Who advises on challenges? Fire that man! (But DD first)

[Stoner]

Holy hell, what an awful challenge against the Wings. And other times this season. Does anyone keep stats on this stuff?

 

And I am not accepting Rob Ray's explanation ("Why not?" You'd want a timeout there anyway.) A timeout would almost never be called in that situation. Why not? Uh, maybe with seven minutes left you might need that timeout for a challenge you could win or before a big faceoff in the offensive zone with the goalie pulled. Besides, there was zero chance of winning that challenge.

 

So, who is the advisor? Cliff? The assistant coach who sits up top (Lambert?)?

 

Incompetence all around this team right now. #grumpycat

[darksabre]

That challenge last night was intentional. Come on.

[woods-racer]

It's a long time out call, not a challenge.

[Randall Flagg]

They did need a timeout at that point, after the same 10 skaters had spent 6 minutes on the ice (killing the 4 minute penalty and then getting hemmed in after), especially because some of them, like Kane and RoR and Risto, were going to be needed on the ice again as soon and as much as possible to try and tie the game.

[SwampD]

[inkman]

You are too smart PA to really mean this...

[darksabre]

To be sure, plenty of our challenges this year have been bad.

 

But last night's was perfectly timed.

[Stoner]

OK, I guess I'm a little swayed by the context. But I don't get the drama of Barr talking into his sleeve like he's a Secret Service agent. Does a play have to be close to be challenged? I'm still guessing someone upstairs thought they could win that challenge.

They did need a timeout at that point, after the same 10 skaters had spent 6 minutes on the ice (killing the 4 minute penalty and then getting hemmed in after), especially because some of them, like Kane and RoR and Risto, were going to be needed on the ice again as soon and as much as possible to try and tie the game.

Goal came less than a minute after the power play ended and the Sabres had changed. It's a good point though.

[Randall Flagg]

OK, I guess I'm a little swayed by the context. But I don't get the drama of Barr talking into his sleeve like he's a Secret Service agent. Does a play have to be close to be challenged? I'm still guessing someone upstairs thought they could win that challenge.

 

Goal came less than a minute after the power play ended and the Sabres had changed. It's a good point though.

Less than a minute, huh. It felt like an eternity. Especially with the deja vu from the previous two games

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I think the challenge thing is just plain stupid.

 

Why not just play the game.

[bob_sauve28]

It hurts all the more because we have been so burned by that rule and not helped at all. Last night was a frustrating game to begin with and that challenge sort of raised hopes but was terrible. PA's question is right, who advises on this? Someone has to be watching and tell him to do it

[Thorner]

Have we challenged something and won yet this season?

[Iron Crotch]

The team chaplain is in charge of calling for challenges.

 

 

 

:angel:

[Radar]

What would all these gripers do if not for message boards? Frankly I'm happy with our coach.

[Taro T]

OK, I guess I'm a little swayed by the context. But I don't get the drama of Barr talking into his sleeve like he's a Secret Service agent. Does a play have to be close to be challenged? I'm still guessing someone upstairs thought they could win that challenge.

 

Goal came less than a minute after the power play ended and the Sabres had changed. It's a good point though.

Partial change. Only 2 guys got off the ice.

 

And after that they were down to 2-1/2 lines -

 

Kane - O'Reilly - Eichel

Foligno - Larsson - Gionta

 

& for every 5th shift

 

Moulson - O'Reilly - McGinn.

 

(Can't say whether the D bench was shortened as well - didn't really pay attention to them at that point.)

[Stoner]

Partial change. Only 2 guys got off the ice.

 

And after that they were down to 2-1/2 lines -

 

Kane - O'Reilly - Eichel

Foligno - Larsson - Gionta

 

& for every 5th shift

 

Moulson - O'Reilly - McGinn.

 

(Can't say whether the D bench was shortened as well - didn't really pay attention to them at that point.)

According to the play by play log, only Risto was stranded out there from PK time. (The change where only two Sabres came off was the second change after the penalty expired.)

Edited January 23, 2016 by PASabreFan

[SwampD]

Sorry to depart from what this thread is about, but because of this challenge rule, I have a couple of questions about this whole onside/offside thing that have been bothering me for years.

