GDT: #18 – Stars at Sabres – Tue Nov 17, 7:00PM ET – MSG-B, Bell TV

[DazedandConfused]

Any video of the play up yet? Or game video summary itself.

Didn't get to catch this one.

 

[Clock]

This is my biggest issue. Could you imagine a scenario like tonight happening in the playoffs? I get its the right call, but I'd be so ******* irate.

My biggest problem with it is the disruption of the momentum because a ref screwed up a call. If that's AOK, why not open up the challenge to any rulebook offense committed between gaining the zone and rewarding a goal?

 

[Havok89]

Any video of the play up yet? Or game video summary itself.

Didn't get to catch this one.

I'm jealous

 

[Punished ROR]

Biggest thing I noticed after that goal was called back, Eichel carried the puck in and the linesman appeared to have missed an offsides zone entry again.

What do you do as a player in that situation? Maybe it's just projection on my part since I thought I saw the play being offsides, but it sure looked like the Sabres were hesitating after that entry. After all, why work to set up the cycle and break the D down when, even if you score, it's only gonna get called back again?

Terrible rule. Can't go away fast enough. (Am I wrong in thinking it will for sure be gone next year?)

 

[dotcommunism]

The fact that it wasn't blown dead when the offsides happened is what makes it material to the goal being scored.

So you're saying that it's not the offsides itself that affects anything, it's the fact that the linesman misses the call. In other words, going offside is not relevant to the goal being scored.

 

[billsandsabres]

i don't have a problem with the review process but i am clearly in the minority. they of course should have put the time back on the clock however.

 

[zbubble]

The fact that multiple illegal things can and do happen leading up to many or most goals makes this rule beyond idiotic.

Be my guest, list what illegal things happened on any of the goals scored against us this year. Ill remind you none of them were offsides or was the goalie interfered with.

 

[zbubble]

So you're saying that it's not the offsides itself that affects anything, it's the fact that the linesman misses the call. In other words, going offside is not relevant to the goal being scored.

What?!? Imagine if you can, when Ennis goes offsides, the whistle blows, and a faceoff is held outside the blue line.

You've replaced what should have happened with a huge competitive advantage that shouldn't have been allowed, and you're saying that doesn't matter to the play resulting in a goal?

 

[dotcommunism]

What?!? Imagine if you can, when Ennis goes offsides, the whistle blows, and a faceoff is held outside the blue line.

You've replaced what should have happened with a huge competitive advantage that shouldn't have been allowed, and you're saying that doesn't matter to the play resulting in a goal?

You are missing the point, I think. I understand what happens if the offside had been called. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the act of going offside in itself affected whether or not a goal was scored. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it has. What you have shown is that whether or not an offside gets called can affect whether or not a goal is scored. That is rather obvious.

So, again, can you demonstrate that the extra half step, not on an odd man rush, actually does anything to affect that act of scoring a goal? The effect that the official missing or making the call has is not a point of contention. Any time an official blows a whistle, right or wrong, it impacts what happens on the ice. Your logic implies that all such whistles, or lack thereof perhaps, should be reviewable. After all, it's about getting the calls right.

 

[TalkingProuder]

This is the most annoying new rule ever. As a fan I can no longer cheer after goals. I started jumping up and down then....


Screw this.

 

[zbubble]

You are missing the point, I think. I understand what happens if the offside had been called. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the act of going offside in itself affected whether or not a goal was scored. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it has. What you have shown is that whether or not an offside gets called can affect whether or not a goal is scored. That is rather obvious.

I get what you're saying, but it's impossible to say either way what the effect was. YOU might say Ennis had passed the puck and wasn't relevant to the goal, but the Dallas penalty killer might say they're positionally accounting for a player that shouldn't have been where he was had the play been called correctly.

So, again, can you demonstrate that the extra half step, not on an odd man rush, actually does anything to affect that act of scoring a goal? The effect that the official missing or making the call has is not a point of contention. Any time an official blows a whistle, right or wrong, it impacts what happens on the ice. Your logic implies that all such whistles, or lack thereof perhaps, should be reviewable. After all, it's about getting the calls right.

Can you demonstrate it doesn't matter? Without getting in the head of each defending player? Would you be content with losing the Cup in a game 7 OT situation on a blown offsides goal?

 

[Moskau]

It was offsides by a good foot. Get over it. This is now the second time Tyler Ennis has gone offsides on a play HE STARTED.

 

[joshjull]

Be my guest, list what illegal things happened on any of the goals scored against us this year. Ill remind you none of them were offsides or was the goalie interfered with.

