Nightfall

Duncan Keith won last year, and he didn't have the highest point total or the largest plus/minus either. The writers apparently liked the defense he played last year. Chara won the year before that, and he was 13th in point totals and didn't lead in plus/minus that season either. Heck, Lidstrom had a plus 31 that season and didn't win the award. I think Lids has a good chance to win the award this year, but I would not be surprised to see it go to Yandle or Visnovsky. They both have a solid plus minus, and Yandle is getting a lot of attention out of Phoenix this year. Who knows though. The writers have a lot of say into this.

This is just the reason why the NHL put this in the rules. There were certain players who were good about just tossing the puck out of play. This rule stopped those players from doing it. Oh, and the rec hockey league I play in has the same rule. I like it personally.

Yea, when I read that, I almost threw up in my mouth. At least they aren't making their own "believe" patch or anything like that. Still, the playoffs are the best month and a half of hockey. I can't wait!

Either way, west coast games which means not much sleep for those of us who have to wake up early in the morning. Also, if the Hawks and Canucks played in the first round, I would probably say the Hawks would win the series. Am I the only one that thinks Vancouver could find themselves going home after the first round?

There are no favorable matchups in the playoffs. If Vancouver has to play the Hawks in the first round, I would not be surprised to see them pull the upset. In short, the team that wants it more is going to win the series. Just like in any stanley cup playoff series. I don't see Detroit taking 2nd place, but it could happen. The issue is that Detroit has to play against 2 teams that need points to ensure they get a playoff spot. Carolina is going to be a tough game. Same goes for both games against the Hawks. Still, they win 2 of their last 3 they could find themselves in that 2nd spot. My prediction 1. Vancouver 2. San Jose 3. Detroit 4. Nashville 5. Phoenix 6. Los Angeles 7. Anaheim 8. Chicago

There are no easy teams to play in the playoffs. Imagine Vancouver right now. They are winning the presidents trophy and have to play Anaheim or Chicago in the first round. You don't think they are sweating it out either?

Welcome to LGW by the way. The place where "true wings fans" dump on their team through the tough times and the non-cup winning years, and then take credit as true fans when they win. You sound surprised when you see this behavior. Hell, its commonplace around here.

Legit complaints I have no issue with. Declaring the team dead and buried is bandwagon talk. Just my .02 cents. Obviously, I forgot the sarcasm tags for people who are slow. Excuse that oversight.

As a ref, I can tell you if anyone gets chirpy with me on a personal level, they could get an additional 2 minutes or a misconduct depending on what is said.

Sounds to me that you need to go join letsgocanucks.com Don't be afraid, many wings fans jumped on the chicago bandwagon last season. The only problem is that they came back here after they cut a lot of salary.

I really cried when I read this.

At least we have one forum member who is 100% honest.

Rag on? Yes. To find faults with the Wings? Thats fine too because every team has them. Consider the season to be over and saying that the Wings are going anywhere? Thats another thing.

I believe that the bandwagon fans will leave this forum and go somewhere else. I believe that those that are counting us out of the season should just cancel their accounts and go somewhere else. What a bunch of pansies. Seriously, one bad game and everyone is hitting the panic button? Oh, and one last thing.... I believe in the Red Wings. Always have, always will.

Wow, one bad game and the bandwagon Wings fans are jumping off. Please delete your account off the site and go join the ranks of the Canucks. Some members on this site are an absolute embarrassment to real Wings fans who back their team.

This I can agree with. I would rather have them call everything to be honest. It opens the game up for skilled players to do their thing. I would rather not go back to the days of hooking, clutching, and grabbing. Saw too much of that and hated it.

Put on the stripes and find out. Even at the lowest level of hockey, calls get missed by even the best refs. How is that possible, two things make it possible. 1. Perception is everything. 2. Human error If a ref doesn't see it, he doesn't call it. If a ref sees it, and doesn't perceive it to be a penalty, there is no call. In the meantime, the others watching the game from the stands get to perceive it a different way. Then you have the TV audience that gets the benefit of slow motion replay which compounds the issue. The ideal ref would have a Tivo built into his skull, a few cameras in the stands, and the ability to stop time and replay things on the fly. Then you will get no missed calls and everything will be 100% accurate. As for the play that resulted in a goal and Howards injury. If I was the ref, I could have called that either way. Depends on the perception of goalie interference. Without the benefit of instant replay, it could be perceived that the defender pushed the player into Howard. With the benefit of instant replay, its obvious to me at least the player fell into Howard. You want to see consistency with goalie interference calls? I think the waving off of goals due to goalie interference calls should be reviewable. Homer has been ripped off a couple times this season and countless others in the past. That is one change they should make.

