Home HockeyBuzz Register Login
"YoDingDong.com Powered by Hockeybuzz.com"
Milford, DE • United States •
Enough crying about how mean the Isles fans are, you would be pissed if you got screwed out of two games too. However, let's look at those two games. For one, Vanek's goal was not CONCLUSIVELY across the goal line. I know it was, you know it was in. However any camera angle did not show it to be conclusive, it was assumptive. Which it does not say in the rule book. Flash back to the Isles-Rangers game where we scored with a couple of ticks left and because it wasn't CONCLUSIVE, it wasn't a goal. We knew it was in, however the video said otherwise. Upheld against us, but not for us?

And the game last night, the puck was in, you could see the angle it was clear and CONCLUSIVE, and the ref decides that the Sabres should be up 3-1, no goal. Cute.

Aside from being deathly ill from hearing how great the Sabres are in this series, they have not dominated play, a couple of bounces or in this case correct calls, and it could be 3-1 Isles. The only difference between the Isles and Sabres is that when the Isles make mistakes the Sabres instantly capitalize. The Isles are 50/50.

So if Buffalo does go on to the next round they need to realize they have been very unimpressive and shore up their game and wake up their goaltender. Miller has been OK, but not Cup caliber.

I hate to say this as an Isles fan, but the Rags look good, or is it just Atlanta was that bad?
Filed Under:   islanders   sabres   buffalo   fans   goal   playoffs   ny   ranger  
April 19, 2007 7:26 PM ET | Delete
Maybe isntead of asking what the refs were thinking you should ask DP why his right pad was a foot behind the goal line. Miller has been the better goalie in the series and that has been the difference.
April 20, 2007 12:31 AM ET | Delete
The goal by Vanek was def. across the line on the replay that I saw while watching the game. You could see it hit his pad and dissapear behind the post, which is across the goal-line.
April 20, 2007 8:12 AM ET | Delete
I'll make a comment. You say Vaneks' goal should not have been a goal because THE RULES say it must be conclusive, yet you say the non-goal should have been a goal because THE CAMERA ANGLE says it was in. THE RULES, however, say if the ref makes a judgement that the goalie was pushed into the net that the goal is not allowed and is not reviewable. It's very convenient to only cite THE RULES when it benefits you. I believe that both plays discussed should have been goals. You also make the comment that "when the Isles make mistakes the Sabres instantly capitalize. The Isles are 50/50." Isn't that really what differentiates good teams from really good teams? Before the series started I felt that the Isles would have to play perfect to beat Buffalo. The Sabres have not been as good as I thought they would be and the Isles have been better than I thought they would be. As it turns out, the have not needed to be perfect to beat the Sabres, just better than they have been.
April 20, 2007 12:18 PM ET | Delete
The puck was behind the goal post. It's not physically possible for a puck to be BEHIND THE POST without being in the net.
April 20, 2007 12:19 PM ET | Delete
Why was DiPi inside the net when Vanek brought the puck around anyways? If he plays proper position there and hugs the post, he stops that puck.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.