The tying goal

[trapezeus]

I know i was flabberghasted at the tying goal. "how could they let that go on for as long as they did without a whistle? Man those refs love buffalo!"

but then i thought about it. There are 12 players on the ice. There were 8 of them in the crease with the clock ticking. If the sabres didn't score there, wouldn't we have been upset the other way? "Why didn't they blow the whistle and let us change the line?"

Granted part of the answer is "because we are fickle fans."

but honestly, i think that was BS in toronto's favor. There is no way constant jamming at the puck with that many bodies in the crease should result in a goal. That was an against the odds outcome. I'm glad it worked out, but it seemed like it was designed to just let time run off the clock until they absolutely had it.

[SabreEleven]

What does CBO mean?

[trapezeus]

canadian biased officiating. sorry. i just assumed we all knew what that meant since it comes up every year during the playoffs.

[Mski]

What does CBO mean?+1

[Mski]

how about option C: the Ref was actually in the right position and could see the puck the whole time and wasnt biased at all

[Mski]

although how there wasnt a penalty called on Komaserik >is that how you spell his name?< for his raping of Foligno was definately CBO

[jamze132]

If you watch the highlights on ESPN, they highlighted the puck and Leopold's stick. It showed the ref actively watching the action and the puck.

[trapezeus]

the ref actually looked like he was in the right position. he was leaning over and i suppose he could see it. i never saw it. and i can't believe you said ESPN spent more than the time it took for the puck to get into the net on hockey highlights.

for a league interested in protecting blows to the head, komiscerik (sp?) put in about 4-5 solid slams of folingo's head to the ice. i'm guessing shanny isn't going to give us a video and a suspension.

[Mski]

for a league interested in protecting blows to the head, komiscerik (sp?) put in about 4-5 solid slams of folingo's head to the ice. i'm guessing shanny isn't going to give us a video and a suspension.not to mention it was clear before the puck was even dropped kosmasarik (sp?) wanted nothing to do with the play, and just to take Foligno out... and it was his whiff on a hit right off the face off that started the whole thing

[SkateZilla]

the Ref was one of those bodies right in front of the goal, the puck was never frozen, and there was gonna be a delayed penalty on Scrivens anyway for Holding Leopold's stick. and if it would have been whistled, it would have also been a penalty on the Toronto player for covering it.


The fact that 2 goals went up to Toronto for review and favored Buffalo instead of toronto was funny.

[rbochan]

"I think the ref was watching how many times I got punched in the face and was in awe."

--Marcus Foligno

[chernobylwraiths]

If a Toronto player other than the goalie covers the puck in the crease, it is a penalty shot I believe.

[Mski]

If a Toronto player other than the goalie covers the puck in the crease, it is a penalty shot I believe.i think its situational.. if its clear the player prevented the goal, i think they just award the goal, if its not clear then its a penalty shot

[OpIv37]

It was just a freak occurrence that worked out in our favor.

Usually, when that many players get involved in front of the goal, the ref loses sight of the puck. This time, we just got lucky that he was able to see it and that Toronto wasn't able to clear or cover.

[Dr. Lecter]

i think its situational.. if its clear the player prevented the goal, i think they just award the goal, if its not clear then its a penalty shot


It is not situational. It is a penalty shot.


(iv) Falling on the puck in the goal crease


http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26552

[SkateZilla]

i think its situational.. if its clear the player prevented the goal, i think they just award the goal, if its not clear then its a penalty shot

the puck was about 2 feet out from the crease.,

[SkateZilla]

It is not situational. It is a penalty shot.




http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26552

if the net is empty its a automatic goal.

(ie you pull goalie late in the game, then turn it over, other team tries to score on the empty net and you cover it in the crease w/ no goalie on the ice, its a automatic goal.)

[rbochan]

The ref was actually giving the Leafs a break. The puck was sitting under a defenseman in the crease. The D-man was crouched over it, but did not lay down on it, so the puck was available. Had he flopped on it, it would have been a penalty shot. Had the ref blown the whistle with the puck under a D-man, it would have been (arguably) a penalty shot. The ref could see the puck, so he refused to blow the whistle because he didn't want to get involved in a penalty shot controversy.

[Mski]

The ref was actually giving the Leafs a break. The puck was sitting under a defenseman in the crease. The D-man was crouched over it, but did not lay down on it, so the puck was available. Had he flopped on it, it would have been a penalty shot. Had the ref blown the whistle with the puck under a D-man, it would have been (arguably) a penalty shot. The ref could see the puck, so he refused to blow the whistle because he didn't want to get involved in a penalty shot controversy.so there was no need to blow the whistle.. im sure the last thing he was thinking was "please dont let me get into a controversy over this"

[Dr. Lecter]

canadian biased officiating. sorry. i just assumed we all knew what that meant since it comes up every year during the playoffs.
I was trying to figure out what the Congressional Budget Office had to do with this.

[SkateZilla]

Correct Beer Order.

[trapezeus]

I was trying to figure out what the Congressional Budget Office had to do with this.

dude, that's how high the conspiracy goes!!! ;-)

[Cali512]

The goalie frantically was moving side to side looking for it. So the ref new he didnt have it. So the puck was loose. The goalies reaction is all you need to know to tell if the puck should be covered. The goalie never saw it

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

No call on Kamisarik, but how about the goalie grabbing Leopold's stick and not letting go, obviously the ref is looking at the loose puck to not call the penalties on that play.

[trapezeus]

yeah, but if he doesn't grab the stick, maybe leopold whiffs on the goal. leopold even said in the post game that the holding of the stick was the reason he scored.

[chernobylwraiths]

The ref did lose sight of it, though he knew approximately where it was. It was already in the net and the light was on and the horn going before he saw it.

[SabreEleven]

The ref did lose sight of it, though he knew approximately where it was. It was already in the net and the light was on and the horn going before he saw it.

I think he lost sight of the puck also but I think he also knew that Scrivens didn't have the puck so he let the play continue.

[chernobylwraiths]

I think he lost sight of the puck also but I think he also knew that Scrivens didn't have the puck so he let the play continue.

They never seem to blow the whistle when the puck is pinned against the boards anymore. This doesn't seem much different.

[SkateZilla]

if it was in the blue paint it would have been a different outcome, whistle would have been blown alot quicker.