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting "black and white rules" for "perception of the rule". Its not like slashing, tripping, hooking, etc. are not in the rulebook or are a "grey area". Either it happened or it didn't. Some people just look at a situation and determine a different thing. Case in point, if a ref sees a player hit someone on the back of the leg, and the player falls down, is it tripping or slashing? Was it a dive by the player? All these things have to be decided in a second. The rulebook says it would be slashing, but it could be interpreted as tripping, and it also could be diving if the ref saw the slash and determined that it wasn't hard. Another case could be a hooking call. A player gets hooked and falls to the ice, and you call a penalty. Later on tape you see that the player that fell had a hold of the defending players stick and dove. Oops, you made a mistake. How many times have you seen that happen in the course of a season? 20? 30 times? I watch a lot of hockey and see that at least that much. All these rules, in my experience, are black and white. Its just the situations that they are in happen so fast and the timing of the calls have to come so quick that you can't expect perfection. I would say that the refs get the calls right a good 75% of the time. Yet, there are the 1-2 penalties per game that I look at and groan with Mickey or I begrudgingly agree with Mickey if its a benefit to the wings.

I totally agree with you on the goal reviews. Every goal, especially waving off a goal, should be reviewed IMHO. It shouldn't take 3-5 minutes per goal. Maybe just 30 seconds to determine that the puck did go in and it was a good goal. Especially goals that are called off because of interference. Those should be mandatory for a review. I also agree with you on the "intent to blow the whistle", even though I have done that in the past. Goalie has it covered, I blow the whistle and just as I do the puck goes in the net. I should have a right as a ref to call it back because I lost sight of it and the puck went in as I was bringing the whistle up to my mouth. In terms of the black and white rules, they are in black and white terms. The issue is that it is all based on perception, so I don't know where you are going with this suggestion. Could you give a couple examples of rules that are "interpreted differently"? I am looking through my USA hockey rulebook, and every rule is black and white. The issue on the table is PERCEPTION. For instance, if you see someone get hit from behind, and you have a second to decide and call a penalty, only to find out that they were tripped by someone on their own team and fell into someone from behind, thats a wrong call to make. Same goes for goalie interference. If you see an offensive player fall into the goalie and you call something, then you find out that the defender hit him in the back of the leg and thats how they fell into the goalie, you are making the wrong call. It all comes down to how a referee sees the play, and with so many things happening, they can't see it all. I think you will find that all rules are black and white. The only issue is that the situations happen so fast that a ref can't possibly catch everything. As you see by instant replay, people at home can catch more than the ref can. You aren't going to get consistency with reffing unless you replace the human being with a robot. Even if you put the ref in a up high position above the ice, you won't get the same calls in a game that is played. Thats just the nature of the beast. The referee is there to enforce the rules and keep the game under control. You say they shouldn't swing the favor for one team or another. Well, the players do that on their own. If players are playing on the edge and taking more penalties, would you call that the referee swinging control to the other team? No, obviously not. Let me know about these rules that are not black and white that you complain about. I would like to hear about them.

Calm down cowboy. I asked you to make some recommendations as to what you would change. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. So what changes would you make to the system to make it better and faster? You spoke a good line there, but offered no specifics. I am eagerly awaiting your reply. Speaking of putting words in peoples mouths, I said it would be 30 minutes longer (total of 3 hours if you would have taken the opportunity to read what I wrote) not "hours longer" like you said. Also, calling me out to be a ref homer because I am looking to improve the game as well? Come on man. So I guess in the "putting words in your mouth" statement applies to you as well. Not that you will apologize for it.... Lets discuss how we can make reffing better here. At least I brought ideas to the table with specifics.

