I believe the only explanation goes something like this: Uhhh, we f-ed up.
As for whether we ‘deserved’ 2 points tonight, I’ll say this. There are games where we deserve better than we get, other games where we get better result than we deserve. Over a season, those things tend to even out. Over a playoff series, less so.
But to lose a game because of a goal that the refs and Toronto simply missed, that really does suck.
I was there tonite, and while I agree with your sentiments – the refs were EXCEPTIONALLY bad tonite. No excuses, things can happen like that sometimes, but this was some of the worst reffing I’ve seen in a hockey game in a very long time.
I didn’t tape it, so i dunno – maybe you or someone else can correct me, but I thought i saw two blatant high sticks that were ignored and one exceptional interference call. It makes me angry…they’re giving me AHL refs and I know I’m not paying AHL prices to sit and watch.
zakk the bear
Buffalo is on pace to be the worst team (
sharks may not have played up to their skill level last night, but they DID score the game winning goal in OT. hard to take that loss in stride knowing it was a botched call. hockey happens blablabla.
There is simply no excuse for the situation room to have missed the OT goal. With today’s technology and the fact the Toronto is supposedly reviewing EVERY goal, there is no reason to have missed that call. Will be interesting to hear what rationale the NHL comes up with for blowing that one?
This SJ team is good, real good, so let’s not throw in the towel just yet. Def think Burns coming back with spark the team and hopefully get them back on track. Unfortunately, they should be able to do it without a spark, but I digress…
Tom (fm Quinzee)
Thought Hedican’s comments in the post-game were to the point. Sharks were “circling” and not playing “stop and start” hockey when the puck changed directions. He went on to explain that mean they’re playing lazy, without a sense of urgency, and used some tape to illustrate the point.
And that’s a big problem when there were the turnovers the Sharks were making…at one point they put up the numbers, 11 to 5? Or was it worse? Nemo stunk, but he was playing down to the level of his teammates. I hope that’s not a new definition of team chemistry.
Buffalo’s not good. But they’ve got a lot of young guys who can move. Throwing a uniform on the ice won’t beat a NHL team that’s working hard, even a lousy team. Ryan Miller gave up 4, but he made some pretty tough saves. That’s all the Sabres needed from him.
Tom (fm Quinzee)
And in the “erata” department, that picture of Bobby Orr I posted in the “teenager” post…he’s 19 at that time, in his second year. The haircut confused me. That was his “rookie” style, when he was 18.
Tom (fm Quinzee)
Okay, but some of that went both ways. Memory failure, but there was a hooking call on Buffalo in the 3rd that was pretty much a “crime of opportunity” for whichever Shark drew it. Foligno got his stick out and the Shark clamped his arm on it and went down…hooking!!! I can see the refs not seeing this if they’re behind the play, but there’s two of them.
And… you’ll notice the 2 Sharks standing in the paint. That’s good, but the better positioning would be to stand far enough away from Miller so that you can receive the pass without Miller poke-checking it away, and having enough distance from Miller that you can lift the puck over his shoulder, follow your shot into the paint to bury any rebound.
Giving up the 4th goal after coming back from two down was a disaster. The Sharks were so into offense they ignored the “five guys back” part of the aphorism and just coasted waiting for a breakout to allow them to continue the assault.
TomQ, good to hear from you again. The image of Young Prince Robert G. was a pleasure to behold.
Tom (fm Quinzee)
That’s why he gets the big bucks…and it was interesting to see his work behind the Sharks’ net a couple of times. Not sure how he played the entire game, but on a couple of occasions he made some big plays back on D. And he was also part of turnover problem, to be honest.
Jumbo wasnt sharp first period. + Those missed passes in PP. Then he picked it up. Great photo posted below. Although there will be people saying he should have shot and not go around the net.
Havlat showed skills. That 12-39-9 line gelled. Pavs is consistent so he lines is always there.
Say all you want this team is so good that yes they can let 2 periods cruise by, wrapped and give them 2 goals and still win. I am saying this because full throttle 82 games is just a theory. So If this was the night we took the foot off the pedal. I TAKE IT.
Same ‘ol Sharks. It’s funny how every other team in the league has no trouble beating this atrocious Sabres team loaded with high schoolers, yet I’m hearing the Sharks’ publicity department going on and on about how good Buffalo is. Too much.
