RULE 85.3 Puck Out of Sight:

Should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

AGAIN, the ref's reaction to the puck being in the net WAS DELAYED and therefore lost sight of the puck and should have blown the whistle as per Rule 85.3. There is NO WAY that the ref had a visual on the puck the entire time in the middle of 10 PLAYERS IN THE CREASE. If he did, his head and body would have followed the puck into the net AS IT WAS GOING IN! It's pretty clear that the ref reacted to the crowd noise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the Leafs didn't get the extra point, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a bullshit non-call.
- As_I_See_It

Maybe he was focused on Komi giving Foligno the business while he was on his back. All the time, Foligno kept the puck in play next to his body in clear view of the ref.

Or maybe he then saw it sitting under Sciven and no one else did.

Fact is, the puck was under him as he was on his knees and Scriven didn't even know it was there. There was no delay; the ref saw the puck hit and didn't react immediately because his view was blinded by two moving players. That in itself is not enough to blow the whistle b/c the puck was not contained.

It should have been blown dead.
- ImThatGuy

You saw what the ref saw, from the vantage point he saw it?

I'm not saying it was a good goal or not. I'm just saying you can't make that judgement from the camera angles that were shown. If the referee saw it (and only he knows for sure), then it shouldn't have been blown dead. All I am trying to say is "see, look, the you can't see the puck in the camera angle 100 feet above ice level, therefore the ref didn't see it either" is crappy logic.

My guess is that it is just in case. It would be a strange pick, but you have to give the guy a look anyway as a matter of protocol.
- buffalofan19

Maybe it is just me, but what is there to look at? He is a RB, probably the last need we have. Picking another RB in the first round would be as bad of a move as the Mario Williams move was great.

Maybe it is just me, but what is there to look at? He is a RB, probably the last need we have. Picking another RB in the first round would be as bad of a move as the Mario Williams move was great.
- Gunner Staal

Reputation? Maybe they feel nothing good can come from being known as a team "that won't even give a guy like Trent Richardson a look". Who knows? I'm just not worried as I don't think he gets picked either way.

Yup, onward for Buffalo...

Buffalo still has a very, VERY tall order to fill if they hope to make the playoffs. Even if the playoffs do happen...

- They play in Philly and in Boston with a sub .500 road record (18-19-2)and the fact that both Philly and Boston are leading the season series. Philly is also still playing for home ice in the 1st round.

- Catching Washington who hold the tie-breaker and have a great home record where they are 25-11-4. The Caps still think they can catch Florida for 3rd in the East who are 3-5-2 in their last 10 and 1-1-3 in their last 5, 4 of those 5 games were against non-playoff teams!

- IF the playoffs do happen, good luck vs the #1 seed in East, the Rangers who have been amazing all year with a Vezina candidate between the pipes.

- IF the 2nd round happens, like will likey be against the Pens or Bruins... NOT HAPPENING!

Good luck Buffalo!
- As_I_See_It

worry about your own team bud
and their 8 year playoff hunt.

no comment by anyone is going to change the outcome of our playoff push, we could make it, would could not make it, we could get bounced in the first round, we could win the cup. anything can happen in hockey. stats and facts are not everything.

im putting an end to this. how do you post a video? i got this.

Maybe he was focused on Komi giving Foligno the business while he was on his back.

Or maybe he saw it sitting under Sciven and no one else did.

Fact is, the puck was under him as he was on his knees and Scriven didn't even know it was there. There was no delay; the ref saw the puck hit and didn't react immediately because his view was blinded by two moving players. That in itself is not enough to blow the whistle b/c the puck was not contained.



- Purple Eagle

Why was Komi dry humping Foligno on that play? WTF?

Why was Komi dry humping Foligno on that play? WTF?
- jochfr

Lube was on the bench-

Maybe he was focused on Komi giving Foligno the business while he was on his back.

Or maybe he saw it sitting under Sciven and no one else did.

Fact is, the puck was under him as he was on his knees and Scriven didn't even know it was there. There was no delay; the ref saw the puck hit and didn't react immediately because his view was blinded by two moving players. That in itself is not enough to blow the whistle b/c the puck was not contained.



