GDT:Rangers 12/10/21 7PM start

[Stoner]

30 minutes ago, SDS said:

If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation.

There didn't seem to be any attempt to gain control of the puck while Dahlin was offside.

[PerreaultForever]

11 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

He was touted as a generational type of talent which is why he went #1 overall, yes he's played on awful teams but it would be 1 thing if the players he was playing with were making the awful plays and he had to compensate but it's actually the other way around. I get the age thing but I just don't get the age thing in this circumstance. He hasn't looked even remotely close to a generational talent let alone the 1st overall pick, these are just my opinions but i hope I eat crow in a few years and he is the next Victor Hedman, I'd be the first 1 to say i was so glad I was wrong trust me.

I don't remember anyone saying Dahlin was "generational" but he was a consensus #1 pick for most people. Lidstrom, Karlson, Hedman comparisons. 

I personally blame Housley and JBot. Housley for throwing him into big minutes too fast, too soon. Letting him run and gun without learning to play NHL D first. baby steps were needed and lots of coaching. and JBot for letting Housley do it, and not finding a solid mentor to pair him with. We broke him. 

[SDS]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

There didn't seem to be any attempt to gain control of the puck while Dahlin was offside.

Well, this is the old control argument. I would say we were in control already. Plus, read the first part of the rule. It doesn’t resemble the spirit of tagging up as outlined in the definition. 
 

in fact, if I’m reading the rule correctly, I don’t think there is a scenario where you can have a delayed offside call and subsequently take possession of the puck. 

[Stoner]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

Well, this is the old control argument. I would say we were in control already. Plus, read the first part of the rule. It doesn’t resemble the spirit of tagging up as outlined in the definition. 

Possession and control get conflated too easily, and you can blame the language of the rulebook. Olofsson possessed the puck once it went over the line, but only because he was the last player to touch it. He no longer controlled it.

Now I want to join a scantily clad inkman in the woods.

The league allows a goal that shouldn't have counted the other night, and tonight disallows a goal that should have counted either because the offside review is asinine or the call was blown.

You can't make this stuff up.

[SwampD]

Honestly, who gives a crap about the rule. It’s a red herring.

The fact that Olofsson didn’t touch the puck is just luck.

Hey, Dahlin. Get onside you ***** dope!

[GoPuckYourself]

11 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't remember anyone saying Dahlin was "generational" but he was a consensus #1 pick for most people. Lidstrom, Karlson, Hedman comparisons. 

I personally blame Housley and JBot. Housley for throwing him into big minutes too fast, too soon. Letting him run and gun without learning to play NHL D first. baby steps were needed and lots of coaching. and JBot for letting Housley do it, and not finding a solid mentor to pair him with. We broke him. 

https://www.nhl.com/news/rasmus-dahlin-gaining-notoriety-as-potential-no-1-pick-in-2018-nhl-draft/c-291598744 and there are other articles saying the same just google Rasmus Dahlin touted as generational talent.

 

[IKnowPhysics]

Rangers are cheap hacks.

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Rangers are cheap hacks.

I wish the Sabres were.

[Stoner]

Glass half full: it was brilliant awareness by Olofsson there.

Not sure of glass status: Granato's laissez-faire, stoic, them's the breaks attitude in his presser is both admirable (and closely aligned to how I've always felt about officiating) and absolutely infuriating given the state of the franchise, the depression of the fan base and the stated goal of developing a winning culture.

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't remember anyone saying Dahlin was "generational" but he was a consensus #1 pick for most people. Lidstrom, Karlson, Hedman comparisons. 

I personally blame Housley and JBot. Housley for throwing him into big minutes too fast, too soon. Letting him run and gun without learning to play NHL D first. baby steps were needed and lots of coaching. and JBot for letting Housley do it, and not finding a solid mentor to pair him with. We broke him. 

There were a lot of pundits throwing that term around.

[pastajoe]

54 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Is no one else pissed off that when Cozens was shoved down after the whistle (not the slew foot, the previous whistle)not a single Sabre did a thing? Not a shove, not a rough, not even a stern word. Nothing. Just let the kid get hit. Absolutely disgusting for team building. 

