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

[Norcal]

No goal!

[Stoner]

21 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

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

Good point. 78.5 brings in intent. If HF didn't intend to direct the puck into the net given his motions before the puck got there he needs to be checked out by his physician and perhaps psychiatrist.

[Stoner]

27 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.

Totally agree. But the goal wasn't a kick per se. The ref rightly called off the goal but for the wrong reason. Should have been an easy fix in Toronto.

[Doohicksie]

11 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

A rush of gratitude coursed through me as Bryson passed out of a scoring chance down a goal with 5 minutes left in the third - it is reassuring to know that our future is not being put at risk. That he and Clague see important minutes together in a game of this magnitude is a living testament to a worthy ideal - that our many defensive prospects and mystery box draft picks can pave the way forward at a later date, as opposed to someone competent helping in place of Sammy today. 

The skaters have seamlessly adopted the FO's mindset as well - true organizational synergy

It's definitely not over, these guys have another streak in them I think

Welcome back!

[Carmel Corn]

18 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Very bad trade! McNabb is/was awesome 

That makes TWO McNabb's that this franchise should have never traded away!

[French Collection]

40 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

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.

Wow, I wasn’t aware when Sorokin had been taken. Sabres would be in a different tier with him between two pipes.

[That Aud Smell]

40 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?

Oof. Having looked at the Video Review rules (which are not a model of clarity), I've concluded that there is no deference to the call on the ice. Toronto reviews every single goal. And they make their own determination of whether or not there was a good goal.

Anyone know anything different?

16 minutes 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, which is not allowed.

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

The DKM Rule is written in such a way that, when a goal is reviewed (as they all are!), and regardless of the call on ice,  the burden is on the video replay (?!) to clearly establish that the player deliberately propelled the puck with a kick. So, it's gonna be a good goal unless the video clearly establishes a deliberate propelling with the boot or skate. No deference to what the on-ice ref called.

37.4 Distinct Kicking Motion – Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net.

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Totally agree. But the goal wasn't a kick per se. The ref rightly called off the goal but for the wrong reason. Should have been an easy fix in Toronto.

Double oof. 

But, again, Toronto takes a fresh look at every single goal that's scored. They should know the rules? Apparently they do not. Or they somehow determined that Fasching did not deliberately direct that puck towards the net with his leg.

[Pimlach]

22 minutes 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, which is not allowed.

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

 

I knew when it took so long to make a ruling, that they were looking to overturn the call on the ice.  The ref was clear and definitive from the start, no goal and kicking motion.   Why was the refs decisions overturned?  
 

Why did they review it to begin with?  
 

I don’t understand why certain plays are automatically reviewed and others are not. 

[Doohicksie]

10 hours ago, Thorny said:

The sh*tty reality sinking in, that the long, slow, star-player targeting grind of an 82 game season likely means that this particular year, at least, we can’t see close to the Dahlin we saw in the first 60 through the last 20, really quite sucks.

This is the first season he’s been warrior Dahlin throughout, he’s probably still physically maturing, even if it feels like he’s been here long 

This is what happens when you have to play your top D 25+ minutes a night because you simply don't have to defensive depth.  I'm climbing on board with @GASabresIUFAN, as much as it pains me to do so, and saying that Kevyn is failing this team by providing Clagues and Brysons and now Stillmans.  We need better 3rd pairing D and better D depth behind them.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, Doohickie said:

This is what happens when you have to play your top D 25+ minutes a night because you simply don't have to defensive depth.  I'm climbing on board with @GASabresIUFAN, as much as it pains me to do so, and saying that Kevyn is failing this team by providing Clagues and Brysons and now Stillmans.  We need better 3rd pairing D and better D depth behind them.

Better late than never.  The D is simply not good enough, although the Fasching goal was BS.  

[Pimlach]

27 minutes ago, Contempt said:

I fell asleep. How'd it turn out?

 

Take a look at the morning Courrier.  

[FrenchConnection44]

It’s clearly not a goal. From Buffalo News piece. Any nonsense that he was not intentionally redirecting the puck is nonsense. He clearly was kicking his leg out toward the goal. 

[Pimlach]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

This is what happens when you have to play your top D 25+ minutes a night because you simply don't have to defensive depth.  I'm climbing on board with @GASabresIUFAN, as much as it pains me to do so, and saying that Kevyn is failing this team by providing Clagues and Brysons and now Stillmans.  We need better 3rd pairing D and better D depth behind them.

