HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Sabres not putting enough players on the ice two games in a row?! (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1329913)

tehinternet 01-22-2013 09:42 AM

Sabres not putting enough players on the ice two games in a row?!
 
In the Toronto game last night after Buffalo killed the 5 on 3 penalty(s) and it was now 5 on 4 to kill off, they decided to not have 4 skaters on the ice and instead continued playing 5 on 3. What in the F?

I missed it, but supposedly this happened in the first game of the season too.

What is going on here?
-Lindy?
-James Patrick?
-Player communication?

It's one thing to get a too many men call or something, but not having enough guys on the ice. That is not good at all.

sham3440 01-22-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehinternet (Post 58075969)
In the Toronto game last night after Buffalo killed the 5 on 3 penalty(s) and it was now 5 on 4 to kill off, they decided to not have 4 skaters on the ice and instead continued playing 5 on 3. What in the F?

I missed it, but supposedly this happened in the first game of the season too.

What is going on here?
-Lindy?
-James Patrick?
-Player communication?

It's one thing to get a too many men call or something, but not having enough guys on the ice. That is not good at all.

I'm 99% sure this is incorrect. I believe it was OTT who took the 3rd minor in a row, covering the puck with his hand, and his penalty time didn't start until the first penalty expired.

Old Navy Goat 01-22-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehinternet (Post 58075969)
In the Toronto game last night after Buffalo killed the 5 on 3 penalty(s) and it was now 5 on 4 to kill off, they decided to not have 4 skaters on the ice and instead continued playing 5 on 3. What in the F?

I missed it, but supposedly this happened in the first game of the season too.

What is going on here?
-Lindy?
-James Patrick?
-Player communication?

It's one thing to get a too many men call or something, but not having enough guys on the ice. That is not good at all.

Actually that didn't happen in the Toronto game, the feed showing the penalty timer didn't reset to indicate the 2nd minor penalty. If anything, it would have been the fault of the penalty box attendant for not allowing a player out.

In the Philthy game, Kaleta came to the bench from the penalty box and it appeared as if Foligno should of joined Ennis and Stafford but no one sent him.

SackTastic 01-22-2013 09:48 AM

In my opinion, the Philly situation was confusion and a bad change.

Last night, I'm not sure the officials did a good job communicating the penalty situation to the Sabres, and I think that caused the confusion.

SackTastic 01-22-2013 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Navy Goat (Post 58076201)
Actually that didn't happen in the Toronto game, the feed showing the penalty timer didn't reset to indicate the 2nd minor penalty. If anything, it would have been the fault of the penalty box attendant for not allowing a player out.

In the Philthy game, Kaleta came to the bench from the penalty box and it appeared as if Foligno should of joined Ennis and Stafford but no one sent him.

The penalty timekeepers cannot let anyone out in this situation unless the team comes back to full strength.

Quote:

26.2 Penalty Expiration - When any team shall have three players serving penalties at the same time and because of the delayed penalty rule, a substitute for the third offender is on the ice, none of the three penalized players on the penalty bench may return to the ice until play has stopped. When play has been stopped, the player whose full penalty has expired may return to the ice.
During the play, the Penalty Timekeeper shall permit the return to the ice of the penalized players, in the order of expiry of their penalties, but only when the penalized team is entitled to have more than four players on the ice. Otherwise, these players must wait until the first stoppage of play after the expiration of their penalties in order to be released from the penalty bench.

tehinternet 01-22-2013 09:50 AM

Gotcha. Last night was a little blurry, so that makes sense to me. When I happened I was thinking to myself that I wouldn't want to be in charge of making sure all those timers are right.

Hopefully we can chalk up the Philly one to only being first game jitters then.

New Sabres Captain 01-22-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beechsack (Post 58076407)
The penalty timekeepers cannot let anyone out in this situation unless the team comes back to full strength.

It says four players, not four skaters--goalie + 3 skaters would be the four. So after the second penalty expired, and there was only one penalty running, Sabres would be entitled to 5 players (goalie + 4 skaters). So at that point Stafford (the first penalty) should have been released, right?

