1036 replies to this topic

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

spndnchz, on 04 April 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

After Foligno's hit last, Gunnarsson had a separated shoulder Done for the year.

He WAS trying to hit his head, he was just trying to go THROUGH his body to get there.

[ChileanSeaBass]

shrader, on 04 April 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

As for that video, I really don't even care too much about the crease battle.  The best part is the whole interaction on the faceoff.  Komisarek and the other Leaf player (too lazy to figure out who it was) were constantly trying to make Foligno flinch and he never moved.  Komisarek looked like an 8 year old bully trying to scare a kid with fake punches.

Big bad Clarke McArthur

[ThirtyEight]

If we didn't score, it should have been a 5 on 3. 2 for interference/roughing on Foligno and 2 for holding Leopold's stick

[scottnc]

JujuFish, on 04 April 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

A shootout counts as a win for the purpose of adding 2 points to the victor.  It makes some sense that they would exclude it from the tiebreaker since that's not how playoff games are decided.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing head-to-head as the first tiebreaker. Of course, I say that knowing we own that one over Washington.

I still say the 3 point regulation win is the answer.

[MattPie]

bunomatic, on 03 April 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

never..give...up...hope

Loved seeing these reading the day after.

Went with Yard's Brawler Pugilist Style Ale last night after watching the first few minutes.
http://beeradvocate....ofile/450/46504

[nfreeman]

shrader, on 04 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Ahhh yes, that video reminds me of how awful that interference call was.  Bozak played the puck!

Indeed.  That should not have been a penalty.

Foligno really was a beast last night.

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

The two assists by Vanek last night sends him past Mogilny and into 11th on the Sabres all time scorers list

[dEnnis the Menace]

LaFontaineToMogilny, on 04 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

The two assists by Vanek last night sends him past Mogilny and into 11th on the Sabres all time scorers list

That's a cool fun fact!

I had to look up the list to see who the top ten were!

He's 7th in Goal scoring, with 230 Goals (8th place is Miro with 224 and 6th is Mike Foligno with 247), and he's only 11 points away from passing Miro for 10th on the scoring list.

[Robviously]

LaFontaineToMogilny, on 04 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

The two assists by Vanek last night sends him past Mogilny and into 11th on the Sabres all time scorers list

dEnnis the Menace, on 04 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

That's a cool fun fact!

I had to look up the list to see who the top ten were!

He's 7th in Goal scoring, with 230 Goals (8th place is Miro with 224 and 6th is Mike Foligno with 247), and he's only 11 points away from passing Miro for 10th on the scoring list.

By this point next year, he should be the Sabres' 5th all-time goal scorer (assuming he's still here and healthy).  Pretty impressive.

I can't stop watching the replay of the game-tying goal from last night.  The amount of abuse Foligno takes is a little tough to watch.  He bangs his head on the ice pretty hard about 40 seconds in.  I hope he's OK.


Of course, the best part of the video is Foligno celebrating *at* Komisarek 55 seconds in.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Robviously, on 04 April 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

By this point next year, he should be the Sabres' 5th all-time goal scorer (assuming he's still here and healthy).  Pretty impressive.

I can't stop watching the replay of the game-tying goal from last night.  The amount of abuse Foligno takes is a little tough to watch.  He bangs his head on the ice pretty hard about 40 seconds in.  I hope he's OK.

Of course, the best part of the video is Foligno celebrating *at* Komisarek 55 seconds in.

I'm sure the ice will be fine, they'll have till next weekend to get it ready for game 3.

[shrader]

I love the "give Komisarek a little cross check... oh wait, we scored!" move from Ennis.

[dEnnis the Menace]

LastPommerFan, on 04 April 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I'm sure the ice will be fine, they'll have till next weekend to get it ready for game 3.

well played sir

[waldo]

shrader, on 04 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I hate cats.

cats hate you..try and stay out of the tiger cage when at the zoo

[wjag]

waldo, on 04 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

cats hate you..try and stay out of the tiger cage when at the zoo

LOL...  Got a genuine chuckle out of that one..

[bunomatic]

Has Brian Burke held his presser about the sad state of officiating yet in regards to the Sabres tying goal ?

[Taro T]

bunomatic, on 04 April 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Has Brian Burke held his presser about the sad state of officiating yet in regards to the Sabres tying goal ?

He's afraid if he does it might bring attention to the fact that Komisarek was using Foligno's head as a medicine ball for 1 armed squat thrusts for about 10 seconds, so he's still debating whether to hold it.

[TheChimp]

Taro T, on 04 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

He's afraid if he does it might bring attention to the fact that Komisarek was using Foligno's head as a medicine ball for 1 armed squat thrusts for about 10 seconds, so he's still debating whether to hold it.

