometimes not. Official calls (in this case league review system) are part of hockey and sports in general. I didn't watch this game because of who was covering the game. But it is unlikely that this one call was the reason why the Sabres lost this game. 

If you use the logic that the end result is the full story for the goal, then you should use the same logic for the game result.  That was the GWG so, yes, that call was the reason why the Sabres lost the game.

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

 

As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants.

????  I think this is my first post in regards to the GWG.  Not sure I’m the @ your looking for.

[WhenWillItEnd66]

All this goal and no goal talk and no GDT for todays game? LOL I love that we have such passionate fans on this board!

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, Stormcloudmember66 said:

All this goal and no goal talk and no GDT for todays game? LOL I love that we have such passionate fans on this board!

*tap tap*
 

Batter up.

[WhenWillItEnd66]

fine

[JohnC]

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

If you use the logic that the end result is the full story for the goal, then you should use the same logic for the game result.  That was the GWG so, yes, that call was the reason why the Sabres lost the game.

????  I think this is my first post in regards to the GWG.  Not sure I’m the @ your looking for.

I apologize. It was @SwampD.

Every game has a number of twists and turns such as failures to capitalize on opportunities and damaging sloppy play. No one play determines the outcome. Teams overcome bad calls and take advantage of calls that are in their favor when they shouldn't have been. It's a 60 minute game. 

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You can have whatever view you want on this issue. That's your prerogative. The league officials reviewed the play and came to a different conclusion. Their ruling stood. It's as simple as that. Sometimes rulings are called in your favor, and sometimes not. Official calls (in this case league review system) are part of hockey and sports in general. I didn't watch this game because of who was covering the game. But it is unlikely that this one call was the reason why the Sabres lost this game. 

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your last sentence is exactly the basis on which the Toronto review officials made their determination that it was a goal. You can disagree with how they saw the play and interpreted the play. I agree with the conclusion, and you don't. I'm okay with the different views. Interpretation of the rules and plays is what reviewing officials do. That's hockey and that's sports in general. 

As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants. In the end the call stands. And is usually the case the outcome was not determined by one call (good or bad). It should be noted that on NHL Network the play was showed. All 3 panelists agreed with the goal call. 

I never said it was the reason they lost the game.

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call wrong, because they did.

 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your last sentence is exactly the basis on which the Toronto review officials made their determination that it was a goal. You can disagree with how they saw the play and interpreted the play. I agree with the conclusion, and you don't. I'm okay with the different views. Interpretation of the rules and plays is what reviewing officials do. That's hockey and that's sports in general. 

As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants. In the end the call stands. And is usually the case the outcome was not determined by one call (good or bad). It should be noted that on NHL Network the play was showed. All 3 panelists agreed with the goal call. 

So you finally understand the call was 100% based on their interpretation of the players intentions.  Good.   I won't comment on the fact you actually agree with it, that is your business.  

Don't gets sucked into the "experts" on TV.  If Toronto decided in favor of the on ice officials, the same taking heads would all support that decision as well.   NHL Network, just like ESPN, is trying to promote the sport and they are not going to say anything that damages the already tarnished image of the NHL.  Their opinions hold little weight to me.  

I also think the goal in question, which is the GWG, clearly decided the game more than any other play.   One play can, and often does decide a game.  It makes us feel better to say otherwise but given the circumstances, that goal determined the outcome. The Sabres had very little gas in the tank (a fact never discussed by ESPN) but made a strong effort to tie it back up.  

[PASabreFan]

I'm still mad.

[Pimlach]

32 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm still mad.

Did you get that statement from the NHL yet?

[PASabreFan]

30 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Did you get that statement from the NHL yet?

It was sent to Darcy's old fax machine at Kinko's by UB.

[Pimlach]

29 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It was sent to Darcy's old fax machine at Kinko's by UB.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

So you finally understand the call was 100% based on their interpretation of the players intentions.  Good.   I won't comment on the fact you actually agree with it, that is your business.  

Don't gets sucked into the "experts" on TV.  If Toronto decided in favor of the on ice officials, the same taking heads would all support that decision as well.   NHL Network, just like ESPN, is trying to promote the sport and they are not going to say anything that damages the already tarnished image of the NHL.  Their opinions hold little weight to me.  

I also think the goal in question, which is the GWG, clearly decided the game more than any other play.   One play can, and often does decide a game.  It makes us feel better to say otherwise but given the circumstances, that goal determined the outcome. The Sabres had very little gas in the tank (a fact never discussed by ESPN) but made a strong effort to tie it back up.  

The play stands. Islanders earned two points in the win and the Sabres got zero points in the loss. I have no issue with people having a different view on the legitimacy of the goal. That's hockey, that's sports and that is part of life. In my estimation there is too much looking back instead of moving on. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

I never said it was the reason they lost the game.

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call wrong, because they did.

 

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call right, because they did. I respectfully disagree with you and the majority of people here. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game. 

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call right, because they did. I respectfully disagree with you and the majority of people here. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game. 

But you are wrong.

[SwampD]

(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 net.

It was deliberate.

Edited March 9, 2023 by SwampD

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

But you are wrong.

I'm wrong all the time. I can handle having deficiencies. 

[LTS]

Deliberate is subjective.. and that's the problem.

The rule needs to be revised to remove as much subjectivity from it as possible.

 

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

(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 net.

It was deliberate.

The reviewing officials didn't interpret the player's action as being deliberate. You have every right to disagree with the call. But the reviewing officials didn't come away with the same conclusion you had. The game's over. There will be no redo of the play or game. The Sabres lost and the Islanders won. We earned zero points and they earned two points in the standing. That won't change. Buffalo plays Dallas tonight. That's what needs to be focused on. 

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The reviewing officials didn't interpret the player's action as being deliberate. You have every right to disagree with the call. But the reviewing officials didn't come away with the same conclusion you had. The game's over. There will be no redo of the play or game. The Sabres lost and the Islanders won. We earned zero points and they earned two points in the standing. That won't change. Buffalo plays Dallas tonight. That's what needs to be focused on. 

Nothing I focus on has any relevance to whether or not the Sabres win.