Sabres

[Taro T]

I have a better stat... 4-1 in five games. 

 

The PP will come around.

475978[/snapback]

No doubt.

[Spun]

I have a better stat... 4-1 in five games. 

 

475978[/snapback]

 

That sounds so nice...

[Alaska Darin]

From what I understand, Regier recently traded a fairly highly rated forward for an AHL level goaltender. Could be a precursor to a larger trade of one of the Sabres goalies. I'd guess Biron if anybody.

Cya

475647[/snapback]

I'm quite sure teams like Atlanta are already inquiring...

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

I was thinking that too.  The first penalty in OT made it a 4 on 3 advantage.  The second penalty, the Sabres brought a 5th out to make it a 5 on 3.  Then there was a third penalty, which was a moot point.  You can't have less than 3 skaters on the ice.

 

I don't imagine it will be a problem, but if the NHL notices a trend of teams taking penalties on OT when they know the penalty will not be served (i.e. tackling a guy in front of the net when you are already at a 5-on-3 disadvantage) they could start doing something about it.  For example, in last night's game, when the 3rd penalty in OT occured, perhaps then the Sabres get to choose one of Tampa's shooters if it goes to a shootout.  Or, even more drastic, perhaps Tampa only gets 2 shooters vs. Buffalo's 3.

 

Like I said, I can't imagine this becomes an issue, but those are some ideas if the NHL notices the rules being taken advantage of when no more penalties can be assessed.

475595[/snapback]

 

 

 

The simple answer is to give the receiving team a penalty shot.

475595[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, the referee DOES have the option in awarding a penalty shot, but this option is rarely applied.

 

For example, in the last minute of overtime the Lightning could have send 12 players over the boards and on to ice. They would have been called for "too many men" and one of them would have to go to the penalty box. Then, when play started up again, the Lightning would then again send players over the boards and onto the ice. If they continued to do this, the Sabres could never score. The referee, however, could put a stop to it by calling for a penalty shot.

 

I don't know the exact rule, but it is something along the line of "making a mockery of the game", and I have only heard of it ever being called once.

[BRH]

Actually, the referee DOES have the option in awarding a penalty shot, but this option is rarely applied.

 

For example, in the last minute of overtime the Lightning could have send 12 players over the boards and on to ice. They would have been called for "too many men" and one of them would have to go to the penalty box. Then, when play started up again, the Lightning would then again send players over the boards and onto the ice. If they continued to do this, the Sabres could never score. The referee, however, could put a stop to it by calling for a penalty shot.

 

I don't know the exact rule, but it is something along the line of "making a mockery of the game", and I have only heard of it ever being called once.

476052[/snapback]

I think you're talking about this rule (17(b)).

 

If by reason of insufficient playing time remaining, or by reason of penalties already imposed, a bench minor penalty is imposed for deliberate illegal substitution (too many men on the ice) which cannot be served in its entirety within the legal playing time, or at any time in overtime, a penalty shot shall be awarded against the offending Team.

Also rule 51(d):

 

If by reason of insufficient time in the regular playing time or by reason of penalties already imposed, the minor penalty assessed to a player for deliberately displacing his own goal post cannot be served in its entirety within the regular playing time of the game or at any time in overtime, a penalty shot shall be awarded against the offending Team.

[emphases added]

 

So it seems like penalty shots can only be imposed (and, moreover, must be imposed) in 5-on-3 situations when the penalty is for too many men or for dislodging the goal post. Not for any other penalties, like hooking etc.

 

There doesn't seem to be any mention of awarding penalty shots for "making a mockery of the game." Perhaps that's in one of those Double Secret Memos, you know, from the same file whence came the league's justification of Brett Hull's "goal."

[Dan Gross]

I think you're talking about this rule (17(b)).

Also rule 51(d):

[emphases added]

 

There doesn't seem to be any mention of awarding penalty shots for "making a mockery of the game." 

476071[/snapback]

 

It's in the appendix. Like the rule in the NFL against "giving him the business." I wonder if it has an official hand signal, like the NFL rule.

[shrader]

For my money it's the Michal Grosek to the Blackhawks for Doug Gilmour and JP Dumont deal that still makes me laugh.  Friggin GROSEK and we get Killer and Dumont?  Granted, I'm still mad at Killer for not catching up to Kasparaitis, but Dumont has more than tilted that deal in our favor many times over.

475975[/snapback]

 

We also got part of Gilmour's salary in that deal. Chicago also got a draft pick, but I have no clue who that turned out to be.

[Turf Toejam]

The new style of play has definitely helped the Sabres. Amazing amout of speed and the great goal play of Miller. I would also add that the defense has also been refreshing. I know it's not the Mike Ramsay days, but at least they don't seem to be making some of the simple mistakes that I've seen in the past. McKee has been terrific. I've caught them in Albany not only on MSG (on Ranger off-nights), Fox-NY (last night) and OLN (sucky announcers nonetheless).

 

Makes me consider Center Ice, haven't sold the wife yet.

R-

[Terry Tate]

The new style of play has definitely helped the Sabres.  Amazing amout of speed and the great goal play of Miller.  I would also add that the defense has also been refreshing.  I know it's not the Mike Ramsay days, but at least they don't seem to be making some of the simple mistakes that I've seen in the past.  McKee has been terrific.  I've caught them in Albany not only on MSG (on Ranger off-nights), Fox-NY (last night) and OLN (sucky announcers nonetheless). 

 

Makes me consider Center Ice, haven't sold the wife yet.

R-

476379[/snapback]

I don't know about the defense. There was some pretty bad play at first, not very good situational awareness - panicking when they had time, or trying to hold the puck and make a play when there was too much pressure. They're still committing some turnovers, but

- they've played against some pretty freakin' good competition,

- there has been some improvement.

 

Campbell gets a lot of grief here, but I don't think he's all that bad. I know he's not a top defenseman, but he appears to contribute a lot on offense, so I take that into consideration. Tallinder had some horrid moments in his own end against the Lightning - if you had only seen that one game, he'd be the weakest link, not Campbell. With the exception of McKee, they all make me kind of nervous in their own end.

 

On offense, the Sabres are an absolute nightmare to the opponent. Lots of speed, always a defenseman jumping up, and no one seems too shy to throw it at the net (uh, except on the PP). Except when compared to the Senators - holy crap is that team fast - maybe the Sabres were just wrung out from 3 games in 4 nights. Their play in the offensive zone can sometimes look more like a chinese fire drill than standard cycling out of the corner, but they're getting a lot of opportunities that way, too - so I'm not sure what to think of that.

 

Connolly has got a little of that Afinogenov-handle-the-puck-like-your-hair's-on-fire thing going on. Doesn't always work for him (or Max), but that's what I see, anyway. I don't know how that will turn out, but I can understand why the Sabres are hanging on to him.

 

No question in my mind why Drury and Briere have the letters, and I'm really impressed with the overall performance of all the kids on offense.

 

Anyway, hockey's back, and I'm loving it!