Jump to content

GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

Corp000085

By Corp000085
in 2010/2011 Season

 Share

Recommended Posts

wallybarthman Top Prospect

wallybarthman

Posted
Posted

Bull $hit! That's not what the rule says!

 

Here's the rule you posted earlier:

 

"If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the

goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his

ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be

disallowed. For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within

the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a

substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an

instantaneous period of time."

 

It doesn't say anything about contact! Now you are playing the contrarian with yourself!

 

As the rule says - the issue wasn't movement through the crease, it was that a goal was scored and Miller couldn't get position or vision. And I don't think that warranted a penalty - that goal should have been disallowed. If there's contact, that's where the penalty could be called.

Ghost of Dwight Drane First Liner

Ghost of Dwight Drane

Posted
Posted

And can we please stop blaming a loss by an 11-17 team on the refs?

 

The refs were horrible, both ways. There were about 5 consecutive instances of icing/no icing that were perplexing. They didn't call Hecht for waterskiing 30 yards tethered to the crotch of a Bruin. And I sure as heck don't want them deciding the game in OT. The high stick had to be called as there was a 2 inch gash next to his eye. Here's the deal....they weren't going to call another penalty on Buffalo. Chop the daylights out of Rechhi's back and knees, and maybe he isn't on top of Miller.

 

Make your own luck.

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

And can we please stop blaming a loss by an 11-17 team on the refs?

 

The refs were horrible, both ways. There were about 5 consecutive instances of icing/no icing that were perplexing. They didn't call Hecht for waterskiing 30 yards tethered to the crotch of a Bruin. And I sure as heck don't want them deciding the game in OT. The high stick had to be called as there was a 2 inch gash next to his eye. Here's the deal....they weren't going to call another penalty on Buffalo. Chop the daylights out of Rechhi's back and knees, and maybe he isn't on top of Miller.

 

Make your own luck.

 

Does Recchi have a grandfather clause? He seems to be able to play by the late 90's rules.

How was his take down of Myers not a hold? It looked like a hand from behind without position.

Weave Hall of Famer

Weave

Posted
Posted

Was I watching a different game?

 

It felt to me like no matter how hard the Sabres worked (and they did put in a good effort) they were just barely hanging on to that lead. That game *felt* like it was one mistake away from slipping away. The Sabres put in a good effort and it was all they could do to hang on to a 2-1 lead. They worked hard enough to get chances but weren't GOOD enough to convert them. And then Boston, who seemed content to keep it close, got their chance and in a flash it was in the net, easy as pie.

 

Boston is going to be in the playoffs because they have the personnel to convert chances in close games they maybe don't deserve to win. Buffalo will be cleaning their lockers out early because they don't have the personnel to convert mistakes into points at critical times in games they played well in.

Stoner Hall of Famer

Stoner

Posted
Posted

As the rule says - the issue wasn't movement through the crease, it was that a goal was scored and Miller couldn't get position or vision. And I don't think that warranted a penalty - that goal should have been disallowed. If there's contact, that's where the penalty could be called.

 

To me, it just didn't look like Recchi prevented Miller from moving out toward the top of the crease. They were two ships that passed in the night. Yes, Recchi interfered with Miller's vision, but that's OK, as long as his presence in the crease was only "instantaneous" and there was no contact.

 

Miller could have initiated contact with Recchi to establish his position, and the goal would have been more likely to get waived off. Again, I don't really think Miller would have had any reason to do this, because he was freely moving to the top of the crease.

 

Interesting call.

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

Was I watching a different game?

 

It felt to me like no matter how hard the Sabres worked (and they did put in a good effort) they were just barely hanging on to that lead. That game *felt* like it was one mistake away from slipping away. The Sabres put in a good effort and it was all they could do to hang on to a 2-1 lead. They worked hard enough to get chances but weren't GOOD enough to convert them. And then Boston, who seemed content to keep it close, got their chance and in a flash it was in the net, easy as pie.