- Purple Eagle

If the ref was watching Komi and Foligno... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the puck was under Scrivens... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the ref was "blinded by two moving players"... The ref lost sight of the puck.

FYI... The puck does not need to be "contained" for the ref to blow the whistle... IF THE REF LOSES SIGHT OF THE PUCK!

If the ref was watching Komi and Foligno... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the puck was under Scrivens... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the ref was "blinded by two moving players"... The ref lost sight of the puck.

FYI... The puck does not need to be "contained" for the ref to blow the whistle... IF THE REF LOSES SIGHT OF THE PUCK!
- As_I_See_It

the whistle wasn't blow, get over it already.

You saw what the ref saw, from the vantage point he saw it?

I'm not saying it was a good goal or not. I'm just saying you can't make that judgement from the camera angles that were shown. If the referee saw it (and only he knows for sure), then it shouldn't have been blown dead. All I am trying to say is "see, look, the you can't see the puck in the camera angle 100 feet above ice level, therefore the ref didn't see it either" is crappy logic.
- buffalofan19

If you look on the overhead, Scrivens grabs it with his blocker,loses it, and it ends up under Lombardi who is laying on the puck.

Leopold in a last ditch effort just lunges at Lombardi. Shoves him and the puck, the puck goes in.

You can tell the ref has no clue where it is in the last 3-4 seconds in the video.

Im glad we scored and won, but to say it was not a lucky call, or non call. . .

Lube was on the bench-
- Purple Eagle

That makes sense actually....

the whistle wasn't blow, get over it already.
- LizzyJo

If that happens to the Sabres and we lose and are eliminated from the playoff race are you over it already?

That said. . .

EFF THE SENS!

If the ref was watching Komi and Foligno... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the puck was under Scrivens... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the ref was "blinded by two moving players"... The ref lost sight of the puck.

FYI... The puck does not need to be "contained" for the ref to blow the whistle... IF THE REF LOSES SIGHT OF THE PUCK!
- As_I_See_It

Okay, different scenario. Shot comes in from the slot under the goaltenders legs, bounces around in between the pads, loses speed, and then squirts over the goal line (wow, the amount of sexual innuendos that can come out of that is high), should it count? The ref would have lost site of the puck underneath the goaltenders pads while it stayed there for a second. It happens all the time. In fact it's how Philly scored their first goal against Pittsburgh on Sunday.

Okay, different scenario. Shot comes in from the slot under the goaltenders legs, bounces around in between the pads, loses speed, and then squirts over the goal line (wow, the amount of sexual innuendos that can come out of that is high), should it count? The ref would have lost site of the puck underneath the goaltenders pads while it stayed there for a second. It happens all the time. In fact it's how Philly scored their first goal against Pittsburgh on Sunday.
- buffalofan19

1 second compared to 12 seconds. Huge difference.

worry about your own team bud
and their 8 year playoff hunt.

no comment by anyone is going to change the outcome of our playoff push, we could make it, would could not make it, we could get bounced in the first round, we could win the cup. anything can happen in hockey. stats and facts are not everything.
- LizzyJo

Believe me, all Leafs fans are concerned.

Pretty funny how both Leafs and Sabres fans have changed their tunes in the past 2 months given the 180's both teams have taken?

1967 or 1970, does it really matter?

If the ref was watching Komi and Foligno... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the puck was under Scrivens... The ref lost sight of the puck.

If the ref was "blinded by two moving players"... The ref lost sight of the puck.

FYI... The puck does not need to be "contained" for the ref to blow the whistle... IF THE REF LOSES SIGHT OF THE PUCK!
- As_I_See_It

That's an absurd statement. If that rule was followed according to your interpretation, games would take over 3 hours to play.
The puck was not covered next to Foligno when he was down, the puck then was under Scriven's crotch as he was on his knees (still visible).
It was then pushed in.
The delay is likely due to the fact that a good goalie would have had his skates together to stop it from creeping in and the Ref did not expect it to cross the goal line.
Emphasis on "good goalie"

That's an absurd statement. If that rule was followed according to your interpretation, games would take over 3 hours to play.The puck was not covered next to Foligno when he was down, the puck then was under Scriven's crotch as he was on his knees (still visible).
It was then pushed in.
The delay is likely due to the fact that a good goalie would have had his skates together to stop it from creeping in and the Ref did not expect it to cross the goal line.
Emphasis on "good goalie"
- Purple Eagle

Not true. How often does the whistle blow after 2 seconds of a scrum and right after that the puck squirts free?

