Nightfall

Can you tell me a situation in any of the major sports, where when a call was screwed up, that the league apologized for the reffing? Hell, remember the Jim Joyce safe call at first? The league didn't apologize. Jim Joyce did though. On MLBs website, they advertised that the Tigers were one out away from a no-hitter. You don't think that is pretty distasteful considering it was human error that resulted in that being called out when he was clearly safe? It seems that NO professional league out there is going to apologize for the reffing. At the same time, they all support their refs 100%. Even when shown it was a blown call, the MLB wouldn't overturn it. There are numerous other examples on youtube that I could show, but I think I made my point. I am not excusing the behavior, but merely saying that this is not just the NHL here. Every major professional sports league has this problem.

Doing a quick search on youtube and google news really doesn't reveal anything like this happening before and the player getting away with it. Some news stories on players getting caught doing it though. I would chock this up to a situation where everyone just missed it. From the way they missed that too many men penalty back in the 09 finals, I am not surprised they missed this one.

I looked for the "shoo" and I didn't see it. Guess I am qualified to be an NHL ref more than I thought. There really was no proof that the refs caught the pens, unless you qualify the linesman saying something to them to which ANYTHING could have been said. I prefer to work with facts, and not opinions when it comes to that. You can bust my chops all you want. Its all good.

I may not a sports fanatic, but I watch a lot of NHL hockey. Heck, I am an alumni of Ferris State and I love to watch college hockey. I get worked up into the games, but when it comes to the reffing, I don't get all worked up as much as I used to. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I ref about 80-100 games a year from adult and youth travel and intermediate/advanced mens league all the way down to squirt and mites. The state of the league doesn't make it unwatchable to me. What makes it frustrating to me are the pieces of technology that we employ in instant replay and the commentators who have access to that replay, that are outperforming the refs on the ice. Every commentator discusses missed calls in every game. The cameras catch everything that the refs miss as well. This just isn't in the NHL, but in MLB and other sports as well. The NBA had a situation where, in a 1 point game with 30 seconds to go, there was a lack of a goaltending call when there should have been one. This call was easy for me to see just by watching the TV, but with the technology they employed, it made it look even more legit. Yet, the refs didn't call it. One team lost due to that lack of a call. When you mention that you find it un-watchable, trust me in that I feel the same ways sometimes. I see the calls more clearly from my TV set sometimes. Yet, we still use this archaic system of having eyes on the ice. It puts the human factor in the spotlight, but then the fans HATE it when something is missed that should have been called. I compare it to the old WWF days when the ref would turn his back and the "bad guy" wrestler would pick up a chair and just hammer someone in the back while the ref wasn't looking. When you break it down though, and just realize that the refs are going to miss things, you learn to manage your frustration even more. When you ref a lot of games, you come to understand why refs miss things. Is that acceptable? No, but I point it out because every sport has this issue right now. All fans of these sports love it when their team wins and get pissed off at the refs if they lose. It could be one ref wasn't calling charging as liberally as the other. It could be because an umpire had a smaller strike zone and Verlander didn't get as many strikeouts. I could go on and on here but you understand my point. Very good catch, I stand corrected on that. It would appear to me that you were right. There were 4 sets of eyes that missed that. Just like there were four sets of eyes that missed the Penguins using 6 people on the power play for over a minute back in 09.

I am glad you posted this, because I feel the same way. I am not going to blame the refs because I understand what they have to go through. They really are setup for failure. If the NHL wants to improve the reffing, then they need to change the reffing system. Its readily apparent that two refs on ice level can't catch everything. The linesmen are not allowed to call as many kinds of penalties as the refs, so I am not counting them. In the meantime, we have things that are missed, diving penalties that are called, and so on that are a stain on the sport. This isn't just limited to NHL hockey either. Look at every professional sport, and you will see that they all have refs that can miss calls or make calls that are very questionable. You have goals called off for interference that isn't there. You have some legit interference calls on goalies that go by the wayside. The only way to really make everyone happy is to fix the system. I know I keep bringing up the platform above ice level where a ref can stand and assess penalties off ice. All goalie interference calls are reviewed. All goals when scored should be reviewed, even if they are called back or allowed. The list goes on and on. I believe the reason why sweeping changes haven't happened is because the human factor remains to be a good discussion around the water cooler. You trying to tell me that we couldn't have eliminated human reffing in most major sports by now? Baseball doesn't need an umpire back behind the plate to call balls and strikes when there are computers that could detect a ball and strike just as easily. There are many other refereeing positions that could have been eliminated with technology by now. The key here is that people, while they get upset at bad refereeing or missed calls, still haven't gotten sick enough where they won't watch the games anymore. These leagues aren't going to change unless the public demands their change. The human factor of reffing really is large enough where this is going to come to a head and things are going to change in all major sports. If you are talking about common sense, then thank you. Oh wait, my sarcasm meter is going off....sorry about that.