The system is fixable, you are right on that. Replaying a game as fast as it is would add on a lot of extra time to get every call right. I tend to think that a ref that is watching television or standing above the play would to better thant he refs on the ice. Once again, the hockey purists would have a field day with changing the system. Also, could you stand being at a game that is 3 hours in length because every play has to be reviewed? I can understand why they don't want to add instant replay. On Berts hit last night? Thats a good instance of instant replay. During the game, going to the attendant every time to check to see if it was a penalty? That just adds a ton of extra time. Just remember that every system you put in place is going to bite your team at the same time. How many calls have the Wings gotten away with this year? Then who are you going to blame? IMHO, the only way to make the reffing system better is to change it. Have one ref standing above the glass watching the play. The combine PROVED that worked! Why won't they institute that? As for the coaches and players not discussing the reffing, I agree on that. If there is a disagreement with the reffing, take it up with the league office. That is the way it is done in USA hockey at the lowest level. That is the way it should be done at the highest level as well. Bad mouthing refs should be fined. What should be allowed is an evaluation of the refs and the situation. I know I have been brought into those from time to time. One situation happened a year ago in a JV game when there was a check from behind, which I called. I gave a 5 minute because I felt there was an intent to injure. Instead of the coach going off at the public about how dumb the call was, he went to the league office and there was an inquiry opened. Tape of the game was shown and I had to explain my call, which I did. In the end, the call was explained and what I did was right. I guess I would like to hear what you propose to improve the game without adding on 3-5 minutes in between puck drops to analyze the play. Maybe during commercial breaks the refs see the highlights of the game from toronto to evaluate possible penalties? Can they give them out at that time? What about the ref above the ice level?

You have the benefit of slow motion and instant replay. If you really want to put yourself in a position of being a ref, follow these situations. You are on the ice and see something happen. You have an instant to make a call or not make one. You have no benefit from instant replay. What do you do? Its all about perception. Odds are, if anyone is put in that situation, there are going to be good calls and bad calls. The Wings have benefitted and gotten screwed a couple times this season from both sides. As a ref, there are sometimes I wish I had the ability to slow time down and rewind plays in my head. Then I would be the best ref in the game.

I have been a USA hockey referee for a few years now. Back when I first got my start, I can tell you that it was not as easy as I thought. I really enjoy it which is why I continue to do it. Perception is everything, and you won't catch everything that happens in the course of a game. Some things you do call will be totally wrong. Even the best referees in the world don't get every call right. All these things being said, I have also found in my travels that the team that wins doesn't complain about the reffing as much as the team that loses. Sure, they both complain, but the one that gets the short end of the stick always complains. This is never going to change. There are many calls the Wings have gotten where nothing has happened. All wings fans praise and love these calls. Others go against the Wings for nothing, and the fans ***** about the reffing and how its a conspiracy. So, let me get this straight. If a call goes for the Wings where the Wings didn't get tripped or just fall on accident, its ok. If a call goes against the Wings where someone fell and the Wings weren't involved, its reffing failure? I don't subscribe to reffing conspiracy theories. There are going to be missed calls in the progression of the game. There are going to be calls that shouldn't be called in the progression of the game. Human beings are going to perceive things differently. Now that you have television in the mix where you can slow down and really analyze the play, every call can be questioned. I believe the NHL has the best professional hockey refs. At the same time though, they perform like any other ref would perform. When the game is played at that high of a level, mistakes are going to happen. If the NHL was hell bent on fixing those mistakes, they would change the reffing system. For instance, one of the things they tried at the combine this year was one ref on the ice while the other ref is standing on a platform overlooking the glass. Both refs can call penalties. What they found was that the ref up high caught more legit penalties than the ref on the ice. I am all for a system like this to be honest with you, but the hockey purists would not be happy. In closing, there are a couple things I want to point out.... 1. I firmly believe before you get upset with the refs, you should put the stripes on and ref. It really opens your eyes to the world of refereeing and you will see, even at the rec league level, that it isn't as easy as you thought it would be. Even you will make mistakes, even after years of reffing. 2. I also firmly believe that the best team always wins in the end. The refs didn't screw the Wings out of the game last night. The Wings defense went to sleep on the two goals that Chicago scored in the game. The Wings were lucky to get to OT last night thanks to the bank shot off of the defenseman's skate. 3. As for the playoffs, I also believe that the best team wins a 7 game series. The refs may make a bad call which results in one team winning a game, but things always seem to work out. A team down 2-0 in a series will turn it on to make it a series if they want it bad enough. The refs don't decide 7 game series, the players do. That is all....

This I agree with 100%.

Goaltending is always going to be a question mark to people in Detroit. You name any goalie in our last 4 cup championship teams, and all of them have been under the magnifying glass. Even after they win a cup, no respect is given to them. This is the way it is always going to be in Detroit. Even last year when Howard was solid in net and helping us get into the playoffs, people here and other Wings fans I know never gave him any credit. Today, its no different. If Howard plays amazing, it is what he is supposed to do. Anything less, and its horrible. Being as that no goalie plays at that high of a level every game, there is no goalie who is good enough to goaltend in Detroit.