Breaking news

[Stoner]

On Palffy's "goal," the ref says no goal. The red light does not go on. They look at it upstairs, and despite no conclusive angle that shows the puck over the line, they call it a goal anyway. That wouldn't happen in the NFL. Then again, the NHL is no NFL. And I would say the same thing if it happened at the other end. The NFL's standard for overruling a call on the field is "incontrovertible visual evidence." What is the NHL's standard? And who decides if a call gets reviewed?

[blugold43]

it was a goal.

[Spandrel]

It was a goal, based on the replay, BARELY. But, man, Palffy's shot was so lazy and Biron's effort was so good, that it was definitely a shame to give him the goal. No justice on that call. :P

[Hsoj25]

i think secretly i agreed that it was a goal while seeing it on them replays, had the sabres lost the game in OT though i might have been saying the same thing :)

[Stoner]

Unbelievable. Which replay clearly showed the puck over the line?

[blugold43]

look man, if you couldn't see it then you probably just don't want to. i understand. i didn't want to either, as it cost my fantasy team points. but it was a goal.

[shrader]

Unbelievable. Which replay clearly showed the puck over the line?

The heel of his glove was on the goal line. The entire puck catching part of the glove (whatever you call it) was over the line. You don't need to see the puck to know its completely over the line. With the logic you're using, Marty's entire arm could be in the net and you would still not award a goal.

[blugold43]

The entire puck catching part of the glove (whatever you call it) was over the line.

not only that, but it (and i believe they call this strange substance "webbing") was almost bursting through from the puck slamming into it. it was obviously a goal.

[Taro T]

It was a goal, based on the replay, BARELY.  But, man, Palffy's shot was so lazy and Biron's effort was so good, that it was definitely a shame to give him the goal.  No justice on that call.  :P

Unfortunately, it was a goal. The refs / replay crew got it right. If you look closely at the webbing in his glove, it moved. Short of a gale force wind picking up in the Igloo tonight, it was probably the puck that moved the webbing in Marty's glove.

 

That said, the Sabres bounced back tremendously after that goal. Reminded me of game 5 vs. Toronto. Sabres thought they had scored the winning goal, but it got called back; they didn't sulk or quit, they just went out and scored the winning goal.

 

Sabres tonight thought they had stopped the tying goal. They didn't. They just went out and pounded Pittsburgh and won the game.

[Guest Guest]

On Palffy's "goal," the ref says no goal. The red light does not go on. They look at it upstairs, and despite no conclusive angle that shows the puck over the line, they call it a goal anyway. That wouldn't happen in the NFL. Then again, the NHL is no NFL. And I would say the same thing if it happened at the other end. The NFL's standard for overruling a call on the field is "incontrovertible visual evidence." What is the NHL's standard? And who decides if a call gets reviewed?

How can you say it doesn't happen in the NFL? It happens all the time! It was goal, and was called a goal.

[Tarrytown]

it was a goal - they got the call right...and the big news was that right after that goal out team went out and pounded some heads. The took the play to the Pens and that's what won them the game.

[deluca67]

Unfortunately, it was a goal. The refs / replay crew got it right. If you look closely at the webbing in his glove, it moved. Short of a gale force wind picking up in the Igloo tonight, it was probably the puck that moved the webbing in Marty's glove.

 

That said, the Sabres bounced back tremendously after that goal. Reminded me of game 5 vs. Toronto. Sabres thought they had scored the winning goal, but it got called back; they didn't sulk or quit, they just went out and scored the winning goal.

 

Sabres tonight thought they had stopped the tying goal. They didn't. They just went out and pounded Pittsburgh and won the game.

In the NHL it's a goal. In a court of law it's not. There is not one angle which shows the puck over the goal line. This was as a bad a call as when the NFL award Vinny a TD for the Jets when his helmet crossed the goal line and the ball was a yard away.

 

I don't have the NHL rule book on hand. But I am sure a "bulgeing web" does not appear anywhere in the book.

