game discussion thread GDT: Toronto @ Buffalo 4-3-2012 7:00PM

[apuszczalowski]

And besides, the replay is quite clear. The goalie was searching for the puck under his teammate right in front of him. Neck all craned and trying to look over the dude's back and then under him, making it blatantly obvious that he didn't have the puck covered. For once, the referee's angle was the best in the house, too. Keep your eyes on his eyes. He's watching the puck the whole time.

You can even see the ref a couple of times bring the whistle up and put it in his mouth, then take it out, then put it back in. You can tell he was ready to blow it once he lost site for more then a split second.

 

Its almost as funny as hearing them whine about the 4th goal too, because the Sabres pushed the goalie into the net to score that one. Apparently the play should also be called dead once the puck touches the goalies pads cause that one was never covered and just sitting in front of the goalie. They were playing the puck and that caused the goalie to have his leg pushed into the net

[shrader]

Anyone read any comments from Komisarek after the game? Or know which Toronto radio station might have audio of an interview he might have given? I'd love to hear/read what he had to say.

 

I picture something a lot like Milton from Office Space, entirely directed at Foligno.

[spndnchz]

There is an article on TSN.ca about it. You cannot push the goalie into the net after a save, which is exactly what happened with the 4th goal by Sulzer. Apparently, the ref did not see Sulzer push the Scriven's pad into the net, he only saw the puck come out of the net. The replay can only determine if the puck crossed the line, they cannot inform the guys on the ice if it was a "good goal", that is decided on ice at the time of the apparent goal. It appears they messed up...

 

I think that's a fine line there. IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted. But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in. Kinda like this: you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

[Wraith]

There is an article on TSN.ca about it. You cannot push the goalie into the net after a save, which is exactly what happened with the 4th goal by Sulzer. Apparently, the ref did not see Sulzer push the Scriven's pad into the net, he only saw the puck come out of the net. The replay can only determine if the puck crossed the line, they cannot inform the guys on the ice if it was a "good goal", that is decided on ice at the time of the apparent goal. It appears they messed up...

 

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

 

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

 

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in. I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

 

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

[LastPommerFan]

I think that's a fine line there. IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted. But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in. Kinda like this: you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

 

Or did he hit the puck so hard that the puck drove the goalie into the net?

[dEnnis the Menace]

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/bl...aser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

 

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

 

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in. I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

 

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

 

As far as I'm concerned: you win some calls, you lose some calls. That time we were on the good end of a call. I'll take it.

[FolignosJock]

Or did he hit the puck so hard that the puck drove the goalie into the net?

 

EXACTLY

[shrader]

I was shocked yesterday and I still am today that it was the Sulzer goal they decided to talk about. I was sitting back and waiting to see what he'd say about the tying goal, then I was very disappointed when the entire article was about that one.

[Taro T]

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/bl...aser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

 

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

 

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in. I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

 

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

Technically Fraser is correct on this one.

 

When Sulzer takes his last shot that actually puts the puck in the net, Scrivins pad stops the puck and then the stick following through on the shot pushes Scrivins pad and the puck into the net.

 

While that is technically the correct call, I've seen this same play get called a goal on more than a few occassions. If Scrivins wants to get the call he has to be higher from the goal line so that it is clear that the follow through is what pushed him into the net and not simply the recoil of his leg from either his own motion or the impact from the puck. He alternatively could have covered the puck and then had his leg and glove pushed into the net and he'd have almost definitely gotten the call.

 

If the Loafs fans want to hang their hats on 'technically correct' interpretations of the rules, Komisarek would have been put in the box at least 3 more times for holding a prone player against the ice (interference) and/or punching a prone player while on the ice (roughing).

 

Yeah, the Sabres caught a break there, and I'm sure we would have been ticked had the exact same play occurred at Miller's end, but it was a very small break and a call that typically goes the way the ref did call it.

 

 

And as an aside, I've seen 78.5 called at least as often in the case of a player shooting, losing an edge, and then plowing through the loose puck and goalie immediately following the save as in the case of a player pushing the puck under the goalie into the net along with the goalie.

[shrader]

If the Loafs fans want to hang their hats on 'technically correct' interpretations of the rules, Komisarek would have been put in the box at least 3 more times for holding a prone player against the ice (interference) and/or punching a prone player while on the ice (roughing).

 

That and the centers should have been tossed from that faceoff on a couple different occasions there.

[nobody]

I think that's a fine line there. IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted. But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in. Kinda like this: you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

 

Agree 100%. It is a fine line but I believe the play was correctly determined to be different from the rule.

[qwksndmonster]

:angel:

I love you.