GDT:Rangers 12/10/21 7PM start

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.  

To the bolded: no.  That is not control.  That is possession.  They are distinct.

To the sentence after the bolded: yes.  That player is both in possession of the puck AND control.

[JohnC]

Despite the disappointment of the outcome, I thought this one of the better games that Sabres have played. UPL was the #1 star for us. He was a big goaltender who used his size and positioning to make stops. There was little scrambling even when he was under pressure. He allowed a juicy rebound that ended in the net but other than that he looked stellar. No one can argue that he didn't belong. There is a calmness and efficiency to his game that is quite impressive for a young goalie. Both of the goaltenders in this game played well. 

Other than in the first period I thought the Sabres matched the Rangers evenly. Where the Rangers played demonstrably better than us is on the PP. They impressively moved the puck around and maintained control of it. 

What is encouraging is the play of Tage. He is getting better and better. For a big player he has an ability to skate with the puck on his stick and move into the open areas. I just wish he would do a little less dangling and shoot the puck quicker. One big positive in this season is his play. I didn't think he would be this good. And now that he is more physically developed there is still more potential to tap.

Dahlin is starting to get a lot of negative attention from this room. I'm just not seeing his play the same negative way as the critics with the  jaundiced eyes are seeing it. Defensemen who handle the puck a lot are going to sometimes lose it. Overall, he is smartly handling the puck and getting it to the right spots. 

This team needs more and better finishers. They are in the pipeline but it's going to take more time before they arrive. 

[Norcal]

So, they did get the call.

[Crusader1969]

41 minutes ago, Norcal said:

So, they did get the call.

Imagine if the Sabres were actually relevant and had this call go against them?   Still bad enough considering this team is desperate for something good to happen to them 

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Dahlin is starting to get a lot of negative attention from this room. I'm just not seeing his play the same negative way as the critics with the  jaundiced eyes are seeing it. Defensemen who handle the puck a lot are going to sometimes lose it. Overall, he is smartly handling the puck and getting it to the right spots. 

  It's not turnovers.  In fact, he was above average on the PP last night.   It's the ability to defend in his own end. What exactly did you see in his game last night that was impressive?  The board can and will over react, based on higher expectations.  Right or wrong, he is playing the most minutes by far, so the bar is set high.  In last nights game, his pairing with Joki (which I abhor) was by far the worst in terms of expected goal diff, Corsi, Fenwick and other advanced stats.  They played ~19 5/5 minutes and gave up almost 3 times the shots than the Bryson/Miller pairing playing about 15 minutes. 

The eye test shows not once but twice that he slid to disrupt a pass and whiffed.  The first time on a 2 on 1 break and another where UPL saves his bacon and makes a spectacular blocker save.   And finally, even though we now know he was exonerated for his offside (singular 😉) play, he shouldn't have put the Sabres in that position in the first place.   

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Norcal said:

So, they did get the call.

 

The NHL should be embarrassed about this.  I am surprised anyone would defend the reversal of the goal for supposed offside after Marty amply demonstrated that it was not offside.

[steveoath]

Yeah this popped up on my insta too. Embarrassing for NHL. 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by steveoath

[SDS]

1 hour ago, Norcal said:

So, they did get the call.

Well, then I apparently have been mistaken. I believe the call is correct the way the rule is written. If it’s not written the way it was intended, then it needs to hit the editor’s room.

[SwampD]

I thought the blue line was always a part of the zone that the puck was in. If so, wouldn’t all the Sabres players have had to touch white ice in the neutral zone in order to clear the offensive zone and get back onside?

If the puck hadn’t already crossed the line then they would have been onside by touching the blue line. But the puck was already in.

Still don’t care. Hurry back onside you dope!

Edited December 11, 2021 by SwampD

[JohnC]

49 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

  It's not turnovers.  In fact, he was above average on the PP last night.   It's the ability to defend in his own end. What exactly did you see in his game last night that was impressive?  The board can and will over react, based on higher expectations.  Right or wrong, he is playing the most minutes by far, so the bar is set high.  In last nights game, his pairing with Joki (which I abhor) was by far the worst in terms of expected goal diff, Corsi, Fenwick and other advanced stats.  They played ~19 5/5 minutes and gave up almost 3 times the shots than the Bryson/Miller pairing playing about 15 minutes. 

