The head coach doesn't know what possession is — problem?

[Stoner]

Or is it too much to ask that the guy who has to make the challenge calls understand the rules?

 

"I disagree with the call – totally," Housley said. "He knocks the puck out of the air. He never has possession. If you call that possession, then as long as I've been in the league it's a different answer or explanation than they gave.

http://buffalonews.com/2017/10/20/pride-wins-lacking-sabres-season-opening-stumble-continues/

[bob_sauve28]

I thought it was a good challenge that could easily have gone our way. I understand why they made the ruling they did. I'd say he was more in the area of attempting to gain possession of the puck, but they say he was in possession.

[Sabre fan]

whatever...they lost and looked absolutely lousy doing i and that is all that matters. The refs don't lose this team games. they do it all by themselves (and are very good at losing games I might add)

[Eleven]

It was a good challenge and a bad review and I'm not blaming the loss on it.

[Sabel79]

Reality is awful enough, PA. Let's not invent further problems for the fun of it.

[SDS]

If that's possession then we need a rule change. Good challenge.

[Stoner]

It was a good challenge because the Canuck wasn't "actually controlling" the puck, he just momentarily controlled it. But the language there is so flimsy, you can make any call you want, really, and they did. It should read "maintain control of the puck," which was always the spirit of the rule — you can skate backwards and stickhandle the puck and precede the puck over the line and be onside.

 

Anyway, SabreSpace posters don't know what possession is — problem?

 

We're not talking the real-world idea of it. We're talking the NHL definition of it. It's an academic exercise in a way. Knowing what possession is wasn't important to that challenge. I'm just asking if it matters whether your coach knows the rules.

[Scottysabres]

Yes, it is important PA. Housley knew the risk of the challenge. It cost them nothing since the PK was successful. I make that challenge 10 out of 10 times.

 

The big board replay at the game was very clear. He didn't have control of the puck. As a matter of fact, later in the game Buffalo was called off side on a similar knock it out of the air while crossing the Blue line play.

 

There is definite inconsistency.

[Stoner]

Yes, it is important PA. Housley knew the risk of the challenge. It cost them nothing since the PK was successful. I make that challenge 10 out of 10 times.

 

The big board replay at the game was very clear. He didn't have control of the puck. As a matter of fact, later in the game Buffalo was called off side on a similar knock it out of the air while crossing the Blue line play.

 

There is definite inconsistency.

He did control the puck when he knocked it out of the air. It shouldn't have been enough to make the call though.

[Sabel79]

He did control the puck when he knocked it out of the air. It shouldn't have been enough to make the call though.

Define: "control"

[Stoner]

Define: "control"

The NHL says it's the act of propelling the puck with your stick, hands or feet.

[SwampD]

I think he just misspoke about possession (boy, i really really hope so). Just by touching it he had possession, but no way he controlled it until well after the blue line.

The NHL says it's the act of propelling the puck with your stick, hands or feet.

So deflecting is now propelling?

 

It was a bad call.

[Patty16]

Or is it too much to ask that the guy who has to make the challenge calls understand the rules?

 

"I disagree with the call – totally," Housley said. "He knocks the puck out of the air. He never has possession. If you call that possession, then as long as I've been in the league it's a different answer or explanation than they gave.

 

http://buffalonews.com/2017/10/20/pride-wins-lacking-sabres-season-opening-stumble-continues/

 

If it was so clear that it was possessed, why did the review take forever ?  Rules are subject to interpretation but 99/100 times that offsides. 

[Stoner]

If it was so clear that it was possessed, why did the review take forever ?  Rules are subject to interpretation but 99/100 times that offsides. 

Possession wasn't the issue.

 

Love your Roby-isms. Did Roby just hang 'em up or was he forced out? His brutal honesty would be so refreshing right now.

[Neo]

It was a good challenge because the Canuck wasn't "actually controlling" the puck, he just momentarily controlled it. But the language there is so flimsy, you can make any call you want, really, and they did. It should read "maintain control of the puck," which was always the spirit of the rule — you can skate backwards and stickhandle the puck and precede the puck over the line and be onside.

 

Anyway, SabreSpace posters don't know what possession is — problem?

 

We're not talking the real-world idea of it. We're talking the NHL definition of it. It's an academic exercise in a way. Knowing what possession is wasn't important to that challenge. I'm just asking if it matters whether your coach knows the rules.

It matters that a coach knows the rules. Last night does not demonstrate, or even indicate, that our coach does not.

[Stoner]

It matters that a coach knows the rules. Last night does not demonstrate, or even indicate, that our coach does not.

He said the Canuck never possessed the puck?

[Eleven]

It was a good challenge because the Canuck wasn't "actually controlling" the puck, he just momentarily controlled it. But the language there is so flimsy, you can make any call you want, really, and they did. It should read "maintain control of the puck," which was always the spirit of the rule — you can skate backwards and stickhandle the puck and precede the puck over the line and be onside.

 

Anyway, SabreSpace posters don't know what possession is — problem?

 

We're not talking the real-world idea of it. We're talking the NHL definition of it. It's an academic exercise in a way. Knowing what possession is wasn't important to that challenge. I'm just asking if it matters whether your coach knows the rules.

 

No, it appears that all but one know what it is.

[Neo]

He said the Canuck never possessed the puck?

To me, that indicates that he knows the rule. It concurrently indicates, again to me, that his judgment is that possession did not take place.

 

“I did not know possession was necessary” is not the same as “the necessary possession did not take place.”

 

I can imagine uncountable examples for hooking, slashing, offsides, and so on. We’re comparing knowing the rule with exercising judgment and applying it to the action, no?

 

Had he not spoken up, would we be asking “why not?”

 

Signed, The Unlearned.

[TheAud]

Possession wasn't the issue.

 

Love your Roby-isms. Did Roby just hang 'em up or was he forced out? His brutal honesty would be so refreshing right now.

He retired. My recollection is the physical ailments piled up. And age. 

[Stoner]

He retired. My recollection is the physical ailments piled up. And age. 

Seems about right. But I also wonder, and here I will channel Smell, where he fit into the PSE culture.

 

(Not a nice thing to say, Smell.)

[Stoner]

To me, that indicates that he knows the rule. It concurrently indicates, again to me, that his judgment is that possession did not take place.

 

“I did not know possession was necessary” is not the same as “the necessary possession did not take place.”

 

I can imagine uncountable examples for hooking, slashing, offsides, and so on. We’re comparing knowing the rule with exercising judgment and applying it to the action, no?

 

Had he not spoken up, would we be asking “why not?”

 

Signed, The Unlearned.

That's really splitting hairs. If Housley knows the simple definition of possession that the NHL uses but doesn't think the Canuck was in possession, it's kind of like saying a football coach knows you have to break the plane of the goal line to score a touchdown then challenges a play where a runner drives five yards into the endzone.

[Brawndo]

Apparently the NHL doesn't know what too many men is either. Per Marty Biron there where 8 Vancouver Players on the ice when the puck was "possessed" into the Sabres Zone

[Stoner]

Apparently the NHL doesn't know what too many men is either. Per Marty Biron there where 8 Vancouver Players on the ice when the puck was "possessed" into the Sabres Zone

Again, possession really had nothing to do with it.

 

Yeah, they blew the too many men call for sure. Again, however, when we go to the rule book, it can get confusing. The way it's written, it's a discretionary call.

 

At the discretion of the on-ice

officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his

teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and

therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the

ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.