Old Navy Goat 01-22-2013 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs (Post 58076647)
It says four players, not four skaters--goalie + 3 skaters would be the four. So after the second penalty expired, and there was only one penalty running, Sabres would be entitled to 5 players (goalie + 4 skaters). So at that point Stafford (the first penalty) should have been released, right?

Yes except that Ott's penalty kept it at a 5-3. The biggest issue was the penalty countdown on the feed. The Toronto one was correct while Buffalo's was wrong. I was flipping between games and when I moved down, Buffalo's showed the 5-3 being over, so started to yell at the TV but KSly chased me back to the Toronto feed and it still showed time remaining.

SackTastic 01-22-2013 10:04 AM

I will say this much.

At every level of hockey I've ever played or been associated with, the 3 man delayed penalty situation has been messed up royally. I'm not surprised at all that it happened last night. :)

SackTastic 01-22-2013 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs (Post 58076647)
It says four players, not four skaters--goalie + 3 skaters would be the four. So after the second penalty expired, and there was only one penalty running, Sabres would be entitled to 5 players (goalie + 4 skaters). So at that point Stafford (the first penalty) should have been released, right?

Generally the rules mean 'skater' as 'anyone who isn't a goaltender', but I see how that could be read that way.

New Sabres Captain 01-22-2013 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Navy Goat (Post 58076943)
Yes except that Ott's penalty kept it at a 5-3. The biggest issue was the penalty countdown on the feed. The Toronto one was correct while Buffalo's was wrong. I was flipping between games and when I moved down, Buffalo's showed the 5-3 being over, so started to yell at the TV but KSly chased me back to the Toronto feed and it still showed time remaining.

Here's the timeline.

Stafford penalty --> 5v4
Myers penalty --> 5v3
Ott penalty --> delayed start, no change to manpower
Stafford penalty ends --> Ott's penalty starts, still 5v3 (2 penalties running--Myers and Ott)
Myers penalty ends --> 5v4 (Stafford and Myers have finished their penalties, Ott is only one with time still on it)
Ott penalty ends --> 5v5

The issue is when Myers penalty expired, Stafford should have been released (since his penalty expired first), because at that point, only the Ott penalty was left on the clock, meaning the Sabres should only have been 1 player short (4 skaters + 1 goalie). The Sabres broadcast had the timers right IIRC correctly: they had one 5-on-3 timer expire when Stafford's penalty ended, and then started a new ~20 second 5-on-3 timer until Myers penalty expired, and then just regular power play for the remainder of the Ott penalty.

New Sabres Captain 01-22-2013 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beechsack (Post 58077141)
Generally the rules mean 'skater' as 'anyone who isn't a goaltender', but I see how that could be read that way.

Right. The rule says "player", not "skater". A goalie is not a skater, but is a player.

LGB24 01-22-2013 10:40 AM

I was watching the leafs feed and they said they had it incorrect on the scoreboard. Apparently they were only showing 2 penalties on the scoreboard which confused the players and the penalty box attendant

heartsabres* 01-22-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehinternet (Post 58075969)
In the Toronto game last night after Buffalo killed the 5 on 3 penalty(s) and it was now 5 on 4 to kill off, they decided to not have 4 skaters on the ice and instead continued playing 5 on 3. What in the F?

I missed it, but supposedly this happened in the first game of the season too.

What is going on here?
-Lindy?
-James Patrick?
-Player communication?

It's one thing to get a too many men call or something, but not having enough guys on the ice. That is not good at all.

I like how the OP only options are F-ups by the sabres! :amazed:

tehinternet 01-22-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartsabres (Post 58079415)
I like how the OP only options are F-ups by the sabres! :amazed:

I am a Sabres lover, but after it happened in the first game and at a glance appeared to happen that way again in game 2, it would be a big concern.

Though I did spare opening the 'Lindy's gotta go' and stuff like this can't be happening when he's on a contract year can of worms :) ...well until now.

beerme1 01-22-2013 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehinternet (Post 58081347)
I am a Sabres lover, but after it happened in the first game and at a glance appeared to happen that way again in game 2, it would be a big concern.