The eye test shows not once but twice that he slid to disrupt a pass and whiffed.  The first time on a 2 on 1 break and another where UPL saves his bacon and makes a spectacular blocker save.   And finally, even though we now know he was exonerated for his offside (singular 😉) play, he shouldn't have put the Sabres in that position in the first place.   

When evaluating a player such as Dahlin you have to ask what type of player is he? He's not a stalworth defender in the defensive zone, and probably never will be. That's not his game. He excels when he is moving out of his zone and entering the offensive zone. I agree that he makes a lot of mistakes that lead to chances. But that is due to the fact that he is doing more than he should, and his pairing support doesn't adequately cover for his mistakes.

In general, beyond this game I'm more than satisfied with is play. He's not playing with a roster that is robust. So his mistakes are more likely to be taken advantage of than if he played on a better team. When you look at this roster and individual play he is not (in my view) a player that you need to worry about. I think with Rasmus the negative view of him relates more to one's outsized expectations than to his actual play. 

[Norcal]

15 minutes ago, SDS said:

Well, then I apparently have been mistaken. I believe the call is correct the way the rule is written. If it’s not written the way it was intended, then it needs to hit the editor’s room.

I hear ya. All rules are subject to the discretion of the refs and its a fast game but when the league itself gets involved you would expect the call to be correct. 

[Stoner]

15 minutes ago, SDS said:

Well, then I apparently have been mistaken. I believe the call is correct the way the rule is written. If it’s not written the way it was intended, then it needs to hit the editor’s room.

It's poorly written, but the gist of it is there. With Dahlin still not tagged up, there's no offside until Oloffson touches the puck or attempts to touch the puck. He did neither.

What I want to know is what happened to letting the call on the ice stand unless there's obvious visual evidence it was wrong? The judgment call of the linesmen apparently was that Olofsson didn't touch the puck or try to touch it. What did Toronto see? Is it as simple as the replay officials thought they saw Olofsson touch the puck, even with their massive high-def monitors? I wonder what the linesmen told told Toronto during the review? Maybe they said they didn't see what happened?

[SwampD]

I’ll say it again, once the puck is in the offensive zone, the blue line is part of the zone. In order to “exit the zone” you have to get out and only be touching white ice in the neutral zone.

You have not exited the zone by merely thouching the blue line.

IMO they got the call right.

Edited December 11, 2021 by SwampD

[Stoner]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When evaluating a player such as Dahlin you have to ask what type of player is he? He's not a stalworth defender in the defensive zone, and probably never will be. That's not his game. He excels when he is moving out of his zone and entering the offensive zone. I agree that he makes a lot of mistakes that lead to chances. But that is due to the fact that he is doing more than he should, and his pairing support doesn't adequately cover for his mistakes.

In general, beyond this game I'm more than satisfied with is play. He's not playing with a roster that is robust. So his mistakes are more likely to be taken advantage of than if he played on a better team. When you look at this roster and individual play he is not (in my view) a player that you need to worry about. I think with Rasmus the negative view of him relates more to one's outsized expectations than to his actual play. 

This is the gist of it (gist is the word of the day). Rasmus Dahlin, a #1 pick four years into his career, is here to make the roster robust, to be the player who is so good he makes lesser players better, the player who directly contributes to winning. This argument is backwards, and we heard of it with Eichel, too. When you pay someone 10 million dollars a year, he better make the roster robust.

If Dahlin isn't that player, he's not robust — he's a bust.

[pastajoe]

15 hours ago, pastajoe said:

The league will issue an apology tomorrow but say it’s too late to change the result.

I called this last night. Give me a cookie.

[SwampD]

On another note, how does a ref justify not giving a penalty to a player on the bench who grabs a player by the head on the ice while play is going on.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by anything in a league where they get a call correct and put out a note to apologize that they got it wrong.