Small wonder Cozens gets pissed at the slew foot and slashes back. Only guy on this team with heart.

Dylan Cozens deserves to be on a better team! 

Okposo said that he didn’t see what happened, he just knew Cozens was mad about something.

[pi2000]

That's not typically called offsides.  That said, I have been in situations where they blow it down because of "possession" even though the attacking player didn't touch the puck until his teammate tagged up.  I've argued with linesmen about this on more than a few occassions "but I didn't touch it!"... "You had possession!"... blah blah blah... That said it could've gone either way, and IMO in the age of toenail replay that rule should be clarified.   

 

[SDS]

37 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Possession and control get conflated too easily, and you can blame the language of the rulebook. Olofsson possessed the puck once it went over the line, but only because he was the last player to touch it. He no longer controlled it.

Now I want to join a scantily clad inkman in the woods.

The league allows a goal that shouldn't have counted the other night, and tonight disallows a goal that should have counted either because the offside review is asinine or the call was blown.

You can't make this stuff up.

The first line in the rule is:

“Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.”

Do we agree this was violated? If so, what is next? Can it be a delayed offside…

“…but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its defending zone without any delay or contact with an attacking player, or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone.”

It fair to say that it can be called the latter. Almost there… play can continue if one of the following is true:

” (i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or
(ii) The defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone.”

Clearly, the 1st definition allows continuation of play. 

The next paragraph is where I think we miss out. 

“If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation.”

Victor’s stick follows the puck in over the line in an attempt to maintain control/gain possession, however you want to say it. 

Clearly he does this. He didn’t tap the puck into the zone, give up possession and wait. He tapped it in under control and hovered inches from the puck, while Dahlin was still in an offside position.

I think that violates the delayed offside portion of the rule. 

[Stoner]

12 minutes ago, SDS said:

The next paragraph is where I think we miss out. 

“If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation.”

Victor’s stick follows the puck in over the line in an attempt to maintain control/gain possession, however you want to say it. 

Clearly he does this. He didn’t tap the puck into the zone, give up possession and wait. He tapped it in under control and hovered inches from the puck, while Dahlin was still in an offside position.

I think that violates the delayed offside portion of the rule. 

If he had been attempting to touch or control the puck, he would have easily done so. I think he let it go to allow Dahlin time to tag up.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just watched. Best game in a month. Shame they lost. No way we send UPL back.

[dudacek]

UPL made all the saves he had to make, and a number that he didn’t.

Yes he could have done a better job with the rebound on goal #2, but close to the body off a quick wrister blocker side is not the easiest shot to direct.

More to the point, he looked like an NHL goalie is supposed to look: big, solid and in control. Again.

Pleasant surprise. Given his skittishness over this calendar year, and fact we were playing the Rangers, I fully expected him to be lit up like a Christmas tree.

Edited December 11, 2021 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Glad to see people are finally starting to pay attention to the liability Olofsson has become to our offence.

He can’t shoot right now. And he’s blowing the opportunities Tage and Dahlin and even Skinner - especially on the PP - are giving him because of it.

Maybe it’s time to take him off the top line and reunite him with Asplund, whose offence has also completely dried up. They both played their best hockey of the year together.

Not sure who would replace him with Skinner and Thompson, because he still thinks the game better than any other winger in this team, but he really needs to get healthy.

[SABRES 0311]

You don’t have to physically be touching the puck to be in possession.  When a player passes to a teammate there is a moment where nobody is touching it yet that team is considered in control.  When a skater moves up ice going backhand to forehand there are very small moments where he isn’t touching but is in control of the puck.

VO established control, Dahlin was offsides, VO directed the puck over the line and was moving with it.  He controlled/possessed the puck as it went over before Dahlin got back on sides.  The term for that is offsides.  

Maybe instead of standing inside the zone watching, Dahlin could move with some urgency considering how close the puck was to the line.  I guess we’ll wait a few more years and a couple coaches for him to develop that.  

[triumph_communes]

Everything went to ***** once skinner got promoted!!