Its an explanation that is 100% accurate. Experience counts for a lot. There are many people who change their tune quickly when they put on the stripes and ref a ice hockey game. You can discount it all you want, but like it or not, its an accurate statement. Also, I am not over trivializing it at all. In fact, in the quote you posted, I said 98 times out of 100 it would get caught. I may even go as high as 99 times out of 100, because you don't see this kind of thing except maybe once a season. I agree with you that its shocking that it was missed, but at the same time, it doesn't surprise me because the refs miss things all the time. Back in 09 when the Penguins had 6 people plus the goalie on the ice for that power play, everyone was asking, "How could they miss that?" My answer remains the same, because they are human. Want to see better refereeing? It isn't a question of better refs, but a better system of reffing. You do realize that the linesmen can't blow the whistle and call a penalty like that, correct? http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26320 I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I see your point, and while I don't disagree with it, thinking that the refs should catch everything all the time is an unrealistic expectation. No referee is going to be able to do that.

My point is simply that if something were to happen behind the play, then everyone would be bitching about the fact that they should have seen it. Other things are going on, and if this happens in 100 games, I bet 98 times it will be caught. It was missed this time, and as long as human beings are reffing the games, things are going to be missed. Its a complex concept that many people, who are critical of the refs, don't understand because they have never reffed a game in their lives. There are many important things going on in the game, and you are correct the puck carrier is one of those, but at the same time my point still stands. One ref could have been watching what was going on behind the play while the forward ref could have taken his eye off the play for a second. This kind of thing happens every now and again. Is it excusable? No. Does it happen? Yes. So long as they don't change the way games are reffed, the system will continue to miss things. Which is why when some of these alternate reffing systems were introduced, I was very encouraged. Having an off ice official that had an elevated platform to watch the games and catch more infractions was a great idea.

You do understand that the refs aren't just supposed to be watching the puck or the person playing the puck. There are other things going on in the game.

Yea, 21 straight playoff appearances and 4 cups in the last 15 years. Look at how much of a tragicomedy we have become. /sarcasm

Spoken like someone who has never put on the stripes before and reffed a game. Here is a hint, refs have missed worse. No referee is going to see everything.

Every team should be feared. There are no easy opponents. When you pick your poison, that poison typically beats you. I would rather come out against Chicago and win the game.

People who think I am off base on my "bandwagon fan" talk should read this and reassess.

I wish I was good with photoshop right about now.

Sure, I will elaborate since you asked. If I bailed on the Wings everytime they went down 2-0, I would have missed so many great games. Like the brawl back in 1997, or the Wings beating Colorado in Game 2 of the Conference finals back in 1997. I could understand if they were down by 4 or 5 goals, but 2? Some people here threw in the towel way too quickly and easily.

Pavel at 11 will arrive in time for playoffs. The Wings will win the first two rounds of the playoffs. You heard it here first!

Ah, how quick some of us bail on our team. In all seriousness, the Wings did show some heart this game. Both teams had a lot of chances, and the Blues definitely took advantage of some opportunities. At the same time, so did the Wings late in the game. This had playoff intensity all over it, and the Wings earned the extra point. Two games to go, seal up home ice in the first round!

Meh, Baseball is ok, but it all depends on what you like. I prefer to watch baseball in person. Its nice to be outside, drinking a beer, and watching the game. On TV, its ok, but its not hockey. It always is a long summer for me when the last NHL game is played. I already start looking forward to football, and then preseason hockey.

This is why I always use the /sarcasm tag. Sometimes, people just don't know based on some of the moonbat responses I have read.

All depends on their core group of players. Radulov has already left for a few years. Weber may be on his way out too and may be looking for a big payday when he does. Seems that most of the Wings players don't leave for greener pastures because they already know they are taking that pay cut to play for a winner. The last high profile player that left was Hossa, and he signed a 12 year deal in Chicago for money that we couldn't afford to pay him.

You are right, the Wings will be a player. Holland will have the cash, but the bigger question is, will Suter or Parise take lower than market money to play for a contender? Some players are willing, and others are not. Hell, if I was a Parise, and I had the choice of making $36 million over 6 years for New Jersey or making $30 million over 6 years for the Wings, I would go with the Wings. For the Wings I am going to have six chances to win the Cup, whereas for New Jersey, I may make the playoffs six years in a row but thats about it.

Dammit, I liked it better when I could count on one finger how many times I agreed with you since you joined back in 2007. This is the 4th time. I agree with this. Its not realistic to expect cup or bust from any team. You figure if you make the Conference finals, only 3 other teams have made it that far. Thats in the new NHL where the teams are so close in terms of talent. I personally would consider this team a success if they made it to the conference finals.

I have to agree. I have had NHL Center Ice and this year I have NHL Gamecenter Live. There is always a hockey game on, and while I love watching the Wings, watching other games on their off nights is enjoyable. The cost for Gamecenter Live is $160 a year, and that gets me everything. I stream from my computer to my TV, as well as from my PS3 to my TV in the living room. I also like streaming from my Ipad while in the bedroom too. Its a great deal. Sounds like we will have to agree to disagree. You get what you pay for, and $160 is very reasonable for all out of market games. Sorry that you can't afford it.

The fans also expect a cup or its a failed season. This is all part of winning 4 cups the last 15 years. Just based on what I have seen so far, I will consider a conference finals exit to be an overachieving season. 2nd round is more realistic.

As long as people are going to publicly quit on this team, I am going to be happy to show them the door. Sorry, thats just the way I work. I will do my best to keep my comments on this limited though. Based on what I have seen from Wings teams past, I would say that a 2nd round exit is more realistic. Seems that they historically always pick it up come playoff time.

I would rather discuss and be critical of the team with other fans. Not with quitters. Thats just me though.