And besides, the replay is quite clear.  The goalie was searching for the puck under his teammate right in front of him.  Neck all craned and trying to look over the dude's back and then under him, making it blatantly obvious that he didn't have the puck covered.  For once, the referee's angle was the best in the house, too.  Keep your eyes on his eyes.  He's watching the puck the whole time.

[Assquatch]

Anyone read any comments from Komisarek after the game? Or know which Toronto radio station might have audio of an interview he might have given? I'd love to hear/read what he had to say.

[ofiba]

TheChimp, on 04 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

And besides, the replay is quite clear.  The goalie was searching for the puck under his teammate right in front of him.  Neck all craned and trying to look over the dude's back and then under him, making it blatantly obvious that he didn't have the puck covered.  For once, the referee's angle was the best in the house, too.  Keep your eyes on his eyes.  He's watching the puck the whole time.

The goalie searching is a great point.  It's obvious from that the he didn't have the punk, but there's no way you'll convince me the ref saw the puck the whole time.  Watch him when the goal is actually scored.  He's about the 5th person to realize it's in the net.  I would think a guy watching the puck would be the first to know when it's in the net.

[weave]

TheChimp, on 04 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

And besides, the replay is quite clear.  The goalie was searching for the puck under his teammate right in front of him.  Neck all craned and trying to look over the dude's back and then under him, making it blatantly obvious that he didn't have the puck covered.  For once, the referee's angle was the best in the house, too.  Keep your eyes on his eyes.  He's watching the puck the whole time.

ofiba, on 04 April 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

The goalie searching is a great point.  It's obvious from that the he didn't have the punk, but there's no way you'll convince me the ref saw the puck the whole time.  Watch him when the goal is actually scored.  He's about the 5th person to realize it's in the net.  I would think a guy watching the puck would be the first to know when it's in the net.

I thought I heard Miller mention in his post-game interview that if that play were in his crease he would've faked that he had the puck covered.  Or something like that.  The way he said it suggested to me that it may be a common ploy for goalies to fake they've covered the puck when they can't find it in a crease scrum.  Had the Toronto goalie faked that he had it covered, if there was any question in the ref's mind there likely would have been a whistle.

[The_Swannie_House]

Obviously, Toronto is short on COWBELL!

[eball]

LGR4GM, on 04 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

hehehe

My favorite part of Komisarek grinding Foligno's head into the ice was what Foligno did after the goal... pushed Komi off stood up and raised his hands to the sky!

But was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[FolignosJock]

Anyone hear on WGR this morning why they were talking about how one of the goals shouldnt have counted?

[North Buffalo]

Hey Eleven, I had to do some reading for work and walked away.  Loved the result.  Thanks for the suggestion.

[TheMadCap]

FolignosJock, on 05 April 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Anyone hear on WGR this morning why they were talking about how one of the goals shouldnt have counted?

There is an article on TSN.ca about it. You cannot push the goalie into the net after a save, which is exactly what happened with the 4th goal by Sulzer. Apparently, the ref did not see Sulzer push the Scriven's pad into the net, he only saw the puck come out of the net. The replay can only determine if the puck crossed the line, they cannot inform the guys on the ice if it was a "good goal", that is decided on ice at the time of the apparent goal. It appears they messed up...

[apuszczalowski]

TheChimp, on 04 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

And besides, the replay is quite clear.  The goalie was searching for the puck under his teammate right in front of him.  Neck all craned and trying to look over the dude's back and then under him, making it blatantly obvious that he didn't have the puck covered.  For once, the referee's angle was the best in the house, too.  Keep your eyes on his eyes.  He's watching the puck the whole time.

You can even see the ref a couple of times bring the whistle up and put it in his mouth, then take it out, then put it back in. You can tell he was ready to blow it once he lost site for more then a split second.

Its almost as funny as hearing them whine about the 4th goal too, because the Sabres pushed the goalie into the net to score that one. Apparently the play should also be called dead once the puck touches the goalies pads cause that one was never covered and just sitting in front of the goalie. They were playing the puck and that caused the goalie to have his leg pushed into the net

[shrader]

Assquatch, on 04 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Anyone read any comments from Komisarek after the game? Or know which Toronto radio station might have audio of an interview he might have given? I'd love to hear/read what he had to say.

I picture something a lot like Milton from Office Space, entirely directed at Foligno.

