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

[Berg]

It was 100% no goal! Need to do something with this refs!

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

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.

Ya I feel like if all there was was the LOUD HORN SOUNDED from on high, those funny “oh that’s definitely a goal!” ones you rarely hear, we’d be ok. They seem to get the main, egregious ones. 
 

The famous Duchene offside play is so famous because up until and including that point it only happened...once

once. Isn’t that an issue to anybody? Just inherently? It wasn’t a problem. It was an anomaly. And you dig up the whole farm 

[FrenchConnection44]

1 hour 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. 

Of course it is inconsistent and sometimes very bad. No doubt. In ev Ty sport. 
 

I think the problem here is that it was not just a missed call on the ice but instant replay; and they should be able to get that right. No reason to have replay if they can’t get it correct. He obviously kicked his leg at the puck and sent it into the net. The replay officials at least need to know the rules.
 

One can argue it should not be a rule. But that doesn’t change that it is now. 

[FrenchConnection44]

Leaving aside the bad goal, the inability of the Sabres to check inside their own zone is disturbing. In 5 on 5 if the other team gets the puck and all five players in the zone it’s almost as if they have a power play.
 

They seemed not to understand what teams are doing to them or how to defend around the net. The Islanders run a kind of triangle in front of the net and it was as if the Sabres were not prepared to defend it. Or had no clue what to do to stop it at times. 

[That Aud Smell]

3 minutes ago, FrenchConnection44 said:

I think the problem here is that it was not just a missed call on the ice but instant replay; and they should be able to get that right. No reason to have replay if they can’t get it correct. He obviously kicked his leg at the puck and sent it into the net. The replay officials at least need to know the rules.

Based on the statement they gave to reporters, they were aware of the applicable rule (78.5(i)) and applied it as they saw fit. Their statement talked in terms of the puck deflecting off Fasching. In that way, they seemed to reject the notion that Fasching deliberately directed the puck. The puck deflected off of Fasching makes the puck the subject of the sentence and makes Fasching the (indirect?) object of the sentence. They weren't buying that Fasching was the actor (subject) of what happened.

Which is nucking futs.

But I think they had the right rule in mind.

Maybe the rule book is shoved up their rectums and that's how they were able to read it while they were "reviewing" the video replay of the called-no-goal?

[Stoner]

I expect that now that lunch is over, we will see the statement come across the wires at any minute.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour 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. 

1 hour 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. 

It works in every city but Buffalo, actually...

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, rickshaw said:

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

You have no idea how idiotic the officials are.  Making the rules idiot proof for those idiots is unpossible.

1 hour ago, Berg said:

It was 100% no goal! Need to do something with this refs!

The refs got it right.  Toronto overturned them.

[That Aud Smell]

27 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The refs got it right.

For the wrong reason (rule), evidently. The on ice ref called it off for a distinct kicking motion.

[JohnC]

5 hours 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 recommend that you go for an eye exam. 

[SwampD]

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I recommend that you go for an eye exam. 

Are saying that he did not intentionally lift his leg in order for it to make contact with the puck?

 

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Even though i do not think it is a goal (But who the hell am I!!!) it does not matter as the Sabres deserved to lose that game. The last 30 mins, they were 100% owned by the Isles. If Okposo had not scored a lucky goal, it would have been a lot worse i think.

[Flashsabre]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Man, Sabres fans can set the bar SO LOW. 

Sorry I didn’t write a 7 paragraph irrational meltdown tirade. They are young and missing about 3 pieces from truly contending. Pissing and moaning isn’t going to fix that.

[Pimlach]

9 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Based on the statement they gave to reporters, they were aware of the applicable rule (78.5(i)) and applied it as they saw fit. Their statement talked in terms of the puck deflecting off Fasching. In that way, they seemed to reject the notion that Fasching deliberately directed the puck. The puck deflected off of Fasching makes the puck the subject of the sentence and makes Fasching the (indirect?) object of the sentence. They weren't buying that Fasching was the actor (subject) of what happened.

Which is nucking futs.

But I think they had the right rule in mind.

Maybe the rule book is shoved up their rectums and that's how they were able to read it while they were "reviewing" the video replay of the called-no-goal?

