GDT- Buffalo Sabres @ Edmonton Oilers, December 9th,2025/ 9pm ESPN-WGR

[Taro T]

29 minutes ago, Weave said:

I suppose we didn’t respond, did we?

McLeod gave the guy a cross check while he was still lying on the ice.  Soooo, no, not really.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Not over-turning the game tying goal I understand. The league will say something stupid like because he was not in the crease, it the skater’s ice too.

It was all the shirt tug tackles that they didn’t call that really fried my ham. Just ridiculous.

But hey, don’t be a crap team and you will get those calls.

Quinn was held, hog tied, and tossed to the ice in the final minute, blatant interference or holding, no call.   The Edmonton announcer thought it was funny.   They must to used to getting the benefit of the doubt.  

Prior to that, Dahlin gets two minutes for tripping when he checked the guy with the puck behind his own net.  

 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Did no one see a Sabre pushing the Oiler into Lyon?

Come on now. The officiating has sucked, does suck and always will suck bc it's still a garage league and bc hockey is a tough sport to officiate.

But, please, no one has it out for the Sabres. Every fan base in the league feels the same way.

The Sabres can lose on their own. Don't give them the excuse.

Yes, Byram "drove" Draisatl into Lyon's leg.  Sure.

Byram nudged him towards Lyon and then Draisatl chose to use that as an excuse to move Lyon's leg about 2'.  Funny how guys that are pretty good skaters lose all control when it's convenient.  Yes, skaters on all 32 teams do that.  It is what it is.  And the Sabres shouldn't have put themselves in the position where Draisatl could do that.  But 100% that exact play is a judgement call that doesn't always go as it ended up getting called.  Krebs shouldn't have iced it; whomever was supposed to be paying attention to McDavid shouldn't have lost him.  They'd had chances to seal the victory with an extra goal on the 5v3; they didn't get that done.

But 100%, that goal might've gotten called back had the reviewers in TO been in a different mood.

[Archie Lee]

29 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The icing was on the 1st Euler's goal.

It drives me crazy that a goal can be disallowed because Greenway was offside by an inconsequential 1/2 inch, and then the linesman can miss an icing by 3 feet that directly leads to a goal, and that’s not a concern. For clarity, I would prefer that neither can be challenged, but if the missed offside can overturn a goal then it is crazy that the missed icing cannot. 

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

It drives me crazy that a goal can be disallowed because Greenway was offside by an inconsequential 1/2 inch, and then the linesman can miss an icing by 3 feet that directly leads to a goal, and that’s not a concern. For clarity, I would prefer that neither can be challenged, but if the missed offside can overturn a goal then it is crazy that the missed icing cannot. 

Let them BOTH be reviewable; but the review has a limit of 30 seconds (maybe a minute) of observation and if you can't determine conclusively that the call was wrong then the call stands as originally called.

What's really dumb is a coach can challenge a "missed play stoppage" such as the puck hitting the netting above the glass or a missed hand pass but a blown icing call ISN'T a "missed play stoppage."

This league, quite often, stinks.

 

[msw2112]

I assume that Lindy didn't challenge the last Oilers' goal for one of two reasons:

1)  Coaches challenges are not allowed in the final minute, per league rules (thought I saw that above in this thread); OR

2) Even if he could challenge it, if he challenges and loses, which, given the track record and the Sabres' luck, and, well, the NHL, the challenge would have been lost.  Then, the Sabres would have had to kill a 4-3 PP for two minutes of OT against the league's top PP, almost certainly giving up the OT goal.  By not challenging, they still got the 1 point and the realistic opportunity for the 2nd point, which they earned.  Edmonton is in the Western Conference, so them getting a point was inconsequential to the Sabres.

I gave up watching Monday Night Football (a matchup of 2 good teams that ended up being a very good game) to watch the debacle in Calgary, then chose to not watch most of this game, that they actually won...I guess I need to make better decisions in the future.

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Why get worked up?  they won.   

Won this time. But it seems we get the dirty end of the stick far more often. Are you fine with that?

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Let them BOTH be reviewable; but the review has a limit of 30 seconds (maybe a minute) of observation and if you can't determine conclusively that the call was wrong then the call stands as originally called.

What's really dumb is a coach can challenge a "missed play stoppage" such as the puck hitting the netting above the glass or a missed hand pass but a blown icing call ISN'T a "missed play stoppage."

This league, quite often, stinks.

 

Ugh. Man. Reviews of icing? It's always been a "close enough" call. It's technically missed all the time. What a nightmare you are proposing. The linesmen and video guys (and coaches) have a tough enough job as it is.

FTR like everybody else I want to see offside reviews go away.

[Doohickie]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

FTR like everybody else I want to see offside reviews go away.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, you're not getting him back in.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Yes, Byram "drove" Draisatl into Lyon's leg.  Sure.

Byram nudged him towards Lyon and then Draisatl chose to use that as an excuse to move Lyon's leg about 2'.  Funny how guys that are pretty good skaters lose all control when it's convenient.  Yes, skaters on all 32 teams do that.  It is what it is.  And the Sabres shouldn't have put themselves in the position where Draisatl could do that.  But 100% that exact play is a judgement call that doesn't always go as it ended up getting called.  Krebs shouldn't have iced it; whomever was supposed to be paying attention to McDavid shouldn't have lost him.  They'd had chances to seal the victory with an extra goal on the 5v3; they didn't get that done.

But 100%, that goal might've gotten called back had the reviewers in TO been in a different mood.

Draisatl 100% knew what he was doing there. He has nothing to lose at that point. 
 

That brings up another issue from the last two games to keep an eye on. The two goalie runnings have been very blatant. Yes, penalties were called both times, but is it now open season on Sabre goalies? The team is going to have to do something very soon to end that. 

[Pimlach]

15 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Won this time. But it seems we get the dirty end of the stick far more often. Are you fine with that?

I am not fine with it.  So how about this.  Wake up the owner, tell him to give a damm about his team, and maybe the rest of the league will too.  

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Yes, Byram "drove" Draisatl into Lyon's leg.  Sure.

Byram nudged him towards Lyon and then Draisatl chose to use that as an excuse to move Lyon's leg about 2'.  Funny how guys that are pretty good skaters lose all control when it's convenient.  Yes, skaters on all 32 teams do that.  It is what it is.  And the Sabres shouldn't have put themselves in the position where Draisatl could do that.  But 100% that exact play is a judgement call that doesn't always go as it ended up getting called.  Krebs shouldn't have iced it; whomever was supposed to be paying attention to McDavid shouldn't have lost him.  They'd had chances to seal the victory with an extra goal on the 5v3; they didn't get that done.

But 100%, that goal might've gotten called back had the reviewers in TO been in a different mood.

Didn't say drove. Said pushed. An even weaker term, directed, might apply. But once you do any of that, the deal is almost sealed as these guys are master manipulators (the players, not the league teehee).

Edited 2 hours ago by PASabreFan

[PASabreFan]

Another well written NHL Rule, Mamba Number 81.

For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck 
by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing 
has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the 
line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean 
that the puck, while on the player’s stick (not the player’s skate) must 
make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential 
icing.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, msw2112 said:

I assume that Lindy didn't challenge the last Oilers' goal for one of two reasons:

1)  Coaches challenges are not allowed in the final minute, per league rules (thought I saw that above in this thread); OR

2) Even if he could challenge it, if he challenges and loses, which, given the track record and the Sabres' luck, and, well, the NHL, the challenge would have been lost.  Then, the Sabres would have had to kill a 4-3 PP for two minutes of OT against the league's top PP, almost certainly giving up the OT goal.  By not challenging, they still got the 1 point and the realistic opportunity for the 2nd point, which they earned.  Edmonton is in the Western Conference, so them getting a point was inconsequential to the Sabres.

I gave up watching Monday Night Football (a matchup of 2 good teams that ended up being a very good game) to watch the debacle in Calgary, then chose to not watch most of this game, that they actually won...I guess I need to make better decisions in the future.

Simple solution:

https://www.google.com/search?q=seinfeld+scene+George+does+the+opposite&oq=seinfeld+scene+George+does+the+opposite&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBBAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIE0gEJMTU0NzVqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:bc3f30aa,vid:1Y_6fZGSOQI,st:0

[PromoTheRobot]

23 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I am not fine with it.  So how about this.  Wake up the owner, tell him to give a damm about his team, and maybe the rest of the league will too.  

If the NHL runs that way, then it's no better than the WWE, where the refs never see the villains break the rules.  Call it the same for every team, every game. The notion that you only get fair officiating if you somehow earn respect is horseschitt.

[pi2000]

offside calls should be fully automated, we have the technology.  

It was, by definition of the rule, a hand pass.   Tuch swatted at the puck and wether intentional or not, it hit his glove and went untouched to Thompson for the tap in.   Correct call. 

McDavid's tying goal was clean, had no issues with it.  

Tuch should've received a penalty for a cross check, prior to his hooking penalty.   It was a make-up call, happens all the time.    He knew he got away with the cross-check, no need to reach over the guy and pull him down right in front of the ref.     Low IQ play from Tuch. 

Ruff gets heated at officials.   I like it.    It shows that he cares and he's competitive.  

The jersey tug on Quinn in the final minute was egregious and should've been a penalty.    He felt the tug and he went down, I believe if he stays on his feet and keeps battling he gets that call.    Instead he flopped down to the ice, which refs don't like.... make an effort to battle through the infracton and you'll get the call every time. 

[Crusader1969]

2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

It drives me crazy that a goal can be disallowed because Greenway was offside by an inconsequential 1/2 inch, and then the linesman can miss an icing by 3 feet that directly leads to a goal, and that’s not a concern. For clarity, I would prefer that neither can be challenged, but if the missed offside can overturn a goal then it is crazy that the missed icing cannot. 

As a lot of other people have said.  Give the replay guy 1 look at all angles.  If it's not clear and obvious a ref mistake was made.   Play on 

[Crusader1969]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Ugh. Man. Reviews of icing? It's always been a "close enough" call. It's technically missed all the time. What a nightmare you are proposing. The linesmen and video guys (and coaches) have a tough enough job as it is.

FTR like everybody else I want to see offside reviews go away.

Replay assist - like in the NFL.  Again if someone clear and obvious was missed.  Make the call by video 

[Broken Ankles]

2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

It drives me crazy that a goal can be disallowed because Greenway was offside by an inconsequential 1/2 inch, and then the linesman can miss an icing by 3 feet that directly leads to a goal, and that’s not a concern. For clarity, I would prefer that neither can be challenged, but if the missed offside can overturn a goal then it is crazy that the missed icing cannot. 

Think it needs to be challengeable with same consequences. 

[Jorcus]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

Draisatl 100% knew what he was doing there. He has nothing to lose at that point. 
 

That brings up another issue from the last two games to keep an eye on. The two goalie runnings have been very blatant. Yes, penalties were called both times, but is it now open season on Sabre goalies? The team is going to have to do something very soon to end that. 

 Not just the Sabres. It's an NHL problem not a specific to us. This happened last night.  

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/wedgewood-pulled-by-spotter-in-shootout-after-collision-with-forsberg/

Also Duffer was commenting about the Sens going after Markstrom in NJ. 

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Once the genie is out of the bottle, you're not getting him back in.

Probably true. I suspect that the league thinks (or knows, based on data) that replay reviews, aka letting the fan make the call, make the product "stickier." It draws and retains attention.

[Jorcus]

3 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

It drives me crazy that a goal can be disallowed because Greenway was offside by an inconsequential 1/2 inch, and then the linesman can miss an icing by 3 feet that directly leads to a goal, and that’s not a concern. For clarity, I would prefer that neither can be challenged, but if the missed offside can overturn a goal then it is crazy that the missed icing cannot. 

 

What bothers me about the offside is how many times the linesmen are letting it go now there is video review. The close ones I understand but some of the reversals are too easy. They would rather the play go on then be wrong the other way. In general I don't have a problem with offside challenges. There is very little interpretation other than a player fumbling a puck over the line. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Ugh. Man. Reviews of icing? It's always been a "close enough" call. It's technically missed all the time. What a nightmare you are proposing. The linesmen and video guys (and coaches) have a tough enough job as it is.

FTR like everybody else I want to see offside reviews go away.

I have no problem with challenging goals due to offside. If the challenging team is wrong, they then get penalized. If the challenge is upheld, then the goal shouldn't count. 

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Why would you say this unless you never want the Sabres to improve?

Because I do not think Pegula will sell the team and thus I do not think the core philosophy will change and I do not think the organization will change at all. It's possible they go a little up or down and some people get shuffled around but I have no hope that things will ever improve.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT them to improve, but I'm also a realist. 

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Because I do not think Pegula will sell the team and thus I do not think the core philosophy will change and I do not think the organization will change at all. It's possible they go a little up or down and some people get shuffled around but I have no hope that things will ever improve.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT them to improve, but I'm also a realist. 

But what you said was Doan should be on a different team.