[Brawndo]

I started a new thread, but Colin Campbell said the call on the ice should have stood as there was not clear evidence of when Olofsson had control of the puck 

[Stoner]

12 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I’ll say it again, once the puck is in the offensive zone, the blue line is part of the zone. In order to “exit the zone” you have to get out and only be touching white ice in the neutral zone.

You have not exited the zone by merely thouching the blue line.

IMO they got the call right.

The answer is right in the rule SDS copied and pasted. "Skate contact with blue line."

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The answer is right in the rule SDS copied and pasted. "Skate contact with blue line."

Yep. Just read the nhl rule book. They got it wrong.

So the puck has to be all the way across the blue line to exit the zone, but a player only has to touch the blue line to exit the zone. Not confusing at all.

Edited December 11, 2021 by SwampD

[Broken Ankles]

13 minutes ago, pastajoe said:

I called this last night. Give me a cookie.

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

This is the gist of it (gist is the word of the day). Rasmus Dahlin, a #1 pick four years into his career, is here to make the roster robust, to be the player who is so good he makes lesser players better, the player who directly contributes to winning. This argument is backwards, and we heard of it with Eichel, too. When you pay someone 10 million dollars a year, he better make the roster robust.

If Dahlin isn't that player, he's not robust — he's a bust.

Utter freaking nonsense. Just because a player is the first player selected it doesn't mean that the player is automatically designated to be a transformational  player. His talent is his talent. Just because you expect him to be something beyond what he is doesn't mean that he is a failed player. 

I said it before and I will say it again that when evaluating the talent on this roster he is one of the least issues one should be concerned with. It's not his fault that this organization has not provided him with the support he needs for the team to be better than what it has been. And that same line of thinking applies to Jack and Reinhart when they were here.  

 

[Stoner]

14 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

I started a new thread, but Colin Campbell said the call on the ice should have stood as there was not clear evidence of when Olofsson had control of the puck 

It had nothing to do with control. (But Coli didn't say that, so I have no beef with him.)

[Stoner]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Utter freaking nonsense. Just because a player is the first player selected it doesn't mean that the player is automatically designated to be a transformational  player. His talent is his talent. Just because you expect him to be something beyond what he is doesn't mean that he is a failed player. 

I said it before and I will say it again that when evaluating the talent on this roster he is one of the least issues one should be concerned with. It's not his fault that this organization has not provided him with the support he needs for the team to be better than what it has been. And that same line of thinking applies to Jack and Reinhart when they were here.  

 

So you're admitting Dahlin is merely a promising young defenseman who needs to be on a stacked team to be good? I guess it's OK if we all forget LGR's YT videos out of Sweden, the professional evaluations of Dahlin and the like. It's probably good for our mental health. But, yeah, if the subject comes up, keeping everything in context, to this point in his career, he has been a clear bust.

[Taro T]

20 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Yep. Just read the nhl rule book. They got it wrong.

So the puck has to be all the way across the blue line to exit the zone, but a player only has to touch the blue line to exit the zone. Not confusing at all.

Yep.  The blue line is part of both zones so by having a skate (and not another body part or a stick rather than the skate) on (& IIRC starting this year above) the blue line the player is considered to be in the neutral zone (because he is as the neutral zone stretches to the inner edge of the blue line (the edge closer to the opponent's goal)). 

As the purpose of the rule is to keep players from goal hanging when the puck isn't in the offensive zone, really don't have a problem w/ it.

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Yep.  The blue line is part of both zones so by having a skate (and not another body part or a stick rather than the skate) on (& IIRC starting this year above) the blue line the player is considered to be in the neutral zone (because he is as the neutral zone stretches to the inner edge of the blue line (the edge closer to the opponent's goal)). 

As the purpose of the rule is to keep players from goal hanging when the puck isn't in the offensive zone, really don't have a problem w/ it.

My point is that it is different for players and puck.

The blue line, as it relates to players, is a part of both zones.

The blue line, as it relates to the puck, is a part of the zone from which it came. So if you think about it, all of the zones change sizes throughout the game, depending on where the puck is and where it came from. Kinda cool.