Now you’re with me?   I have been pounding the table to trade for a legit veteran #4, move Joker down to 3rd pair,  and get another NHL 6 ( not the likes of Bryson, Clagg, Pilut).  
 

Now we get to crunch time.  Muel is out.  Dahlin is playing hurt.  Looby is playing hurt.  Stillman out.   Power is a rookie playing insane minutes and carrying dogs like Bryson/Clagg. 
 

We are  very close to seeing Bryson, Clagg, and Pilut all in the same lineup. 

[FrenchConnection44]

Just now, FrenchConnection44 said:

It’s clearly not a goal. From Buffalo News piece. Any nonsense that he was not intentionally redirecting the puck is nonsense. He clearly was kicking his leg out toward the goal. 

And if they start to get into the question of “what was in the player’s head” that becomes absurd. Every player will then say, “I wasn’t intentionally trying to score, just trying to stop the puck to shoot,” and who is to dispute what is in a player’s mind? No one. If there is movement toward the goal it has to be disallowed as intentional. 
 

Unbelievable. 

[Broken Ankles]

2 hours ago, 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!

[FrenchConnection44]

1 minute ago, Pimlach said:

Now you’re with me?   I have been pounding the table to trade for a legit veteran #4, move Joker down to 3rd pair,  and get another NHL 6 ( not the likes of Bryson, Clagg, Pilut).  
 

Now we get to crunch time.  Muel is out.  Dahlin is playing hurt.  Looby is playing hurt.  Stillman out.   Power is a rookie playing insane minutes and carrying dogs like Bryson/Clagg. 
 

We are  very close to seeing Bryson, Clagg, and Pilut all in the same lineup. 

I agree except I do give him credit for trying to trade for Chychrun. Wasn’t on him but from all appearances on Arizona. 
 

Last viable defenseman drafted was 2019 - Rian Johnson. He’s still playing college hockey and who knows that situation. Or how good he will be. Not a huge force imo. 
 

It’s a problem he has to solve but won’t happen this year. If he doesn’t land a top 4 defender this off season it’s a problem. 

[Thorner]

29 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

This is what happens when you have to play your top D 25+ minutes a night because you simply don't have to defensive depth.  I'm climbing on board with @GASabresIUFAN, as much as it pains me to do so, and saying that Kevyn is failing this team by providing Clagues and Brysons and now Stillmans.  We need better 3rd pairing D and better D depth behind them.

Ya I think that’s what @Randall Flagg was getting at

[rickshaw]

13 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Do you really want guys kicking at pucks?

Why not? The rule is seemingly in place to protect the goalie. Why is it ok for a defender to punt it out but not an offensive player? That’s not dangerous if a dman does it?

These guys are skilled and can do lots with their feet everywhere else. It would definitely take the guesswork out of the calls. Last nights goal was clearly kicked in and shouldn’t have counted yet the NHL finds a way to allow it. It’s ridiculous.

Why is it ok to sometimes count? Make them all count or make none of them count. No matter what. 

[inkman]

It makes me chuckle how many people’s dander is raised for NHL officiating. It’s been garbage my whole life.  Why is anyone surprised or angered when they do exactly what they have done for 50 years.  
 

Just now, rickshaw said:

Why not? The rule is seemingly in place to protect the goalie. Why is it ok for a defender to punt it out but not an offensive player? That’s not dangerous if a dman does it?

These guys are skilled and can do lots with their feet everywhere else. It would definitely take the guesswork out of the calls. Last nights goal was clearly kicked in and shouldn’t have counted yet the NHL finds a way to allow it. It’s ridiculous.

Why is it ok to sometimes count? Make them all count or make none of them count. No matter what. 

I’m guessing it’s to prevent people from getting their throats slit with a skate blade. Whoops!  I guess that didn’t really work either. 

[Stoner]

34 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I knew when it took so long to make a ruling, that they were looking to overturn the call on the ice.  The ref was clear and definitive from the start, no goal and kicking motion.   Why was the refs decisions overturned?  
 

Why did they review it to begin with?  
 

I don’t understand why certain plays are automatically reviewed and others are not. 

I'm the last person to believe in conspiracies or MFTs and all that nonsense, but now that the NHL is in business with gambling and in the business of gambling, I look at these reviews in a different light. How sterile is the cockpit in Toronto? Who is the decision maker talking to?

