Jump to content

In the Crease. No Goal. Delay of Game.


Recommended Posts

1. The rule might suck, but it's the rule. Actually, I'm not sure the rule sucks. It hurt on Thursday, but I don't hate that rule. Consistent application of the rules is something we've wanted for a long, long time. If the rule--which sucked--about skate-in-crease was applied properly in 1999, we might have seen a different result. Rules, however dumb, should be applied with consistency. This was no exception. Good call, sux for us.

 

2. Gimme healthy Carolina against healthy Buffalo any day.

 

3. Canes? Heart? Look, they have talent, but heart? Let's not get out of control, here. They're a bunch of terrific technicians in a depleted division. Other posters have mentioned the inequities between the teams because of injuries (Cole and Connolly plus 1/4 of a single defenseman might be equal), and they're correct. In terms of heart, think of it this way: The Sabres are the Stones. The 'Canes, well, Peter, Paul & Mary. Or the Monkees.

 

4. Go Oilers. Warren Moon will be kickass.

 

--11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah. It's a rule but cmon. The biggest problem with it is that there's supposed to be distinction as to when it's called.

 

Campbell was pressured by an attacking Cane. He wasn't trying to clear it over but move the puck off the glass or to a teammate.

 

That's my biggest issue with it. You hate to see a team get screwed on that. And especially to decide as well played a series as that one. And that is the real sad aspect. That was a fun series to watch and a cruddy way for it to conclude.

 

But you could also say that Buffalo had plenty of chances after that goal to tie it. They just didn't get it done. Maybe if Ruff had pulled Miller with 1:40 to go when the Sabres had a good cycle going, that would've made the difference. I couldn't believe he didn't. It was their last gasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  The rule might suck, but it's the rule.  Actually, I'm not sure the rule sucks.  It hurt on Thursday, but I don't hate that rule.  Consistent application of the rules is something we've wanted for a long, long time.  If the rule--which sucked--about skate-in-crease was applied properly in 1999, we might have seen a different result.  Rules, however dumb, should be applied with consistency.  This was no exception.  Good call, sux for us.

 

2.  Gimme healthy Carolina against healthy Buffalo any day.

 

3.  Canes?  Heart?  Look, they have talent, but heart?  Let's not get out of control, here.  They're a bunch of terrific technicians in a depleted division.  Other posters have mentioned the inequities between the teams because of injuries (Cole and Connolly plus 1/4 of a single defenseman might be equal), and they're correct.  In terms of heart, think of it this way:  The Sabres are the Stones.  The 'Canes, well, Peter, Paul & Mary.  Or the Monkees.

 

4.  Go Oilers.  Warren Moon will be kickass. 

 

--11

702801[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry to bust your bubble but any team that loses its 2nd best forward for the last two months of the season and gets as far as Carolina has has heart. They shouldn't have been able to get past Montreal with Erik Cole let alone New Jersey. It says a lot about the team they have.

 

And also, does a no heart team comeback and win as much as they have this postseason?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

I realize Buffalo was up against it in this series in regards to the injuries on their depleted blueline and with Connolly. It is what it is. You play with what you got. You want to cry about it. I saw the Ranger season disintegrate thanks to a !@#$ing hip flexor Henrik Lundqvist suffered in practice along with the stupidest injury you'll ever see a star player get (Jagr) in Game 1 of a series. Darius Kasparaitis, Marek Malik were hurt too. It happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO

 

it appears the Buffalo "losers" mentality is firing on all cylinders.

 

Not a single person complaing here would say a damn thing if it happened to Carolina.

 

The rule clearly says you cannot fire the puck into the seats when you are in your defensive zone. There is no disgression this is an automatic penalty that has been being called for a long time, and any hockey fan has seen this call made 100 times. Campbell was rushed and because the Carolina player was coming at him it forces Brian to make a quick decision, and that decision led to a penalty that led to a Carolina victory. Thats hockey, force the other team to make a mistake and then capatialize. The Sabres live and breathe this style.

 

 

We had major injuries and Carolina did exactly what they had to do to win. There is no Buffalo curse, it just happened. Buffalo is just unfortunate, and I fully believe its the constant "woe is me" attitiude by fans that will keep us from ever winning it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. It's a rule but cmon. The biggest problem with it is that there's supposed to be distinction as to when it's called.

 

Campbell was pressured by an attacking Cane. He wasn't trying to clear it over but move the puck off the glass or to a teammate.

 

That's my biggest issue with it. You hate to see a team get screwed on that. And especially to decide as well played a series as that one. And that is the real sad aspect. That was a fun series to watch and a cruddy way for it to conclude.

 

But you could also say that Buffalo had plenty of chances after that goal to tie it. They just didn't get it done. Maybe if Ruff had pulled Miller with 1:40 to go when the Sabres had a good cycle going, that would've made the difference. I couldn't believe he didn't. It was their last gasp.

702838[/snapback]

With changing the rule on icing to one where the offending team can't make a player change on the ensuing faceoff, this rule was put in place to prevent teams from "accidentally" throwing the puck into the stands to be allowed to get the change. Not only that, but by throwing the puck out of the rink "accidentally", the team could get a better faceoff location if the puck was launched from the half wall or higher in the zone.

 

"Deliberately" sending the puck out of play has always been a penalty for all players and anytime a goalie sends the puck cleanly out of the rink has been a penalty for the past several years.

 

The league this season put in rules to increase scoring chances, "penalizing" icing is one of the ways the league did this as additional scoring chances have been generated this season by teams trying harder to skate the puck out of the zone and over the red line (especially at the end of long shifts). There are more chances for a team to steal the puck on a forecheck if the other team is working the puck out of the zone vs launching it out of the zone.

 

Likewise, there is a better chance of generating a scoring chance by intercepting a clearing attempt through the middle of the ice vs one that is simply launched over a corner of the boards or up off the very top of the glass.

 

While it is possible that the league may change the sanction for "accidentally" throwing the puck over the boards to be identical to that of icing, I don't expect that as it's pretty obvious that the league wanted to reduce the incentive to clear the puck by launching it high.

 

One additional reason they put that rule in for is to limit the number of faceoffs per game and to speed up the game. Every time the puck goes out of play, the game gets lengthened by ~15 - 30 seconds. The league has been trying to not only increase scoring opportunities and bring more speed to the play, they also wanted to make sure calling increased #'s of penalties did not significantly lengthen the time it takes to play the game.

 

The Sabres have now taken it on the chin from that rule being called hard and fast (and actually enforced) this past Thursday, and also from leaving discretion to IDIOTS like Koharski (May 10, 2001) who let Kasparaitis grab the puck and throw it into the crowd without calling any penalty (although he could have gotten 4 minutes for violating 2 separate rules).

 

I would not mind seeing the play dealt with the way icing is now, but definitely do not want to give any more discretion to the Koharski's and Fraser's of this world than is absolutely necessary.

 

It stinks that the rule cost the Sabres the powerplay that eventually decided the game, but the Canes could just have easily been called for a penalty like that if the Sabres forecheck was more effective and the "quirkiness" of the call didn't keep Rory from looking for the puck before Brind'Amour shot it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...