GDT: Sabres @ Islanders - Mar. 7, 2023, 7:30pm, ESPN+/Hulu WGR

[JohnC]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

The league's commentators shouldn't be used as evidence.

Broadening this out... Do we really want goals to be scored like that? What if it won a Cup against the Sabres?

I'm not broadening this discussion because it is pointless to do so. Trust your eyes and don't let your bias obscure what actually happened. There is nothing unusual about a fluke goal. Deflections off sticks, off of offensive and defensive players, happen all the time. Good calls, bad calls inexplicable calls. Sometimes they work in your favor and sometimes they don't. That's simply hockey!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

8 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

@Sabres Fan in NS

@PASabreFan

I miss all the fun.  Always.

What's the poop behind this ??

 

[Eleven]

26 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

My hot take this morning is that the league will issue a correction/apology today.

I'll also be expecting that letter from the IRS teling me I don't really owe those back taxes.

Do you owe back taxes of $10,000 or more?

[Stoner]

Just now, JohnC said:

I'm not broadening this discussion because it is pointless to do so. Trust your eyes and don't let your bias obscure what actually happened. There is nothing unusual about a fluke goal. Deflections off sticks, off of offensive and defensive players, happen all the time. Good calls, bad calls inexplicable calls. Sometimes they work in your favor and sometimes they don't. That's simply hockey!

I'm pretty good at remaining unbiased. No blue and gold glasses here.

Do you not see Fasching lifting his left leg off the ice and extending it toward the net before the puck gets there? Was he just dealing with a cramp?

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The league's commentatorsshouldn't be used as evidence.

Broadening this out... Do we really want goals to be scored like that? What if it won a Cup against the Sabres?

The commentators were not the evidence. The film clip they showed was. Trust your eyes and you will come away with the right conclusion. 

[Believer]

1 hour ago, sabrefanday1 said:

e are a bigger team them them but play small as well but I like to think with time we will mature and start to play a more physical game when necessary.

Agree we are getting bigger… but we are playing small… Playing physical is a mindset, I  believe… Player either likes to play physical or he doesn’t… You can train a player but he has to want that toughness in his game… We have a handful of these type players… and a few who will as they age… We can rise to the occasion as we did against FL and TB… It is not a team attribute yet… 

[Stoner]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Do you owe back taxes of $10,000 or more?

No. If I did do you have a toll free number for me?

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm pretty good at remaining unbiased. No blue and gold glasses here.

Do you not see Fasching lifting his left leg off the ice and extending it toward the net before the puck gets there? Was he just dealing with a cramp?

His leg was raised. But it wasn't done to direct the puck. The puck hit his leg and it went in. There is nothing complicated or disputable about the play.

[bob_sauve28]

Looked like he was kicking a field goal or something 

[Eleven]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

No. If I did do you have a toll free number for me?

Numerous.  I do a lot of involuntary tax research on AM radio in between segments of Schopp & Bulldog.

[Stoner]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Numerous.  I do a lot of involuntary tax research on AM radio in between segments of Schopp & Bulldog.

It all started when I got a fake SS number for my cat and used him as a dependent.

[Scottysabres]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It all started when I got a fake SS number for my cat and used him as a dependent.

I've been wondering for years why catnip and kitty litter were listed on my write offs........

[SwampD]

31 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Let's look at the correct rule. 78.5.

Goals will be disallowed "when the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick." The exception the league has is that for whatever reason they want to allow players to be able to direct pucks into the net of their skates. I don't get it. It's a stick and ball sport.

Doesn't matter here. That's not the issue. The issue is what Fasching did as the puck was arriving. I think it's obvious but to each his own.

I agree. Just read the full rule. It’s right there. Should have been no goal.

[Stoner]

All right. That's one. I might just need to give John the LBJ treatment. John can you meet me in my bathroom in about 10 minutes?

[Eleven]

34 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The commentators were not the evidence. The film clip they showed was. Trust your eyes and you will come away with the right conclusion. 

My eyes saw Fasching move his left leg towards the puck, thereby changing the direction of the puck--i.e., *directing* it--toward and into the goal.  Since Fasching's left leg is not a hockey stick, it should not have been a goal.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Eleven

[bob_sauve28]

It's the Curse of Brayden McNabb!!! 

https://www.diebytheblade.com/2014/3/5/5474134/sabres-trade-brayden-mcnabb-to-kings

[That Aud Smell]

The thing that frosts my tips - and it's probably addressed upthread - is that it was called no goal on the ice. The video replay, at best, can be interpreted one way or the other (and I think it is clearly and obviously a deliberate intent to direct the puck on goal with his leg). Isn't the review standard such that the call on the ice must stand where the video is susceptible to differing interpretations?

[DarthEbriate]

The Fasching goal was a kick. It's why the on-ice official waved it off instantly and emphatically. In real time, he saw the leg move forward. That's the kick. He doesn't have to swing at the puck or corral it and dribble it and then kick or do a Charlie Brown run-up. Fasching had to lift his blade off the ice and extend the leg forward in order to make contact with the puck. That's the distinct kicking motion. If he leaves his leg as is and just has it carom off him, the puck angles wide of the net.

