Sidney Crosby deflects game-winner in 4-3 win over Sabres

by FrankD on Dec 22, 2008 11:45 PM EST in Game Recaps Comment 8 comments

(Video of "questionable" goal available after the jump)

For the Sabres perspective check out Die By the Blade

Did you hear? The Penguins' power play converted on 100% of their chances against the Sabres.

Don't believe me, huh? Well it's true.

So what if they only had one chance all night on behalf of a well-disciplined Buffalo Sabres team? That's just a prime example of taking one team's mistake and turning it into an opportunity of your own.

Also, if you haven't heard by now, Sidney Crosby is the NHL's Golden Boy. For the next day or so you'll likely hear stories of how Crosby's goal was not legal and Gary Bettman himself was in the Toronto War Room with a gun to the replay judge's head.

"It's a goal," Bettman said, cocking back the hammer. "Right?"

"Yes sir."

Say what you will about the goal, but the refs didn't wave it off right away and the Versus staff seemed pretty convinced it was legit as well. Rest assured you won't hear any complaints from this blog - the Pens need any win they can get and I'll gladly watch them steal it like that.

Props to Alex Goligoski and his two-goal night. His shots didn't rocket off the stick like a Gonchar slapper would but the wrist shot hit the target with dead-eye precision.

Marc-Andre Fleury also looked sharp in net despite giving up a goal one minute into the game. If the Penguins' offense won the game then Fleury kept them in it.

And by Penguins' offense I mean Gary Bettman of course...

Thanks to EmptyNetters for finding the goal clip

The good: Marc-Andre Fleury's ability to keep the Pens in it.

The better: Kris Letang made some great plays on loose pucks that you'll never read about on a stat sheet.

The best: Alex Goligoski's two goals.

The hero: Sidney Crosby's deflection.

Next game: Tomorrow. Lightning. 7:30.

Poll

Was it a legal goal?

Yes

54 votes

No

12 votes

Inconclusive

21 votes

87 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 8 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’ve watched the clip too many times, without the magic ‘slow stuff down and make it really big’ machine I cannot see goal or non-goal. I’m sure that if I had been watching it in real time I would have seen for true goal cuz that is what I would have been wishin’ for. I cannot vote.

by AngelaMc on Dec 23, 2008 12:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Another great call from Toronto

Sid’s stick was level with his shoulders, his shoulders are above the crossbar. No goal. You don’t need a good camera angle to figure that out.

Hey, Engblom, the referee wasn’t lining himself up to make the call on the high stick – he was ducking because if 87 missed the deflection the puck heading in his direction.

by hotdog88gt on Dec 23, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nothin’ washes down a tough loss like some hateorade.

by PensFan024 on Dec 23, 2008 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s ok, I was waiting for these types of comments.

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com

by FrankD on Dec 23, 2008 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aside from my comments directed at any talking head on Versus, there’s no hate here. I hate to see games decided by lousy calls like this. The referees is on no position to make the call because he’s ducking the oncoming puck.

If I’m in Toronto, I see the puck his Sid’s stick at shoulder level and it’s ‘no goal’. Of course, it’s a good goal if (1) Brian Gionta is the person who deflects the puck at shoulder height, or (2) it’s Sidney Crosby on national TV who deflects the puck with a high stick.

by hotdog88gt on Dec 23, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m definitely with ya. I felt the same way about Dany Sabourin’s stacked-pad save against the Islanders back on 11/8. If the ruling on the ice would’ve been ‘no goal’ then I’m pretty positive it would have stuck since there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest it was or wasn’t either way. Since the call on the ice was goal however, I think that’s why it stuck.

Tough break for the Sabres, no doubt, but a much needed one for the Pens.

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com

by FrankD on Dec 23, 2008 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Inconclusive

It has to be 100% sure it was a high stick to overturn the call, so the right call was made as a goal.

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Dec 23, 2008 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Really close

Too close to reverse the call on the ice. The best angle I saw looked like it made contact with his stick near — but not sure whether above or below — crossbar level.

These are tough ones, but the system worked the way it should: Ref makes his best effort, multiple replays “correct” it if possible and/or necessary. Fortunately the replay system requires “conclusive” proof — so just like with the Sabourin pad-stack, we can’t make a deductive call like “Crosby is XX tall, it was at his bicep/shoulder/wherever, therefore the puck was XX high.”

To me, digesting these comes down to the spirit of it: The rule is in place to keep guys from wielding their sticks crazily in dangerous areas near players’ heads. Crosby clearly wasn’t doing that, so if he deflects it in and it in reality happened to be inconclusively above the crossbar but there’s no way of knowing, then no one is “wronged.” It’s just the luck of the hockey gods.

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Dec 23, 2008 2:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs