GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[cilevel]

The player must have control of his stick at ALL TIMES.

 

True, but follow through on a shot IS the exception to the rule. There really was no penalty on that play.

[Stoner]

Neither penalty in OT was actually a penalty. Sekera did not do anything. Kovalev actually had a hold of Sekera's stick and then stumbled and fell on his own becasue he was holding Sekera's stick and lost his balance. Also, why is it goalie interference on Buffalo but when Montreal did the same thing and scored, it wasn't called? Everytime the Sabres play in Montreal it is one sided officiating in Montreal's favor. Everytime the Sabres got something going- boom- penalties that were not actual penalties. OT was beyond a sad, pathetic joke. Almost worse is that twice in the last three weeks, Sabres had to go play in Montreal on Saturday after playing on Friday. You would almost think that the league favors certain teams like Montreal.

 

Ellis elbowed Halak. Some of you people need to take the blinders off. Man. As for the interference on Miller, it had to be close. But there was no angle on MSG that showed what happened conclusively. What did you see?

 

It becomes a moot point. Miller hardly needs any help in allowing those long shots to go in.

[cilevel]

Take some fricken reading lessons. mrjsbu wasn't arguing about a bad call. He was saying in overtime you don't call penalties unless this and unless that. He seemed to think the holding call on Hecht was legit.

 

After finally getting a chance to review some of the calls again last night, there were a couple of horrendous ones, including on Hecht (but not on Ellis).

 

My biggest frustration is if they call goalie interference for what Ellis did, they HAVE to call the interference on Miller, and they didn't. Those kinds of "oversights" make it so biased it becomes not just frustrating but extremely unprofessional.

[Stoner]

You need a new schtick.

 

Get a schtick Mr. 200 Posts and then tell me to get a new one.

[stenbaro]

Get a schtick Mr. 200 Posts and then tell me to get a new one.

Your schtick not get enuff action lately??? You need to get laid and lighten up Francis... :nana: :D

[Stoner]

a penalty is NOT always a penalty. if they called everything out there would be a whistle every 30 seconds.

 

You're trying to weasel out of what you said. Is it because it sounds so ridiculous in the light of day?

 

You said, to paraphrase, that the only penalties that should be called in overtime are "crimes" and those that take away scoring chances. Puck shot over the glass from your own zone? No penalty. Too many men? No penalty. High-stick, inadvertent, drawing blood? No penalty. Goalie plays the puck illegally? No penalty.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the logic of calling the game differently in overtime. Legitimate leagues never think this way. Someone flinches on the game-winning touchdown in overtime in the Super Bowl, that one's coming back, every time.

[Stoner]

My biggest frustration is if they call goalie interference for what Ellis did, they HAVE to call the interference on Miller, and they didn't. Those kinds of "oversights" make it so biased it becomes not just frustrating but extremely unprofessional.

 

Well what did you see exactly? Were you watching on MSG? I'm not saying there wasn't interference. You just can't see it on the replays. Unless that's what you want to see.

[Stoner]

Then why wasn't there a call when Roy was blatantly cross checked into the Montreal net?

 

How do both officials miss something that blatant?

 

Of course calls are missed. That's not the issue. A penalty is a penalty, whenever it takes place. If you take one, you can't complain by saying, "Hey it's overtime!" Having said that, the call on Hecht was BS, but again that's not the issue.

[Stoner]

It's not a penalty if you stick someone in the face on the follow through of a shot.

 

Rule says normal windup and follow through of a "shooting motion." Would shooting the puck into the zone, shooting it out, maybe even passing the puck, if that requires a "shooting motion," be covered?

 

On a side note, there's no mention of having to bleed when high sticked in order to draw a double minor. It mentions "injury."

[Stoner]

I'm outta here. You putzes are making me thirsty. But at least there are some leading candidates for people to be my new bitch, now that BM and I officially broke up last night. Anyone really into being verbally abused? PM me.

[Wyborowa]

THERE IS NO EXCEPTION to that rule!!! It's the ref's call ultimately, but there is NO EXCEPTION to that rule. You sir are 100% incorrect!

 

PASabreFan....chill the frig out!! You think he knows #%^$#! all just b/c he doesn't post alot? Man, grow up or gtfo.

[cilevel]

Well what did you see exactly? Were you watching on MSG? I'm not saying there wasn't interference. You just can't see it on the replays. Unless that's what you want to see.

 

I didn't see Ellis touch Halak but could infer that his leg grazed him - at least I think so. On the Habs goal I saw the Hab (don't know who it was and erased the game already) catch Miller's leg and turn him. So I guess based on what I saw Miller was actually moved by the contact while Halak wasn't.

 

And yes, I actually got the MSG feed last night rather than RDS in French. :thumbsup:

[Stoner]

I didn't see Ellis touch Halak but could infer that his leg grazed him - at least I think so. On the Habs goal I saw the Hab (don't know who it was and erased the game already) catch Miller's leg and turn him. So I guess based on what I saw Miller was actually moved by the contact while Halak wasn't.

 

And yes, I actually got the MSG feed last night rather than RDS in French. :thumbsup:

 

Again... Ellis threw out his elbow on the way by and contacted Halak's head, which jerked back. Even if he didn't touch him, or Halak faked the whole thing, the fault still rests with Ellis. No reason to try and elbow the goalie.

 

I don't know where you saw the Hab catch Miller's leg and turn him. Was it a replay they showed later?

[Bmwolf21]

THERE IS NO EXCEPTION to that rule!!! It's the ref's call ultimately, but there is NO EXCEPTION to that rule. You sir are 100% incorrect!

 

PASabreFan....chill the frig out!! You think he knows #%^$#! all just b/c he doesn't post alot? Man, grow up or gtfo.

If you're talking about the high-sticking rule, then he's right:

 

Rule 60 ? High-sticking

60.1 High-sticking - A ?high stick? is one which is carried above the height of the opponent?s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player or goalkeeper is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion.

 

A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

 

http://www.nhl.com/rules/index.html (pdf format, download and jump to page 94/section 8.)

 

I really hope you didn't just make me defend PA. Now I feel dirty.

[darksabre]

If you're talking about the high-sticking rule, then he's right:

 

Rule 60 ? High-sticking

60.1 High-sticking - A ?high stick? is one which is carried above the height of the opponent?s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player or goalkeeper is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion.

 

A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

 

http://www.nhl.com/rules/index.html (pdf format, download and jump to page 94/section 8.)

 

I really hope you didn't just make me defend PA. Now I feel dirty.

 

:lol: oh snap

[Stoner]

Doesn't anyone proofread the rules? Geez.

[shrader]

If you're talking about the high-sticking rule, then he's right:

 

Rule 60 ? High-sticking

60.1 High-sticking - A ?high stick? is one which is carried above the height of the opponent?s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player or goalkeeper is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion.

 

A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

 

http://www.nhl.com/rules/index.html (pdf format, download and jump to page 94/section 8.)

 

I really hope you didn't just make me defend PA. Now I feel dirty.

 

So I mention a rule and then people get angry at PA for it? I don't know if I can handle this kind of power.

[Stoner]

So I mention a rule and then people get angry at PA for it? I don't know if I can handle this kind of power.

 

I can take it. I am getting weary of it, but I will shoulder on. I try to be as kind and respectful as possible and yet I constantly get pounded. Somehow, I find the grace to turn the other cheek.

[spndnchz]

I can take it. I am getting weary of it, but I will shoulder on. I try to be as kind and respectful as possible and yet I constantly get pounded. Somehow, I find the grace to turn the other cheek.

Cheeks will get U nowhere, now calves :thumbsup:

[Claude_Verret]

Get a schtick Mr. 200 Posts and then tell me to get a new one.

 

Check my join date. I've been here longer than you, which unfortunately means that I have seen your tired act from your first post. Quality over quantity, that's my schtick.

[Bmwolf21]

So I mention a rule and then people get angry at PA for it? I don't know if I can handle this kind of power.

Remember - with great power comes great responsibility. :thumbsup:

 

Actually I saw your post while freezing my ass off at work this morning and thought the same thing others did - that I wasn't sure if the follow-through exception was actually written into the rule or if it was yet another NHL "unwritten rule." I wanted to wait until I got home to look it up in my handy-dandy downloaded PDF version of the NHL Rulebook before posting, but thankfully others decided to go postal in my stead.

[Stoner]

Check my join date. I've been here longer than you, which unfortunately means that I have seen your tired act from your first post. Quality over quantity, that's my schtick.

 

And you've read 3,507 posts with intense interest, haven't you? You can thank me later for giving your life some meaning.

 

Yeah, your posts are quality. Pure gold. :thumbsup:

[Claude_Verret]

And you've read 3,507 posts with intense interest, haven't you? You can thank me later for giving your life some meaning.

 

Yeah, your posts are quality. Pure gold. :thumbsup:

 

 

The validation of board credibility by post count schtick is not very original, it's been done to death on countless other boards across the internet. At least your contrarian one was fresh for a little while. You can do better.

[SDS]

The validation of board credibility by post count schtick is not very original, it's been done to death on countless other boards across the internet. At least your contrarian one was fresh for a little while. You can do better.

 

Just a slight correction...

 

Old man PA has been here on the board (The Sabres Report/SabreSpace) since the firey lavas cooled and the first poster crawled out of the ocean on his half fins/half legs. Pay no attention to the "join" date.

[Stoner]

Just a slight correction...

 

Old man PA has been here on the board (The Sabres Report/SabreSpace) since the firey lavas cooled and the first poster crawled out of the ocean on his half fins/half legs. Pay no attention to the "join" date.

 

SDS begat PA and PA begat inkman and inkman begat anyone with a pulse and...

 

Hey SDS did you know the garbage dumpsters in Olean, NY have "SDS" on the side? It's the name of the waste disposal company. You must be so proud.