The only way you can overturn it is through slow motion replay and convince yourself that the movement wasn't enough, which is not how the rule is written. You could argue that in slow motion it's even more egregious because it become premeditated. Fasching sees the puck come off the ice and frees his hand from his stick to catch it. Then, he sees that the puck is dipping again and he won't be able to play it with his hand. And he has to move his leg independently of his slide in order to make contact with the puck.

It's disappointing.

And all that said...   the Islanders were the vastly superior (and rested) team last night and earned their 2 points in the standings.

19 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

It's the Curse of Brayden McNabb!!! 

https://www.diebytheblade.com/2014/3/5/5474134/sabres-trade-brayden-mcnabb-to-kings

It was a very bad trade. The Kings took Cernak with one of those picks (2015). The Sabres selected Brendan Guhle a handful of picks later. Roope Hintz and Jordan Greenway were picked in between them. In 2014 I'd have liked to be able to say the Sabres could've made a great pick had they kept it... but they took Jonas Johansson with the very next pick so that's who'd they'd have taken anyway. Merzlikins and Sorokin were the next goalies taken. GMTM liked his Swedish goalies.

Edited March 8, 2023 by DarthEbriate

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

The league's commentators shouldn't be used as evidence.

Holy hell - yes. Those guys are shills. And probably bozos as well when it comes to the applicable rule(s).

[Sidc3000]

27 minutes ago, Eleven said:

My eyes saw Fasching move his left leg towards the puck, thereby changing the direction of the puck--i.e., *directing* it--toward and into the goal.  Since Fasching's left leg is not a hockey stick, it should not have been a goal.

I remember when a goal Pominville (if I remember correctly) scored was disallowed because it bounced off his chest. The said it was “redirected”.  The league has a very liberal take on what is a kicking motion and redirection 

[That Aud Smell]

2 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The Fasching goal was a kick. It's why the on-ice official waved it off instantly and emphatically. In real time, he saw the leg move forward. That's the kick. He doesn't have to swing at the puck or corral it and dribble it and then kick or do a Charlie Brown run-up. Fasching had to lift his blade off the ice and extend the leg forward in order to make contact with the puck. That's the distinct kicking motion. If he leaves his leg as is and just has it carom off him, the puck angles wide of the net.

I wanna keep it straight. The rule at issue talks about the action being done deliberately. Distinct kicking motion isn't in play here.

[That Aud Smell]

I also see a lot of talk here about what was "deserved" in terms of the game's outcome. And to that, I say nuts. 

Deserved's got nothing to do with it. Sometimes there are results that are against the run of play. That's part of an 82-game season. We were charting for such an outcome last night. Until Toronto took it away. Inexplicably.

The Sabres are down to nut cutting time. Their margin for error is razor thin. They need every break they can get. Last night, they didn't just miss out on getting a break, the got fookin' hosed by the league.

[bob_sauve28]

16 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The Fasching goal was a kick. It's why the on-ice official waved it off instantly and emphatically. In real time, he saw the leg move forward. That's the kick. He doesn't have to swing at the puck or corral it and dribble it and then kick or do a Charlie Brown run-up. Fasching had to lift his blade off the ice and extend the leg forward in order to make contact with the puck. That's the distinct kicking motion. If he leaves his leg as is and just has it carom off him, the puck angles wide of the net.

The only way you can overturn it is through slow motion replay and convince yourself that the movement wasn't enough, which is not how the rule is written. You could argue that in slow motion it's even more egregious because it become premeditated. Fasching sees the puck come off the ice and frees his hand from his stick to catch it. Then, he sees that the puck is dipping again and he won't be able to play it with his hand. And he has to move his leg independently of his slide in order to make contact with the puck.

It's disappointing.

And all that said...   the Islanders were the vastly superior (and rested) team last night and earned their 2 points in the standings.

It was a very bad trade. The Kings took Cernak with one of those picks (2015). The Sabres selected Brendan Guhle a handful of picks later. Roope Hintz and Jordan Greenway were picked in between them. In 2014 I'd have liked to be able to say the Sabres could've made a great pick had they kept it... but they took Jonas Johansson with the very next pick so that's who'd they'd have taken anyway. Merzlikins and Sorokin were the next goalies taken. GMTM liked his Swedish goalies.

Very bad trade! McNabb is/was awesome 

[Stoner]

25 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The thing that frosts my tips - and it's probably addressed upthread - is that it was called no goal on the ice. The video replay, at best, can be interpreted one way or the other (and I think it is clearly and obviously a deliberate intent to direct the puck on goal with his leg). Isn't the review standard such that the call on the ice must stand where the video is susceptible to differing interpretations?

The problem was that the call on the ice was a distinct kicking motion. Unbelievably according to the info the league gave MH, they determined there was no DKM and conflated that with 78.5. Logically... Or illogically... There was no DKM so HF was allowed to direct the puck into the net with his leg, which is not allowed.

I still think there's a chance they admit fault. It was egregious.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by PASabreFan

[Contempt]

14 hours ago, Pimlach said:

I fell asleep. How'd it turn out?

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

The problem was that the call on the ice was a distinct kicking motion. Unbelievably according to the info the league gave MH, they determined there was no DKM and conflated that with 78.5. Logically... Or illogically... There was no DKM so HF was allowed to direct the puck into the net with his leg.

I still think there's a chance they admit fault. It was egregious.

 

Can we include this in forgiveness day?