 

Boston is going to be in the playoffs because they have the personnel to convert chances in close games they maybe don't deserve to win. Buffalo will be cleaning their lockers out early because they don't have the personnel to convert mistakes into points at critical times in games they played well in.

 

Boston is a mature team. Really they are only playing the NJ Devils Transition Trap which Julien brought in, but surprisingly they forechecked more last night than I've seen them play in the last few years.

 

Chara must have played close to 33 minutes. Which is his number. Unreal.

jpgr909 Prospect

jpgr909

Posted
Posted

So you're saying that they got the call right? That there wasn't interference on the goaltender?

 

I don't want to speak for him, but I'm guessing he means the Sabres' record is reflective of their play, not the ability, or lack thereof, of the officials. So there's no one call, or even a series of calls/non-calls, in a game that is going to be a major factor in terms of their overall record. Maybe that's not what he means, but that's how I see it. One call can decide a game, we've all seen that, but officiating doesn't make or break a team in the grand scheme.

 

All that said, I agree with the assessment of Recchi and the "grandfather clause." I've thought the same thing, not just in last night's game but in other (B)ruins games I've seen. This guy is all about clutching and grabbing and doing things all over the ice that other players would never get away with. The commentators clearly notice this (and not just that idiot Brickley), but they constantly refer to it as "veteran savvy" or "he sure is a crafty veteran" or "there's a veteran move for you." Right. I used to like Recchi when he actually possessed measurable ability, but now he's a borderline hack who gets away with murder out there, under the guise of "veteran savvy."

deluca67 All Star

deluca67

Posted
Posted

:lol:

Not saying it wasn't a dumb-ass play, it was just atypical.

Was it a dumb play? He looked up and saw his outlet guy, Gaustad, and tried to get him the puck. Horton jumped the pass like a corner-back does. I have a few questions about that play. Why is Gaustad floating around the slot there? Horton was his guy, Gaustad should have read his break towards the net. Why was Butler late in getting to the other corner for the outlet? Why was McCormick just standing there along the boards? Weber made the wrong play because it was the play that led to a goal. The other guys on the ice did nothing to help the kid out or give him safer options.

SwampD Hall of Famer

SwampD

Posted
Posted

So you're saying that they got the call right? That there wasn't interference on the goaltender?

If the refs called all those penalties on Boston last night, all we'd be doing today is complaining about how bad our power play is instead of how bad the refs were.

Weave Hall of Famer

Weave

Posted
Posted

If the refs called all those penalties on Boston last night, all we'd be doing today is complaining about how bad our power play is instead of how bad the refs were.

 

Yep.

 

The way the PP was going we'd all be bitching about another game against Boston where we gave up 2 shorthanded goals.

 

Better those penalties didn't get called. :wallbash:

jpgr909 Prospect

jpgr909

Posted
Posted

Was it a dumb play? He looked up and saw his outlet guy, Gaustad, and tried to get him the puck. Horton jumped the pass like a corner-back does. I have a few questions about that play. Why is Gaustad floating around the slot there? Horton was his guy, Gaustad should have read his break towards the net. Why was Butler late in getting to the other corner for the outlet? Why was McCormick just standing there along the boards? Weber made the wrong play because it was the play that led to a goal. The other guys on the ice did nothing to help the kid out or give him safer options.

 

I agree that zone coverage was poor and that his teammates did little to nothing to provide an outlet. In the defensive zone, when you don't have the puck, your job is to create an outlet. This particular ailment has haunted the Sabres all year. Even so, yes, it was a dumb play. At even strength you only make a defensive zone clear up the middle if you are 100% sure it's safe. Usually (though not always) this is when it's only you and your partner back in the zone, say when the other team is changing. And even with that, often coaches strictly forbid an up-the-middle clear in the 3rd period, regardless of the situation. In that situation, Weber has to clear it up the boards, in either direction, or eat it. Period. Even if you have a potential outlet up the middle. You just don't make that play. That's how I was taught at least.