 

Why do the zones change size depending on which direction the puck is moving/what zone it is in? I was always told that the blue line is a part of whatever zone the puck is in. For the puck to clear the zone, it has to come all the way out into the white of the neutral zone, yet for a player to clear the zone he only needs to touch the blue line (actually, I guess this makes sense, since if a player needs to clear the zone, that means the puck is in the neutral zone and therefore the leading edge of the blue line would be the boundary)

 

But why not come up with a single edge system to clear up some of this slop in this rule. Maybe have a blue line that is only the thickness of the puck (similar to the goal line) and it is always a part of the neutral zone. The puck is either in the zone or not, the player is either in the zone or not, and that line is always the same.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling,… and drunk,… and somewhat cabin feverish, but this rule has bugged me for a while

[Thorner]

Sorry to depart from what this thread is about, but because of this challenge rule, I have a couple of questions about this whole onside/offside thing that have been bothering me for years.

 

Why do the zones change size depending on which direction the puck is moving/what zone it is in? I was always told that the blue line is a part of whatever zone the puck is in. For the puck to clear the zone, it has to come all the way out into the white of the neutral zone, yet for a player to clear the zone he only needs to touch the blue line (actually, I guess this makes sense, since if a player needs to clear the zone, that means the puck is in the neutral zone and therefore the leading edge of the blue line would be the boundary)

 

But why not come up with a single edge system to clear up some of this slop in this rule. Maybe have a blue line that is only the thickness of the puck (similar to the goal line) and it is always a part of the neutral zone. The puck is either in the zone or not, the player is either in the zone or not, and that line is always the same.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling,… and drunk,… and somewhat cabin feverish, but this rule has bugged me for a while

 

Yup, trying to work my way through this, but I've had a couple too. When entering the zone on the attack, the blue line is apart of the neutral zone. Whereas once the puck is already in, the blue line becomes apart of the attacking/defending zone. Puck needs to completely cross the line and enter the white portion of the ice on the attack, with any teammate at least still touching the blue line, which would still be neutral zone, until that happens. While holding the puck in, as long as it is touching the blue line by a millimetre, it's still in.

 

What seems arbitrary to me, is that a player's back skate must be touching the ice in cases of determining whether or not said player has remained onside or not. If a player's back leg is clearly behind the line, it seems arbitrary to call it offside if their skate isn't down. It would probably make calling offside easier as well if the blue line was in effect "extended into the air", kind of like an NFL goal line, or NHL goal line in fact. The NHL blue line actually already IS extended into the air in some cases, like when a clearing attempt is airborn and a player keeps it in with his body or stick.

 

Anyways, I didn't answer your original question, and I wasn't of any help, I'm afraid.

[kishoph]

 

So, who is the advisor? Cliff? The assistant coach who sits up top (Lambert?)?

 

 

 

I heard it's Rex Ryan.

[Taro T]

According to the play by play log, only Risto was stranded out there from PK time. (The change where only two Sabres came off was the second change after the penalty expired.)

No, they made a change w/ about 12 seconds left in the pk (should have been a full change, O'Reilly & Legwand definitely got off the ice, not positive about the D but they probably changed as well), but only 2 players got off the ice after the penalty expired.

[Stoner]

No, they made a change w/ about 12 seconds left in the pk (should have been a full change, O'Reilly & Legwand definitely got off the ice, not positive about the D but they probably changed as well), but only 2 players got off the ice after the penalty expired.

Weber and Ristolainen didn't change because they had just come on the ice when Kane cleared with about 25 seconds to go. The point remains that only Ristolainen was a leftover penalty killer when the goal was scored. Unless you want to count Larsson and McGinn, who had just spent two brutal seconds giving up their bodies while the Wings skated out of their own zone before the penalty expired.

 

I am swayed by the argument that a number of guys needed a blow after killing the penalty. But, except for Risto, they were already on the bench blowing when the goal was scored.

 

Risk vs. reward. Three minutes of rest vs. not having your timeout for a later challenge or bench meeting.

 

On another subject, do the linesmen only have the broadcast footage to look at? No dedicated in-house league cameras? Up top on the blue line or something?

[PromoTheRobot]

Maybe Terry and Kim radio down to DDB to take those absurd challenges. Or maybe it's Battista controlling Kim & Terry? Bwah-hah-hah-hah!