Interference in the form of a pick play, hooking to gain the puck, slashing to cause a turnover. These things go on all the time during puck battles but are rarely called any more. They can and do lead to scoring chances. So if they are illegal and its about getting it right, why can't they be reviewed? Why is missing an offsides call 20 seconds before a goal is scored so important? But letting a pick go that freed up a goal scorer not?

The only reason offsides was added to the rule was to placate some influential GMs. They were pissed that goals were scored against them on an offside play in the playoffs causing them to lose games. But in almost every case it was a bang bang play where the goal was scored within a second of crossing the blueline. Not after a 20-30 second cycling of the puck.


The goalie interference call always made sense. Because interfering with a goalie directly impacts his ability to prevent a goal.


Its not about getting it right. If it was the league would review every single goal to make sure the offensive team gained the zone onsides before scoring. The funny thing is if Ennis was onside and the Stars lost the challenge they can't challenge again. So if we scored a go ahead goal later in the game and we're offside or interfered with the goalie. There isn't a thing the Stars could do about it.

 

[Jame]

Get rid of the blue line

 

[MattyB101]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but my ire is directed at the linesman for missing the offside in the first place. That's his main job. That's 3 goals called back now, and we're not even at 20 games yet. Do the Sabres need to do a better job of staying onside? Of course they do. But now that offside/onside has apparently been turned into a critical rule with reviews and goals being called back and "do-overs" and all that, the linesmen really do have to do a better job. I get that it's not always easy, they're human, and mistakes will be made. But this seems to be happening too often.

 

[joshjull]

I get what you're saying, but it's impossible to say either way what the effect was. YOU might say Ennis had passed the puck and wasn't relevant to the goal, but the Dallas penalty killer might say they're positionally accounting for a player that shouldn't have been where he was had the play been called correctly.



Can you demonstrate it doesn't matter? Without getting in the head of each defending player? Would you be content with losing the Cup in a game 7 OT situation on a blown offsides goal?

I'd be pissed if we lost for any number of reasons. The far more likely scenario is because one of our players got hauled down leading to the scoring chance. And you know damn well it happens all the time in the playoffs during OT. Its like a wrestling match. How often do you see that as opposed to an offside call getting missed? even worse is the wrestling match goes on for most of the OT and then a random call is made leading to the winning goal on a PP.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I like Larsson, but he may have the least offensive awareness of any player consistently in our top 9.

 

[zbubble]

Interference in the form of a pick play, hooking to gain the puck, slashing to cause a turnover. These things go on all the time during puck battles but are rarely called any more. They can and do lead to scoring chances. So if they are illegal and its about getting it right, why can't they be reviewed? Why is missing an offsides call 20 seconds before a goal is scored so important? But letting a pick go that freed up a goal scorer not?

Well for starters, you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking penalties, which by and large are judgement calls made by a refs discretion. Offsides isn't a penalty, it's a rule with no discretion. A play is either onside or offside.

the only reason offsides was added to the rule was to placate some influential GMs. They were pissed that goals were scored against them on an offside play in the playoffs causing them to lose games. But in almost every case it was a bang bang play where the goal was scored within a second of crossing the blueline. Not after a 20-30 second cycling of the puck.

It doesn't matter how long after it happens (and today wasnt 20-30 seconds, it was closer to 7-10). If the Sabres lost another playoff game like that, that actually mattered, get ready for No Goal Part II - the reckoning.

Its not about getting it right. If it was the league would review every single goal to make sure the offensive team gained the zone onsides before scoring.

You're absolutely right. It's about giving each team one opportunity to right a wrong and not tack on 30 minutes to each game by scrutinizing every single goal. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

The funny thing is if Ennis was onside and the Stars lost the challenge they can't challenge again. So if we scored a go ahead goal later in the game and we're offside or interfered with the goalie. There isn't a thing the Stars could do about it.

The Stars actually have the technology of replay too. They didn't call the challenge on a prayer. If Ennis isn't so obviously offside, they probably wouldn't have challenged.

 

[zbubble]

Get rid of the blue line

This.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I'm confused why the NHL decided we can't have an inconsistency with goals being scored when a player is offside, but there's no attempt to fix the inconsistencies of reffing. In fact refs who call games inconsistently are often rewarded by the NHL by being given playoff games. There's inconsistency all over this sport, yet this seams to be only place the NHL has decided to crack down on. You can't tell me that Ennis being a skate length offside is providing any more of an unfair advantage then a player getting held as he tries to take up his position in the offensive zone. Yet we have replays for offside and it's considered good reffing when a minor penalty not directly in the play is let go. You want to make sure no one is offside during a goal, fine, then ROR getting dumped from behind while attempting an offensive puck retrieval should be given as much scrutiny.