So now they are going to let Toronto determine what the player was "thinking", instead of what he did.   What he did was direct the puck into the net.  The ref saw it and immediately, without hesitation said NO GOAL.  It should not matter if it was deliberate when it was obvious that he lifted his leg and that move directed the puck into the net - meaning he did it.  

Can you imagine if this goal, called in this manner, settled a Stanley Cup game?  

Edited March 9, 2023 by Pimlach

[That Aud Smell]

42 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

So now they are going to let Toronto determine what the player was "thinking", instead of what he did.   What he did was direct the puck into the net.  The ref saw it and immediately, without hesitation said NO GOAL. It should not matter if it was deliberate when it was obvious that he lifted his leg and that move directed the puck into the net - meaning he did it.  

Can you imagine is this goal, called in this manner, settled a Stanley Cup game?  

But that is precisely what the rule says (in a bassackward sort of way).

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. When this occurs, if it is deemed to be done deliberately, then the decision shall be NO GOAL. A goal cannot be scored when the puck has been deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body into the ne

[Pimlach]

6 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

But that is precisely what the rule says (in a bassackward sort of way).

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. When this occurs, if it is deemed to be done deliberately, then the decision shall be NO GOAL. A goal cannot be scored when the puck has been deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body into the ne

Sure.  They "deemed" it was not deliberate.  The video shows he lifted his leg and that motion directed the puck into the net.  The ref called it that way too.  Someone in Toronto determined it was not deliberate.  They overturned an easy and logical no goal call on the ice, into a controversial call based on a guess of what the players intent was.  

Great.  

[Pimlach]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I expect that now that lunch is over, we will see the statement come across the wires at any minute.

@PASabreFan, the apology from NHL HQ is on the way ... 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

Are saying that he did not intentionally lift his leg in order for it to make contact with the puck?

 

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined. 

[Randall Flagg]

17 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined. 

For me to see this i have to employ my imagination to a degree that is immediately unbelievable. He picks his skate up off the ground and has knee extension that directs it towards the goal as soon as the puck gets to his shin, no sooner and no later. While staring right at it lol

Edited March 8, 2023 by Randall Flagg

[That Aud Smell]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined. 

He most certainly did. The situation room people determined he did not do so deliberately insofar as the goal scoring was concerned.

[Pimlach]

24 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

For me to see this i have to employ my imagination to a degree that is immediately unbelievable. He picks his skate up off the ground and has knee extension that directs it towards the goal as soon as the puck gets to his shin, no sooner and no later. While staring right at it lol

But someone on Toronto said he didn't do it on purpose, o he didn't mean it, or something?   

The ref was right there and in the flow of the game. He waived it off immediately.  

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined. 

They did not determine that John, the puck was directed into the net, and it was directed in by Fasching's shin, this is clear on replay.   No contact with the shin, and the puck goes wide of the net.   

The best and only takeaway you have, as a supporter of this call, is that he did not  deliberately direct the puck.  Read the rule.   The experts in Toronto can apparently determine it was not deliberate better than the officials on the ice.  Even though Fasching was looking at the puck, and he lifted his skate off the ice, and he struck the puck with his shin, and he did so with his leg angled in a manner that changed the pucks direction and sent it into the net.  Even with these 4 things clearly happening on video - Toronto says it was not deliberate,  it was a random deflection off of a leg and therefore a goal.   

Edited March 9, 2023 by Pimlach

[inkman]

5 hours ago, Doohickie said:

It works in every city but Buffalo, actually...

I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined. 

It absolutely is the issue, and if you are going to tell people that they need eye exams, then I am going to tell you that you need to re-read and learn the rule. If he intentionally raised his leg to make contact with the puck and then it went into the net, it is no goal. Period.

It doesn't matter if he didn't propel the puck into the net. A distinct kicking motion is irrelevant. You can only intentionally redirect a puck in with your stick.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

[LTS]

I shut the game off the moment they called that a good goal.  I'm 70/30 on canceling Fubo and saying FU to the NHL.

I didn't even wade through the GDT because I know if I did I would only get completely bent out of shape.

Everything about the play was deliberate...

I hope Sabres STHs keep in mind how Toronto screws them when they decide to sell their tickets to Leafs fans.