[Berg]

Sorry for my emotions, but referees and Rangers players were like real bastards on this game. Too many dirty moves, hits, words, and injustice..

4 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Just watched. Best game in a month. Shame they lost. No way we send UPL back.

It was our win. Referees stole victory

[SABRES 0311]

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Everything went to ***** once skinner got promoted!!

I don't know what happened to him and even Girgensons.  When he came in he looked pretty good and I remember that nice between the legs move that lead to a goal against Detroit.  He even has his own rap song!  Now you can play a drinking game where you take a shot every time Girgensons falls down.  Guaranteed to be hammered before the second intermission.  Ah well, at least its hockey season.

[sabresouth]

8 hours ago, pi2000 said:

That's not typically called offsides.  That said, I have been in situations where they blow it down because of "possession" even though the attacking player didn't touch the puck until his teammate tagged up.  I've argued with linesmen about this on more than a few occassions "but I didn't touch it!"... "You had possession!"... blah blah blah... That said it could've gone either way, and IMO in the age of toenail replay that rule should be clarified.   

 

I have always hated this offside overturning a goal thing. Dahlin's offside had NO effect on the goal whatsoever. Every team gets stung by this rule every year and I would wager that 99% of the time the offsides has zero effect on the goal. It slows down the game and negatively changes momentum over something that had no effect on the goal. Yet countless goals are overturned by this. As to the 1% only allow challenges if a goal is scored in the first 20 seconds after entering the zone. Anything over that and an offsides really won't affect a goal. It's not like the refs are missing offsides by 10 feet or something that could change an outcome.

[Pimlach]

9 hours ago, SDS said:

The first line in the rule is:

“Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.”

Do we agree this was violated? If so, what is next? Can it be a delayed offside…

“…but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its defending zone without any delay or contact with an attacking player, or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone.”

It fair to say that it can be called the latter. Almost there… play can continue if one of the following is true:

” (i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or
(ii) The defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone.”

Clearly, the 1st definition allows continuation of play. 

The next paragraph is where I think we miss out. 

“If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation.”

Victor’s stick follows the puck in over the line in an attempt to maintain control/gain possession, however you want to say it. 

Clearly he does this. He didn’t tap the puck into the zone, give up possession and wait. He tapped it in under control and hovered inches from the puck, while Dahlin was still in an offside position.

I think that violates the delayed offside portion of the rule. 

Only the NHL can write the rule in a way to make this a judgement calll when it doesn’t need to be.    Watching ESPN highlights, they had consensus it was obvious offsides.  They didn’t brake it down like Marty did.  
 

I usually don’t like to blame refs and such, but this is another time when a rule should be reviewed and clarified.   Adams should make a stink. 
 

They played well and lost.  To make matters worse, they got blatantly pushed around after the game by that cheap shot slew foot  on Cozens.  The Rags didn’t like getting outplayed by the lowly Sabres.  That needs to be stopped.  Only the Sabres players can address that and I think Cozens did.  
 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Pimlach

[bob_sauve28]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Is no one else pissed off that when Cozens was shoved down after the whistle (not the slew foot, the previous whistle)not a single Sabre did a thing? Not a shove, not a rough, not even a stern word. Nothing. Just let the kid get hit. Absolutely disgusting for team building. 

Small wonder Cozens gets pissed at the slew foot and slashes back. Only guy on this team with heart.

Dylan Cozens deserves to be on a better team! 

And take a penalty late in a game we are trying to tie? 

[Zamboni]

10 hours ago, GoPuckYourself said:

https://www.nhl.com/news/rasmus-dahlin-gaining-notoriety-as-potential-no-1-pick-in-2018-nhl-draft/c-291598744 and there are other articles saying the same just google Rasmus Dahlin touted as generational talent.

 

Brought to you by the hockey media who looooove to label players and looooove it when the kool-aid drinking fans slurp up their write ups/opinions. Please sir can I have another??? 

 

I didn't think there were still fans in existence that eat up every syllable of sports media and believe it unquestionably. And then never waiver from believing it no matter what. And have strong adverse reactions when the kool-aid drinking puff articles don't come to pass.