 

Try this. Go to a sports store. Pick up a goalie glove. Snap it shut. Then see if the webbing colaspes in? Or buldges out?

 

If you can't prove it crossed the line then you can't call it a goal. :angry:

[Taro T]

In the NHL it's a goal. In a court of law it's not. There is not one angle which shows the puck over the goal line. This was as a bad a call as when the NFL award Vinny a TD for the Jets when his helmet crossed the goal line and the ball was a yard away.

 

I don't have the NHL rule book on hand. But I am sure a "bulgeing web" does not appear anywhere in the book. 

 

Try this. Go to a sports store. Pick up a goalie glove. Snap it shut.  Then see if the webbing colaspes in? Or buldges out?

 

If you can't prove it crossed the line then you can't call it a goal.  :angry:

Easy there Drury. The Sabres didn't let this get them down and came out and won the game outright.

 

That being said, and I even let my 8 year old get up to watch the "save" so I was convinced for quite some time it was a save, it was a goal.

 

The only way the play wasn't a goal was if the puck hit the heel of the glove, the rest of the glove was clearly over the line. If the puck hit the heel of the glove, the glove doesn't bulge out and then back in when the puck rolls to the front of the glove.

[Knightrider]

Five words:

 

"Just give it to them."

 

What happened years ago in the NFL happened tonight in Pittsburgh.

 

The great thing is that they were good enough to overcome the call.

[pwner]

Easy there Drury. The Sabres didn't let this get them down and came out and won the game outright.

 

That being said, and I even let my 8 year old get up to watch the "save" so I was convinced for quite some time it was a save, it was a goal.

 

The only way the play wasn't a goal was if the puck hit the heel of the glove, the rest of the glove was clearly over the line. If the puck hit the heel of the glove, the glove doesn't bulge out and then back in when the puck rolls to the front of the glove.

Here is where the earth splits apart and demons join the living.

 

DeLuca is right.

 

Did you see the actual puck completely across the line? Did you see the ENTIRE catching glove completely over the line? If not, no goal.

 

This reminds me of a Sabres/Rangers game a long time ago when it looked like the Sabres scored against Richter despite his attempt to sweep it out with a stick, but a camera flash obscured the view so the evidence was inconclusive.

 

The longer the review went, the more obvious it was that the refs were desperately looking for anything to give the goal to the Pens.

[Stoner]

look man, if you couldn't see it then you probably just don't want to. i understand. i didn't want to either, as it cost my fantasy team points. but it was a goal.

I'm no homer. I believe the Music City Miracle was clearly a lateral, and I had no problem with Brett Hull's goal. I just strongly believe tonight's call was bogus. But maybe my mistake is using the NFL's replay standard. Maybe the NHL tells the guy up in the replay booth to make the call as if he is the ref and he is watching the play as it happens. Totally different standard. I don't think the visual evidence is nearly as clear as some of you are making it out. You can't make a call based on how you believe a glove reacts when the puck hits it! It will be interesting to see what Marty Microphone has to say.

[Saber61]

Here is where the earth splits apart and demons join the living.

 

DeLuca is right.

 

Did you see the actual puck completely across the line? Did you see the ENTIRE catching glove completely over the line? If not, no goal.

 

This reminds me of a Sabres/Rangers game a long time ago when it looked like the Sabres scored against Richter despite his attempt to sweep it out with a stick, but a camera flash obscured the view so the evidence was inconclusive.

 

The longer the review went, the more obvious it was that the refs were desperately looking for anything to give the goal to the Pens.

agreed with that last statement... i don't like to run conspiracies but i think the refs wanted to see the Pens come back and finally win one is some sort of dramatic fashion... but it was probably a goal as i didn't see it but based on descrptions here i would think they made the right call.

[PTS]

If that game is in Buffalo no way in hell they call that a goal. There was no conclusive evidence where you see the puck over the goal line.

[Taro T]

Here is where the earth splits apart and demons join the living.

 

DeLuca is right.