But yea, this is the Sharks team we’re all used to. They got off to a good start and that was good enough for them. No need to keep playing hard I guess. This is why the Sharks will never win the Stanley Cup. They don’t have the discipline nor the desire to play hard every single period of every single game.
They don’t have the heart of a champion. It’s been this way for the past five years and I can see nothing has changed.
He’s not the only ref that makes a lot of mistakes. The question is why do these guys show up in the playoffs? They don’t seem to be judged on their performance. Their performance and discipline is always kept a big secret. Last year one linesman made a terrible mistake by calling a major against the Sharks ( in one of the Blackhawks games ). Right after the game, the referee supervisor ran up to Wilson and told him it was a bad call. The problem? The linesman that screwed up showed up in the Stanley Cup finals.
I’m guessing a lot of folks think when Burns returns (provided we get the same type of play from him that we had prior to his injury), that will be a big difference. Count me among them. He’s a perfect fit with the line with Jumbo and Hertl — that is among the most dangerous lines in hockey today.
Plus, it opens up the opportunity for Kennedy or Havlat to move all the way down to a 4th line, making it much easier to roll that line all game long (no reason to break up Pavs, Wingels and Nieto as the 3rd line). Our 4th line only played 5 minutes last night — seemed like TMc decided they wouldn’t play much after they gave up the goal off the face-off. We’re a much better team when we roll 4 lines.
Also, time to put Irwin back in and give Hannan a couple nights off. Boyle still looks like he needs some time to get his game back.
Both my son and I saw the goal that wasn’t while sitting in Section 203. If we could see it from that far away, someone on the ice should have picked it up. At least enough to check with Toronto. Very fustrating…well, almost as frustrating as the lack luster play in the first 2 periods.
Truth is there was no reason TO review that non goal. The referee didn’t call it a goal, the goal judge didn’t light the lamp and none of the players saw the puck in the net except Myers. That is why the war room failed to review it. Only after a couple of angles of the replay on TV did we see it conclusively go in. Are they supposed to review every puck in the crease? As for the “intent” part last time I check the ref only has two hands. First he had to wave off the post shot only THEN could he reach for his whistle. He saw the no goal, as while he was signalling the no goal he lost site of the puck and then blew his whistle. Suck it up and play better against a two win team and you don’t have to whine about “bad calls” that don’t go your way.
The ref waived AFTER the puck had crossed the line and was brought back. Intent to blow the whistle, if that’s the line the NHL is going with, is a lie.
The truth is simple, they blew the call. It happens, though rarely does one blown ‘non-judgment’ call change the result of the game. It especially sucks because it changed the result of the game. But yeah, you can’t do goal review if there was no goal. Considering Toronto has every view coming in off the feed, they were the ones that really blew it.
Reminded me of Daryl’s comment after the Clowe touch from the bench – asking about why the refs didn’t call it. Daryl said something like “They didn’t see it. What could I do, text them?
Zeke. From the time the puck went off the post to the time that it was back under Miller off Myer’s skate did anyone SEE the puck cross the line real time? If you want to blame someone, don’t blame the ref who lost sight of the puck and blew the whistle, blame the goal judge. How did he miss it?
**This post has been minimized to avoid showing up in the blog feed.
The whistle comes WELL after the fact…AND his hand(s) made no movement towards his whistle until after the puck went in then out. The league is simply covering up their error by claiming intent to blow the whistle. What else are they going to say?? UGHHHH!!!
Oh please. As long as everyone reads it the first time (which I know you do), that’s all I care about.
“The ref waived AFTER the puck had crossed the line and was brought back.
Intent to blow the whistle, if that’s the line the NHL is going with,”
I’m not arguing that the ref made a mistake. My comment is simply an illustrative one.
That rule of “intent” is there so that a referee is not bound by the blowing of the whistle.
IOW, the ref sees a play that is unfolding very fast (for instance) and he sees that he needs to make a call. He may not have time to blow the play dead (because he physically cannot do so), but blows it dead as soon as he can. He then uses the “intent” rule to say that he deemed the play dead at a point “earlier” then when everyone else heard him blow the whistle.
Sometimes, that’s after a goal was scored. The rule can be abused, but IMO that is rarely the case.