 

[zbubble]

I'd be pissed if we lost for any number of reasons. The far more likely scenario is because one of our players got hauled down leading to the scoring chance. And you know damn well it happens all the time in the playoffs during OT. Its like a wrestling match. How often do you see that as opposed to an offside call getting missed? even worse is the wrestling match goes on for most of the OT and then a random call is made leading to the winning goal on a PP.

I would agree that penalties not being called are also a huge problem. But two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[sabrebuild]

Interference in the form of a pick play, hooking to gain the puck, slashing to cause a turnover. These things go on all the time during puck battles but are rarely called any more. They can and do lead to scoring chances. So if they are illegal and its about getting it right, why can't they be reviewed? Why is missing an offsides call 20 seconds before a goal is scored so important? But letting a pick go that freed up a goal scorer not?

The only reason offsides was added to the rule was to placate some influential GMs. They were pissed that goals were scored against them on an offside play in the playoffs causing them to lose games. But in almost every case it was a bang bang play where the goal was scored within a second of crossing the blueline. Not after a 20-30 second cycling of the puck.


The goalie interference call always made sense. Because interfering with a goalie directly impacts his ability to prevent a goal.


Its not about getting it right. If it was the league would review every single goal to make sure the offensive team gained the zone onsides before scoring. The funny thing is if Ennis was onside and the Stars lost the challenge they can't challenge again. So if we scored a go ahead goal later in the game and we're offside or interfered with the goalie. There isn't a thing the Stars could do about it.

Yup to all this.

 

[sabrebuild]

I would agree that penalties not being called are also a huge problem. But two wrongs do not make a right.

True, but shouldn't we prioritize which wrongs are the bigger problems.

You're doing an excellent job of explaining the logic behind the rule and why it's reasonable.

However, it's like problem 99 on the list facing the nhl. Similar to the puck over the glass penalty, it's an arbitrary penalty given that creates a much bigger effect than the actual infraction.

And I know, no goal if they call the offside. Fine. Then review it every time, not just on goals. Otherwise its picking and choosing which plays are important with only an emphasis on the result and not the process.

How about a play were a team goes in offsides, no call, gets a ton of pressure with changes. Eventually the other team gets the puck barely out. Previously offside team gets the puck right back in on an exhausted team with all the momentum and scores. That's a good goal under this review policy.

To me that's not getting it right. Getting it right is having a good process, not cherry picking one type of play to "get right" sometimes.

 

[joshjull]

Well for starters, you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking penalties, which by and large are judgement calls made by a refs discretion. Offsides isn't a penalty, it's a rule with no discretion. A play is either onside or offside.

Goalie interference is subjective/judgement call and its reviewable. The apples look a lot like the oranges

It doesn't matter how long after it happens (and today wasnt 20-30 seconds, it was closer to 7-10). If the Sabres lost another playoff game like that, that actually mattered, get ready for No Goal Part II - the reckoning.

I'm well aware of the absurdity of the rule.

You're absolutely right. It's about giving each team one opportunity to right a wrong and not tack on 30 minutes to each game by scrutinizing every single goal. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

No, its about placating a few powerful GMs and putting a ******** of pressure on coaches on when and if they should use it.

The Stars actually have the technology of replay too. They didn't call the challenge on a prayer. If Ennis isn't so obviously offside, they probably wouldn't have challenged.

They made the call to review based on Goligoski yelling to the bench when he left the box that Ennis was offsides. It had nothing to do with technology. In other games coaches decided to use it because they said, what the hell. They had no idea if they were right but it would slow the game down. That happen on one of our previously challenged goals. I think the Kane one. Bylsma consulted with three assistants before making his one challenge and lost the challenge. There is no way on a goalie interference, unless its blatant, that an assistant can break a video down fast enough to know definitely before challenging. There isn't nearly the precision you seem to think there is with this process.

 

[Orvald]

Didn't we lose an offsides call because the puck was behind and while the skate was positionally over the line, it wasn't on the ice? Today the puck was over the line and the skate was again over, but not on the ice. WTF?

This was the reaction from another sarbres board. Now don't know if that is true but if it is then the refs made a bad call on the review because Ennis didn't have his skates down. maybe DD should have challenged the challenge :p