 

Did you see the actual puck completely across the line? Did you see the ENTIRE catching glove completely over the line? If not, no goal.

 

This reminds me of a Sabres/Rangers game a long time ago when it looked like the Sabres scored against Richter despite his attempt to sweep it out with a stick, but a camera flash obscured the view so the evidence was inconclusive.

 

The longer the review went, the more obvious it was that the refs were desperately looking for anything to give the goal to the Pens.

Watch it again, I didn't think it was a goal until I saw the replays after the game. From the angle the puck was shot and the way the glove moved, there is no way the puck did not go in the net.

 

I am shocked that people who thought the music city bj and / or the brett hull debacle were legit didn't think this one was (I am not saying you join that crowd, pwner), but I guess I should consider that par for the course.

[Guest Repster]

Did anyone see the TSN replay from close to ice level where you could see the puck with the white background over the goal line just before it enters Marty's glove.? I watched all the local Buffalo station highlights and they never had this replay on MSG, but they did on TSN. It was a goal. The Sabres won, and I'm happy but this was not No Goal part II. I get really pissed when Buffalo sports teams get screwed (remember when Darcy absolutely lost it after that Flyers "goal" went through the net in that Philly game a few years ago? I was beside myself - how the ---- could they miss that) but the TSN reply was definitive. Ottawa - 3 points away... Havlat and Redden are out indefinitely.

[JujuFish]

Ottawa - 3 points away...

Ottawa's 3 points away, but they have 3 games in hand.

 

And yeah, it was a goal. Check out the replay on ESPN's website.

[shrader]

Did people not see the overhead view? Marty's entire glove beyond his wrist was in the net. Yes, you can't see the puck, but that doesn't matter. If you see the puck go into the glove and then the glove goes completely into the net, that means the puck is in the net. Like I said earlier, with this flawed "you can't see the puck" logic some of you are using, 100% of Biron's body could be in the net but you would still say it's not a goal.

[blugold43]

I'm no homer. I believe the Music City Miracle was clearly a lateral, and I had no problem with Brett Hull's goal.

:o

[deluca67]

Watch it again, I didn't think it was a goal until I saw the replays after the game. From the angle the puck was shot and the way the glove moved, there is no way the puck did not go in the net.

 

I am shocked that people who thought the music city bj and / or the brett hull debacle were legit didn't think this one was (I am not saying you join that crowd, pwner), but I guess I should consider that par for the course.

There is no angle that shows the puck over the line. You can't tell where the puck is in the glove. You can't tell if the puck is touching the back of the glove or if it hit the palm and bounced across.

 

Anyway. Shouldn't they be 100% sure the entire puck crossed the line before they award game changing goals.

 

But it was 100% impressive that this team put it right behind them. Give credit to Mair with that huge hit that kept the Sabres focus and reminded the Pens who they are.

 

I am glad "The Save" happened. It has been a long time that I have gotten that angry over a call against the Sabres.

 

I am also glad the Chris Drury is looking more and more like the player from the AV's and not the player from last season.

 

I am trying to scrap up some cash for today's game. Hopefully I can make it and I hope to see some of you there. Even though I would have no idea who you are.

 

:rolleyes:

[Stoner]

I am shocked that people who thought the music city bj and / or the brett hull debacle were legit didn't think this one was (I am not saying you join that crowd, pwner), but I guess I should consider that par for the course.

I think I'm "people," so I'll respond. I am shocked that someone with the apparent incredible power of observation that you have could not see that in the Titans playoff game, the ball did not travel forward. That was as clear and incontrovertible as can be. Or are you one of these folks who doesn't understand the lateral rule in football? You look at the position of the ball, not the feet. As for Hull's goal, the NHL convinced me they applied the rule correctly. Maybe I'm a sucker. Even if they botched it (or worse, according to the conspiracy theorists), there's no way in Hell I want an asterisk next the Sabres' inscription on the Cup.

 

1999 Buffalo Sabres*

*Won b/c of crease rule technicality

 

I can wait a little while longer. :o