Breaking news

[Stoner]

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.

Thank you! I was starting to worry about my fellow fans.

[PTS]

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.

Same here but it's sold out so you'll have to deal with scalpers tonight. I have Bills season tickets and I walked out of the 2nd qtr of the last game. I tried to sell my tickets for tonight but no one fracking cares. There's no way I'm going to that debacle tonight.

[Taro T]

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

Are you serious?

 

The ball absolutely travelled forward.

 

As for the NHL's explanation of the Hull debacle, how in the world does Hull have "control" of the puck after he shoots it? Dallas technically had "possession" of the puck, but there is no way in the world that Hull had "control" before he entered the crease. He was in the crease, the puck was out, then he gained control. No f***ing goal. No conspiracy, Bettman and his crew f***ed up. Had Buffalo scored after the rule was correctly enforced and then won game 7, their win would have been a lot more legitimate than Dallas' being awarded the SC.

[Stoner]

I really can't understand how the same guy who says it was clearly a goal last night can say the ball traveled forward! One of the mysteries of life...

 

As for No Goal, let's just say thank God the crease rule is gone and leave it at that.

[Taro T]

I really can't understand how the same guy who says it was clearly a goal last night can say the ball traveled forward! One of the mysteries of life...

 

As for No Goal, let's just say thank God the crease rule is gone and leave it at that.

I NEVER said it was "clearly" a goal. I stated that if you look closely at the replays it was a goal.

 

Now, as for the football moving forward, that one, ABSOLUTELY the ball was going forward. (I realize that we will never convince the other how right we are, and the mere mention of that play is WAY too depressing to go on with this portion of the thread.)

[Stoner]

Well, if it wasn't clearly a goal, then replay should not have called it one.

 

Yes, depressing indeed. Isn't it striking how neither the Bills nor the Sabres have ever recovered from freakish losses in the playoffs, Music City Miracle in 2000 and Lemieux's heaven-sent goal/Dom's whiff in 2001. Neither team has made the playoffs since. But sports is cyclical. The Sabres are coming back, and the Bills have to be a step closer to coming back when TD/MM are sent packing.

[nfreeman]

As long as we're talking about it, here's my 2 cents on the 3 controversial plays:

 

1. Music City Miracle -- as it happens, I was at that game. That doesn't make me any more qualified than anyone else to evaluate the replays, but having spent the time, cash and emotional energy to go, I'll opine on the call. I thought it was just barely a legal, backward lateral and in any case the replays certainly weren't conclusive enough to overturn the call on the field.

 

2. No goal -- no effing goal. He was in the crease. All season, the refs disallowed goals when the forward was in the crease. I don't want to hear the lame, after-the-fact NHL explanations. It was the 3rd OT, the refs blew the call, and the NHL justified it after the fact. Now, there is no reason be sure we would've won game 7 in dallas, since our offense had decided to pack it in early for the year, but we still had Dominik and therefore had a fighting chance. We got hosed.

 

3. Last night -- it was a goal. the top view replay showed that the "trapper" part of the glove was well behind the line, and one of the other replays showed that the puck went into that part of the glove.

 

In any case, if we win today I might just watch it again on tivo instead of watching the %$#$#@!@ bills.

 

 

 

Go Sabres.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Someone asked what the standard of review was...

 

I think conclusive evidence is required to overturn the call on the ice.

 

Just because you can't see the puck cross the line doesn't mean you don't have conclusive evidence. Consider this analogy. You go to bed and there is no snow on the ground. You wake up and there is a foot of snow on the ground. Pretty conclusive evidence that it snowed, even though you didn't see it actually snowing. So if the puck goes in the glove, and the glove crosses the line, you may not actually see the puck cross the line, but you can draw an inference that it did.

 

With that being said, does anyone have a link for the video...I was in the car listening on XM. We had the Pittsburgh broadcasters who thought it was a goal (big shock there). I'd like to see for myself.