[Spndnchz]

TheMadCap, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

There is an article on TSN.ca about it. You cannot push the goalie into the net after a save, which is exactly what happened with the 4th goal by Sulzer. Apparently, the ref did not see Sulzer push the Scriven's pad into the net, he only saw the puck come out of the net. The replay can only determine if the puck crossed the line, they cannot inform the guys on the ice if it was a "good goal", that is decided on ice at the time of the apparent goal. It appears they messed up...

I think that's a fine line there.  IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted.  But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in.  Kinda like this:  you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

[Wraith]

TheMadCap, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

There is an article on TSN.ca about it. You cannot push the goalie into the net after a save, which is exactly what happened with the 4th goal by Sulzer. Apparently, the ref did not see Sulzer push the Scriven's pad into the net, he only saw the puck come out of the net. The replay can only determine if the puck crossed the line, they cannot inform the guys on the ice if it was a "good goal", that is decided on ice at the time of the apparent goal. It appears they messed up...

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/bl...aser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in.  I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

spndnchz, on 05 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

I think that's a fine line there.  IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted.  But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in.  Kinda like this:  you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

Or did he hit the puck so hard that the puck drove the goalie into the net?

[dEnnis the Menace]

Wraith, on 05 April 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/bl...aser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in.  I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

As far as I'm concerned: you win some calls, you lose some calls.  That time we were on the good end of a call.  I'll take it.

[FolignosJock]

LastPommerFan, on 05 April 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Or did he hit the puck so hard that the puck drove the goalie into the net?

EXACTLY

[shrader]

I was shocked yesterday and I still am today that it was the Sulzer goal they decided to talk about.  I was sitting back and waiting to see what he'd say about the tying goal, then I was very disappointed when the entire article was about that one.

[Taro T]

Wraith, on 05 April 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Here is the article in question: http://www.tsn.ca/bl...aser/?id=392227 by Kerry Fraser. While I recognize that Fraser is more of an authority on this subject than I am, I question his interpretation and his motives.

Rule 78.5 - When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." I think we all know the type of play this rule was aimed at, where the goalkeeper makes a save, possesses the puck, and then is shoved into the net with said puck. I think we'd all agree that wasn't the case here.

In this case, a clearly loose puck gets shot into the net and the acting of shooting the puck also pushes part of goalie across the line. Sulzer does not contact Scrivens at all, just the puck. So if we're going to get technical, the shot pushed the goaltenders pad in.  I think we can all agree that this type of goal happens all the time nobody blinks an eye.

As I said before, I question Fraser's motives in this case. He gives very little attention to the actual play and then speaks at length about expanding the list of potentially reviewable plays using replay technology. I agree with his overall point, but I don't see how it changes anything with goal. His colleagues allow this type of goal all the time, so he either has a different interpretation than most or he cherry picked this play to make a point.

Technically Fraser is correct on this one.

When Sulzer takes his last shot that actually puts the puck in the net, Scrivins pad stops the puck and then the stick following through on the shot pushes Scrivins pad and the puck into the net.

While that is technically the correct call, I've seen this same play get called a goal on more than a few occassions.  If Scrivins wants to get the call he has to be higher from the goal line so that it is clear that the follow through is what pushed him into the net and not simply the recoil of his leg from either his own motion or the impact from the puck.  He alternatively could have covered the puck and then had his leg and glove pushed into the net and he'd have almost definitely gotten the call.

If the Loafs fans want to hang their hats on 'technically correct' interpretations of the rules, Komisarek would have been put in the box at least 3 more times for holding a prone player against the ice (interference) and/or punching a prone player while on the ice (roughing).

Yeah, the Sabres caught a break there, and I'm sure we would have been ticked had the exact same play occurred at Miller's end, but it was a very small break and a call that typically goes the way the ref did call it.


And as an aside, I've seen 78.5 called at least as often in the case of a player shooting, losing an edge, and then plowing through the loose puck and goalie immediately following the save as in the case of a player pushing the puck under the goalie into the net along with the goalie.

[shrader]

Taro T, on 05 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

If the Loafs fans want to hang their hats on 'technically correct' interpretations of the rules, Komisarek would have been put in the box at least 3 more times for holding a prone player against the ice (interference) and/or punching a prone player while on the ice (roughing).

That and the centers should have been tossed from that faceoff on a couple different occasions there.

[nobody]

spndnchz, on 05 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

I think that's a fine line there.  IMO If he had the puck under his pad and covered then Sulzer pushing him in would not have counted.  But the puck is sitting there uncovered, the goalie's pad is just in the way of the puck going in.  Kinda like this:  you can push the puck in but not the goalie who is in possession of the puck.

Agree 100%.  It is a fine line but I believe the play was correctly determined to be different from the rule.

[qwksndmonster]

rbochan, on 04 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I love you.