Though I did spare opening the 'Lindy's gotta go' and stuff like this can't be happening when he's on a contract year can of worms :) ...well until now.

Ok then I will! Lindy's got to go. This happened last year if everyone can remember.
We had a guy in the box, Leino I think who started pounding on the door to get Lindy's attention that we were playing short a man. This as Lindy's says is a load of crap from a coaching staff at this level. His system of how to do a drop pass when we go into the opponent end still sucks too!
There I feel better now. ;)

WhoIsJimBob 01-22-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs (Post 58077197)
Here's the timeline.

Stafford penalty --> 5v4
Myers penalty --> 5v3
Ott penalty --> delayed start, no change to manpower
Stafford penalty ends --> Ott's penalty starts, still 5v3 (2 penalties running--Myers and Ott)
Myers penalty ends --> 5v4 (Stafford and Myers have finished their penalties, Ott is only one with time still on it)
Ott penalty ends --> 5v5

The issue is when Myers penalty expired, Stafford should have been released (since his penalty expired first), because at that point, only the Ott penalty was left on the clock, meaning the Sabres should only have been 1 player short (4 skaters + 1 goalie). The Sabres broadcast had the timers right IIRC correctly: they had one 5-on-3 timer expire when Stafford's penalty ended, and then started a new ~20 second 5-on-3 timer until Myers penalty expired, and then just regular power play for the remainder of the Ott penalty.

Stafford is the one that should wait until the stoppage in play to be released and Myers should go to the ice.

At least that is how referees always explained it to me when I was a penalty box attendant.....

KevinFG 01-22-2013 07:57 PM

This whole situation could have been alleviated if there was a pre season game where the Sabres were assessed 7 or 8 penalties in a 3 minute span. In Toronto. So everyone could have gotten it right.

I blame the lockout.

joshmo65 01-23-2013 11:43 AM

I happened to see that Kerry Fraser talked about the miscue in the Pilly game in his blog on TSN.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=414212

Taro Tsujimoto 01-23-2013 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio (Post 58083493)
Stafford is the one that should wait until the stoppage in play to be released and Myers should go to the ice.

Why? Stafford's penalty expired first, so shouldn't Myers have been the one to have to wait until a stoppage?

Mit Yarrum 01-23-2013 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshmo65 (Post 58159045)
I happened to see that Kerry Fraser talked about the miscue in the Pilly game in his blog on TSN.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=414212

That was a good read. Deals directly with the Toronto miscue.

OkimLom 01-23-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taro Tsujimoto (Post 58163829)
Why? Stafford's penalty expired first, so shouldn't Myers have been the one to have to wait until a stoppage?

I think all players in this situation have to wait for a stoppage in play as there wouldve been too many men on the ice.

If stafford was released, and he skated from the box to bench Buffalo would have too many men, I think he had to wait for a stoppage or when Myer's penalty was up. When Myers penalty expired I think thats when Stafford can be released, so there can be a 5 vs 4 and then Myers can come out when there is a whistle and when Ott's is done then Ott can come out like ususal. I could be wrong though.

New Sabres Captain 01-23-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkimLom (Post 58168633)
I think all players in this situation have to wait for a stoppage in play as there wouldve been too many men on the ice.

If stafford was released, and he skated from the box to bench Buffalo would have too many men, I think he had to wait for a stoppage or when Myer's penalty was up. When Myers penalty expired I think thats when Stafford can be released, so there can be a 5 vs 4 and then Myers can come out when there is a whistle and when Ott's is done then Ott can come out like ususal. I could be wrong though.

I think that's what he meant: when Myers penalty ended Stafford should have been released and Myers waiting for the next stoppage.

Ruman Ndur 01-23-2013 07:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7gMDzUyS5c

2:15 of the video - Myers penalty ends

2:45 of the video - Leafs score, Sabres still only have 3 skaters on the ice.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.