 

Regardless, while it was a miserably bad play, goal or no goal, Weber has been excellent the last few games, even in that game. I would quickly forgive him and move on.

deluca67 All Star

deluca67

Posted
Posted

Weber : Sabres :: McKelvin : Bills

 

Hell, it happened against Massachusetts teams both times, too. HAD IT WON, dammit.

Are you suggesting Weber should have downed the puck and have the Sabres start their drive at the 20?

Eleven Hall of Famer

Eleven

Posted
Posted

i.e. bye-bye Darcy/Lindy

 

Nix and Gailey kept McKelvin after the huge f*ckup last year; the GM/coach change did not matter. Witness 2 weeks ago against Pitsburgh (I am spelling it that way from now on).

 

Are you suggesting Weber should have downed the puck and have the Sabres start their drive at the 20?

 

Exactly. The Sabres did not need a desperate breakout pass, just like the Bills did not need a desperate long return in Sept. '09. A flip up the boards, or a pass behind the net, would have been fine.

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

Was it a dumb play? He looked up and saw his outlet guy, Gaustad, and tried to get him the puck. Horton jumped the pass like a corner-back does. I have a few questions about that play. Why is Gaustad floating around the slot there? Horton was his guy, Gaustad should have read his break towards the net. Why was Butler late in getting to the other corner for the outlet? Why was McCormick just standing there along the boards? Weber made the wrong play because it was the play that led to a goal. The other guys on the ice did nothing to help the kid out or give him safer options.

You are kinder to Weber than I am. I thought he had had McCormick on the wall, and and easy slide back to Butler behind the net. They weren't moving well, but they were both open. Gaustad should be breaking high, for the second transition pass from McCormick.(I think) I just think Weber just thought Gaustad was wide open. He doesn't make that pass otherwise. It didn't look like he was in trouble to me. But that was how I saw it, which isn't always how a player feels it.

deluca67 All Star

deluca67

Posted
Posted

You are kinder to Weber than I am. I thought he had had McCormick on the wall, and and easy slide back to Butler behind the net. They weren't moving well, but they were both open. Gaustad should be breaking high, for the second transition pass from McCormick.(I think) I just think Weber just thought Gaustad was wide open. He doesn't make that pass otherwise. It didn't look like he was in trouble to me. But that was how I saw it, which isn't always how a player feels it.

Watch the video on NHL.com. You can hit pause and click the blue bar to go frame by frame. Butler wasn't in the corner and McCormick was standing facing Weber in no position to take the pass. If Weber dumped to the other corner he is basically giving up the puck to the swarming Bruins. I'm not trying to absolve Weber of any blame. I just trying to point out it was a bad shift by all. Weber didn't have a lot of other options on the play.

Ghost of Dwight Drane First Liner

Ghost of Dwight Drane

Posted
Posted

Nix and Gailey kept McKelvin after the huge f*ckup last year; the GM/coach change did not matter. Witness 2 weeks ago against Pitsburgh (I am spelling it that way from now on).

 

 

 

Exactly. The Sabres did not need a desperate breakout pass, just like the Bills did not need a desperate long return in Sept. '09. A flip up the boards, or a pass behind the net, would have been fine.

 

I'm not even talking about Weber. Worrying about Weber now is like debating what type of shoes the fat girl is going to wear to the prom. Does it matter?

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

Watch the video on NHL.com. You can hit pause and click the blue bar to go frame by frame. Butler wasn't in the corner and McCormick was standing facing Weber in no position to take the pass. If Weber dumped to the other corner he is basically giving up the puck to the swarming Bruins. I'm not trying to absolve Weber of any blame. I just trying to point out it was a bad shift by all. Weber didn't have a lot of other options on the play.

 

Taking another look. It seems to me that the only person near McCormick is the Ref.

Butler looks a little slow moving back for weak-side help, but he is still a pretty safe pass. The third option could have been to swallow a hit which allows everyone to come back.

 

The pass he made defies explanation in my mind, but I think that's why he was raising the what-the-helldid-Ijustdo hands as it hit Horton's tape. :lol:

 

But I think it was ugly all around as you imply. Which suggests mis-communication. Nobody looked to be moving well for those few seconds.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...