36 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Oof. Having looked at the Video Review rules (which are not a model of clarity), I've concluded that there is no deference to the call on the ice. Toronto reviews every single goal. And they make their own determination of whether or not there was a good goal.

Anyone know anything different?

The DKM Rule is written in such a way that, when a goal is reviewed (as they all are!), and regardless of the call on ice,  the burden is on the video replay (?!) to clearly establish that the player deliberately propelled the puck with a kick. So, it's gonna be a good goal unless the video clearly establishes a deliberate propelling with the boot or skate. No deference to what the on-ice ref called.

37.4 Distinct Kicking Motion – Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net.

Double oof. 

But, again, Toronto takes a fresh look at every single goal that's scored. They should know the rules? Apparently they do not. Or they somehow determined that Fasching did not deliberately direct that puck towards the net with his leg.

If I had to guess, the fan notion of "incontrovertible visual evidence" needed to overrule the ref's call was ported over from the NFL and has no basis in NHL policy.

3 minutes ago, inkman said:

It makes me chuckle how many people’s dander is raised for NHL officiating. It’s been garbage my whole life.  Why is anyone surprised or angered when they do exactly what they have done for 50 years.  
 

I’m guessing it’s to prevent people from getting their throats slit with a skate blade. Whoops!  I guess that didn’t really work either. 

Fair.

[rickshaw]

3 minutes ago, inkman said:

 

I’m guessing it’s to prevent people from getting their throats slit with a skate blade. Whoops!  I guess that didn’t really work either. 

My point exactly. Why can a defender do it then? Is he less likey to slit a throat? It makes no sense.

[Stoner]

3 minutes ago, rickshaw said:

Why not? The rule is seemingly in place to protect the goalie. Why is it ok for a defender to punt it out but not an offensive player? That’s not dangerous if a dman does it?

These guys are skilled and can do lots with their feet everywhere else. It would definitely take the guesswork out of the calls. Last nights goal was clearly kicked in and shouldn’t have counted yet the NHL finds a way to allow it. It’s ridiculous.

Why is it ok to sometimes count? Make them all count or make none of them count. No matter what. 

Well it wasn't kicked in unless one can kick with one's shin.

I don't know why it should be so hard. I won't speak for other hockey fans, but why do we want players directing pucks into the net with their skates.

Blanket rule... You can't direct the puck into the net in any way... Skate arm leg itchy left nutsack (***** this dry winter air). It's not a hard call to make. Like porn and that old SC justice, you know it when you see it. Passive deflections are fine.

Fixed.

I love that gosh darn is filtered and makes it seem like I used the f bomb.

[rickshaw]

I agree. They need to make it idiot proof for these officials.

 

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, inkman said:

It makes me chuckle how many people’s dander is raised for NHL officiating. It’s been garbage my whole life.  Why is anyone surprised or angered when they do exactly what they have done for 50 years.  
 

I’m guessing it’s to prevent people from getting their throats slit with a skate blade. Whoops!  I guess that didn’t really work either. 

All sports officiating, really. NFL has an issue. NBA has techs being dished our for personal reasons. MLB umpires losing their own strike zone are under fire constantly. 

It’s why I don’t want robot umps or offside challenges or really any of it if I had my way. It’s probably fixing a problem that isn’t there. This stuff evens out in large sample sizes. Half the time replay is used (or not used) there’s still subjectivity anyways so you waste 5 minutes of time making the product more boring. 

Then everyone argues about it after anyways. Just play the game and accept human error 

[Stoner]

15 minutes ago, Thorny said:

All sports officiating, really. NFL has an issue. NBA has techs being dished our for personal reasons. MLB umpires losing their own strike zone are under fire constantly. 

It’s why I don’t want robot umps or offside challenges or really any of it if I had my way. It’s probably fixing a problem that isn’t there. This stuff evens out in large sample sizes. Half the time replay is used (or not used) there’s still subjectivity anyways so you waste 5 minutes of time making the product more boring. 

Then everyone argues about it after anyways. Just play the game and accept human error 

I sometimes think the replays make the broadcasts much "stickier" for viewers. I bet the leagues like the idea of all eyes on the game and fans debating amongst themselves and "playing ref." See also: there's way too much money involved.

I tend to agree with you, but what about the atrocities of early days? Pucks going in and no one saw it. I'd have a very high bar. Offside review? Yuck. It's criminal honestly.