GDT: You'll Shoot Yer Eye Out, Kid! Sabres @ Devils, 7 PM, MSG+

[AveryQuietMan]

i think we can all agree they were screwed over, who knows what the protocol is.... i just know that it shouldve been a good goal. if the linesman whistles play dead this is a non issue. but he called it safe.

 

[Blender]

The refs review it in consultation with Toronto.

It says "NHL Hockey Operations staff determined" after the line about consulting with the linesman.

 

[Emperoreddy]

You took a player who was used to playing a controlled, simple system and now have him playing a style which essentially amounts to controlled chaos with speed. When the Devils used to start playing run and gun hockey, it used to be a bad thing, now it's a good thing. Opponents have a lot more time and open space than the Devils ever used to allow.

We're not going to see the same Zajac in this system. It's going to take him a while to adapt to the change in style, and he might not ever do it at his age. I still believe in his defensive reads and play though. It's why he's still so strong on the PK. In defensive shutdown situations, Zajac is the guy.

Rock solid post in my opinion.

I do think they need to consider easing him back in certain situations though if possible.

 

[Emperoreddy]

It says "NHL Hockey Operations staff determined" after the line about consulting with the linesman.

So do the refs differ to Toronto if they can’t tell?

 

[ReddandBlack92]

The refs f***ed us plain and simple because were the red headed bastard child franchise and not the rangers or leafs plain and simple

 

[Zippy316]

What I don't understand is how they can definitively make that call unless they have more camera angles or better technology.

From my point of view, with the parallax angle, the uncertainty of whether a skate is truly on the ice, and knowing when exactly the puck crossed the line, I don't understand how Toronto can come back and say 100% it was offsides.

It seems like they're playing the guessing and assumption game a lot with these offsides calls which is the exact opposite of what they do for other reviews.

 

[AveryQuietMan]

What I don't understand is how they can definitively make that call unless they have more camera angles or better technology.

From my point of view, with the parallax angle, the uncertainty of whether a skate is truly on the ice, and knowing when exactly the puck crossed the line, I don't understand how Toronto can come back and say 100% it was offsides.

It seems like they're playing the guessing and assumption game a lot with these offsides calls which is the exact opposite of what they do for other reviews.

others have said it and gotten bashed...... they are taping a special that =$$$$$.... interesting segment they have now. nuff said. no bashing needed. that was the right take. off to washington.

 

[NJDevs26]

What I don't understand is how they can definitively make that call unless they have more camera angles or better technology.

From my point of view, with the parallax angle, the uncertainty of whether a skate is truly on the ice, and knowing when exactly the puck crossed the line, I don't understand how Toronto can come back and say 100% it was offsides.

It seems like they're playing the guessing and assumption game a lot with these offsides calls which is the exact opposite of what they do for other reviews.

Personally I think if they find any reason to uphold the challenge on an offsides call they will cause of the new whole minor penalty with an unsuccessful challenge rule. But yes I don't get what the definition of conclusive is if nobody else sees it.

 

[Emperoreddy]

What I don't understand is how they can definitively make that call unless they have more camera angles or better technology.

From my point of view, with the parallax angle, the uncertainty of whether a skate is truly on the ice, and knowing when exactly the puck crossed the line, I don't understand how Toronto can come back and say 100% it was offsides.

It seems like they're playing the guessing and assumption game a lot with these offsides calls which is the exact opposite of what they do for other reviews.

I don’t think they had a better angle. MSG had two angles straight down the line looking both ways and you couldn’t tell one way or the other conclusively.

Toronto has those same angles just with much bigger monitors and they should be able to sync up two different angles to play at the same time.

Even then I don’t see how they have a conclusive proof his skate left the paint before the puck crossed.

Never mind that he also had possession

 

[AveryQuietMan]

I don’t think they had a better angle. MSG had two angles straight down the line looking both ways and you couldn’t tell one way or the other conclusively.

Toronto has those same angles just with much bigger monitors and they should be able to sync up two different angles to play at the same time.

Even then I don’t see how they have a conclusive proof his skate left the paint before the puck crossed.

Never mind that he also had possession

dont worry eddy. it may have been a knee jerk reaction but you had it right. its in the rule book. and if you want to debate that fact..... it was inconclusive. my tv, and prolly urs, is as good as any monitor they have.

 

[Zippy316]

I don’t think they had a better angle. MSG had two angles straight down the line looking both ways and you couldn’t tell one way or the other conclusively.

Toronto has those same angles just with much bigger monitors and they should be able to sync up two different angles to play at the same time.

Even then I don’t see how they have a conclusive proof his skate left the paint before the puck crossed.

Never mind that he also had possession

I guess syncing up the two monitors would allow you to make that call. I never thought of that. You'd be able to pinpoint when the puck crossed the line from another camera angle and then go to the skate blade from another.