Okay, different scenario. Shot comes in from the slot under the goaltenders legs, bounces around in between the pads, loses speed, and then squirts over the goal line (wow, the amount of sexual innuendos that can come out of that is high), should it count? The ref would have lost site of the puck underneath the goaltenders pads while it stayed there for a second. It happens all the time. In fact it's how Philly scored their first goal against Pittsburgh on Sunday.
- buffalofan19

Poor example.

There is HUGE difference between the ref "losing sight" of a 100 MPH blast from the point or a battle along the boards than a goal crease scrum with 10 players in the crease that lasts as long as yesterday's incident did.

Why was Komi dry humping Foligno on that play? WTF?
- jochfr

We've always wondered about Mike Komisexual!

If you look on the overhead, Scrivens grabs it with his blocker,loses it, and it ends up under Lombardi who is laying on the puck.

Leopold in a last ditch effort just lunges at Lombardi. Shoves him and the puck, the puck goes in.

You can tell the ref has no clue where it is in the last 3-4 seconds in the video.

Im glad we scored and won, but to say it was not a lucky call, or non call. . .
- ImThatGuy

He never had it-
The puck was in Leo's skates...uncovered and in play.
You had a ref and a linesman 180 degrees from each other; they saw it.

Believe me, all Leafs fans are concerned.

Pretty funny how both Leafs and Sabres fans have changed their tunes in the past 2 months given the 180's both teams have taken?

1967 or 1970, does it really matter?
- As_I_See_It

Nope it does not. I never get into that argument. until the Sabres win a cup, we have no place to run out mouth.

I'm starving for one though.

What I really want is a Sabres V Leafs playoff series, renew the rivalry. Next Year please?

RULE 85.3 Puck Out of Sight:

Should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

AGAIN, the ref's reaction to the puck being in the net WAS DELAYED and therefore lost sight of the puck and should have blown the whistle as per Rule 85.3. There is NO WAY that the ref had a visual on the puck the entire time in the middle of 10 PLAYERS IN THE CREASE. If he did, his head and body would have followed the puck into the net AS IT WAS GOING IN! It's pretty clear that the ref reacted to the crowd noise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the Leafs didn't get the extra point, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a bullshit non-call.
- As_I_See_It

Need I remind you?



It's an 82 game season...it all evens out in the end.

Not true. How often does the whistle blow after 2 seconds of a scrum and right after that the puck squirts free?
- ImThatGuy

Exactly.

People (Sabres fans) are arguning in favour of last night's play for the wrong reasons, their team's best interest. I can almost guarantee what if the tables were turned, Sabres fans would be PISSED! Could you imagine the uproar is the puck was CLEARLY loose and blown down and the Sabres failed to tie the game?

It's not about whether or not the Sabres/Leafs won or lost, it's about the ref blowing A MASSIVE CALL!

Listen to Ennis post game interview, he saw what the ref saw. Every second the puck was getting pinballed around, still visible. It would come past him, he would take a whack at it, then he would see it again. The ref likely saw the same thing. Scrivens tried to grab it with his blocker, but couldnt.

When you lose sight of the puck from the overhead, it looks like its visibly under Lombardi, who is in the crease. If a whistle is blown its a penalty shot.

Leopold knew where the puck was prior to poking it in. You can see him frantically trying to free his stick from the grasp of Scrivens. The second his stick gets free from Scrivens hands, he immediately pokes at the puck in one motion and its in the net.

There were at least 3 penalties being committed by the Leafs during that entire scrum. If they were less worried about holding sticks, sitting on top of players and more worried about finding the puck and covering it or getting it out, it wouldnt have been a goal.


Lastly, I turned to my friend when watching the game and said "Scrivens never acted like he had the puck, he shouldve faked it"... listen to Millers post game interview "Yeah, I wouldve faked that I had the puck to make the referee believe that hey the goalie has it".. rookie mistake.