But I'm still of the opinion that if you need to do that to overturn a player, then it should still count.

By the way, I don't buy the possession argument. If that is considered possession, you're opening up a real can of worms with an extremely liberal take on what possession is.

 

[Blender]

I don’t think they had a better angle. MSG had two angles straight down the line looking both ways and you couldn’t tell one way or the other conclusively.

Toronto has those same angles just with much bigger monitors and they should be able to sync up two different angles to play at the same time.

Even then I don’t see how they have a conclusive proof his skate left the paint before the puck crossed.

Never mind that he also had possession

The other angle from the one I posted you can't even see the puck because of Hall's right leg. Now between the TV view and the far side blueline, there is no way that can be conclusive.

 

[AveryQuietMan]

I guess syncing up the two monitors would allow you to make that call. I never thought of that. You'd be able to pinpoint when the puck crossed the line from another camera angle and then go to the skate blade from another.

But I'm still of the opinion that if you need to do that to overturn a player, then it should still count.

By the way, I don't buy the possession argument. If that is considered possession, you're opening up a real can of worms with an extremely liberal take on what possession is.

he had possession before and after he crossed the line..... that is why the rule is there. if you dont like the rule thats fine but its in the books.

 

[Zippy316]

he had possession before and after he crossed the line..... that is why the rule is there. if you dont like the rule thats fine but its in the books.

Ehhhhh. I think that's stretching the definition.

He tapped the puck out of the air, spun around, and then settled it down with his stick. I don't think I would consider that continuous possession.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I guess syncing up the two monitors would allow you to make that call. I never thought of that. You'd be able to pinpoint when the puck crossed the line from another camera angle and then go to the skate blade from another.

But I'm still of the opinion that if you need to do that to overturn a player, then it should still count.

By the way, I don't buy the possession argument. If that is considered possession, you're opening up a real can of worms with an extremely liberal take on what possession is.

I think that is the only way to even begin to claim they have conclusive evidence. The two angles had to be synced, but you can’t see the puck on one angle.

They should be able to sync the time code up to fractions of a second, but even then I’m not sure you could see for sure that the puck is clearly over the line and his skate is clearly off the ice at the right times. We are literally talking a one frame difference.

And you are right if it comes down to this it shouldn’t be overturned.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Ehhhhh. I think that's stretching the definition.

He tapped the puck out of the air, spun around, and then settled it down with his stick. I don't think I would consider that continuous possession.

It is debatable. The possession rule as written is pretty vague.

 

[AveryQuietMan]

Ehhhhh. I think that's stretching the definition.

He tapped the puck out of the air, spun around, and then settled it down with his stick. I don't think I would consider that continuous possession.

yeah its up for debate. i still think it was a good goal tho. and what a beauty it was.

 

[Devils090]

Win tomorrow and all will be well

 

[Zippy316]

In all seriousness though, this ending is probably a good thing for tomorrow.

I'd rather go into Washington with the way that game ended versus on a six game winning streak. I would hope everyone is pissed and channels that frustration into tomorrow - technically tonight's -- game.

 

[Emperoreddy]

In all seriousness though, this ending is probably a good thing for tomorrow.

I'd rather go into Washington with the way that game ended versus on a six game winning streak. I would hope everyone is pissed and channels that frustration into tomorrow - technically tonight's -- game.

Yeah they should come out hungry and angry.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

The lines are perfect the way they are.

Wood - Zacha - Noesen gives Zacha linemates he meshes will with and can grow with. Their style contrasts a bit with the rest of the team which is good as they play a heavier game.

Johansson - Zajac - Palmieri is perfect. Johansson moves the puck up the ice, Palmieri is the power forward, and Zajac is the glue guy. Give it time to gel and it could work nicely.

No, they aren't perfect. Time to accept that Zajac isn't a top 6 player and is not skilled enough to play with Palms or MoJo and in fact kills any offensive chance they create. He had a wide open net to score on tonight, but because he is not just skating slow, but thinking the game slow, his stick wasn't on the ice and he missed a chance to score.

2 poins in 0 games with the amount of ice time and PP time he gets is pathetic.

 

[JimEIV]

I really thought the puck entered the zone before Hall did. Even after I saw the replay I thought it was good?

But off-sides was never meant to be called in factions of an inch. It's meant to stop an attacking player from entering the zone without the puck first...Hall was clearly the first Devil to enter the zone with possession. This interpretation is asinine

 

[OmNomNom]

it's like kobe bryant's two eras/styles of play - he had to adjust due to age and differing strategies.

if zajac and figure out how to adapt to a non-cycling strategy, then he's solid. otherwise, throw him on the 3rd line/special situations

 

[tr83]

It is debatable. The possession rule as written is pretty vague.

Just pray that it doesn't become the NFL catch rule.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Just pray that it doesn't become the NFL catch rule.

I honestly stopped watching football because of this. Neutral games are zero fun right now.