Bettman stands by his officials

[OsGOD 3]

I still don't understand how the Stars first goal last game even counted... there was NO SPECULATION by a ficticious plane going up and supposedly striking an ass.... Eriksson was completely 100% without a doubt in the crease... seems fishy

[Guest Crymson]

"You know, you can squawk about that. But to be honest with you, I thought he was still in the way," Stars forward Steve Ott said. "I saw the puck just goes by Marty, but Marty's blocker gets hit by Holmstrom's elbow. Yeah, he's out of the paint, but that doesn't matter. The goalie still has to be able to make a save and be able to do what he does. For that play, I thought it was an extremely close call, but he (Holmstrom) still did nick him (Turco) on the way in."

.... and if this is true, then Marty's blocker was outside of the crease, because definitive overhead replays showed that no part of Homer was in it. So what's the deal, Ott? Should goalies be able to have a safe-zone 50 feet out of the net as well?

What a tool.

[MississippiWing 14]

Guys please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks Bettman's the worst thing to happen to hockey in a long time.

[jvxp 0]

Ott's reply to it was classic....well he was clearly in the way....

Well no sh*t scientist...that is what you do when you screen the goalie.....

Man my hatred for Ott the Downs Syndrome Leprechaun has went through the roof!

now that is funny!!

[Inultus 12]

.... and if this is true, then Marty's blocker was outside of the crease, because definitive overhead replays showed that no part of Homer was in it. So what's the deal, Ott? Should goalies be able to have a safe-zone 50 feet out of the net as well?

What a tool.

Bettman should change his name to Bettwoman, first name Nancy.

[Stevie4Pres 0]

A major problem I have with this article is phrases like "kept his stick from moving" and "knicked his blocker". Since when did these words even creep into the vocabulary of the hockey world. If players can't get "knicked" and are "kept from moving their stick" then what the hell is the point of wearing pads. One of the weakest calls I've ever seen.

Move on and destroy the Stars in game 5. Holmer lights the lamp 10 times, 8 are called back and we win 2-0!!!

[Redwngfan2002 0]

to the right of the article....

Rule 69: Interference on a Goalkeeper

 This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

[BigWinston 15]

IMO, what should have happened is as the puck went in the net, wait for the team conceeding (in this case Dallas) to appeal and send it away for review. AND all goals should be reviewable.

Just because a ref waves his arms, shouldn't be the end of the matter if the puck hit the net.

[jvxp 0]

If we win tomorrow....wait, WHEN WE WIN tomorrow and Bettman comes out on the ice to congratulate us someone should nail him with an octapus.

[CrossCheck24 2]

it sounds like from the rule, that if the goalie makes contact with an opposing player when he is "trying" (really or faking it) to make a save it is a no goal?

Ozzie should just stand next to the nearest player from the stars on saturday and punch them in the head saying he was trying to make a save, its goalie interference and a face-off.

I think impeding his stick, and knicking his blocker falls into the "incidental contact" part of the rule.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

He should stand by his officials. Any organization or rink that doesn't stand by the refs they employ has a serious problem on their hands.

I completely agree. Bettman knows the wrong call was made on that play, but what do you guys seriously expect him to do or say? To the public, he has to stand behind the officiating rather than criticizing it. However, I would think he would say something to the officiating department behind the scenes. Whether its justified or not, if he publicly second-guesses the officials, it just makes the league look bad.

[Dabura 12,232]

As others have said, standing by your officiating doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with them 100% all the time. All "standing by your officials" entails is siding with them on a general, institutional level (e.g. "I believe the NHL has the best officiating system in all pro sports"). Of course Bettman isn't going to publicly question a call, but to say that he absolutely can't if he knows what's good for him is a bit much, imo.

[Guest nutz2u]

Bettman gives me the creeps. Everytime I see him all I can think of is this creep has to be a Pedophile.

[wingslogo19 281]

GST's Take

I don't think we need to worry about there being an epidemic on interference calls, even against our beloved Homer. And to be quite honest, for as good as he is, Homer is also the most prone to actually interfering with the goalie so its live by the sword, die by the sword IMO.

As for Buttman, of course he's going to say "it was the right call". Are we truly surprised? The guy is a ******* idiot and always has been. Nothing to see here, move along.

The call was blown. And I absolutely loved what Mike Babcock said about it all. That Sutherland blew it. Move on.

In one sense Homer got away with it earlier in the series. So IMO this is Karma. I don't think Sutherland or any other ref was trying to make up a call for that one. I just think they flat out missed this call.

And when Babcock said that if a referee blows a call, we all have to live with it, but just don't dream up a make up call. I've always hated the notion that there needs to be a make up call due to a questionable earlier call.

Where I come from, if you f*** up, well then you admit you f***ed up and you move on and try to do a better job. You don't try to "even" things up by making another bad call. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think Babcock was spot on with those comments and its just further proof that we are lucky to have one of the smartest field generals out there. Babcock is just a dream come true for me as a fan. He doesn't gripe and ***** about officiating but he lets it be known what he thinks. And that as a coach, a player or a fan, we need to move on.

I'm not worried about this at all and I don't think there's anything behind it other than the ref just blowing the call completely or feeling as though he needed a "make up call". Hopefully Babs message about make up calls got through to the zebras and we can get on with game 5.

I agree with you there.. Though I will say I think that "make up call" is complete BS.. Oh well, game on

[Sherwood5030 0]

This is what happens when a lawyer from the NBA that has never played a minute of hockey in his life runs the NHL. He is clueless. But I guess he does have to stand by his refs. Further turco put his stick there, and one more thing further the shot was put in the upper left hand corner where his stick would have not been effective anyways... Nice... Maybe marty should check is positioning had he not put his stick between homers skates he could have lifted his blocker... Turco Sucks... As does Bettman

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

He should stand by the refs, but that doesn't he can't be a man, and admit there was a mistake.

Bettman couldn't run a ice cream shop.

[Dabura 12,232]

Bettman couldn't run a ice cream shop.

Can you imagine the flavors? "Lockout Licorice," anyone?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Can you imagine the flavors? "Lockout Licorice," anyone?

Instigator Irish Cream

[FinWing 26]

He should stand by the refs, but that doesn't he can't be a man, and admit there was a mistake.

Bettman couldn't run a ice cream shop.

"Come to Bettman's, ice cream in better shape than ever!"

[edicius 3,269]

I completely agree. Bettman knows the wrong call was made on that play, but what do you guys seriously expect him to do or say? To the public, he has to stand behind the officiating rather than criticizing it. However, I would think he would say something to the officiating department behind the scenes. Whether its justified or not, if he publicly second-guesses the officials, it just makes the league look bad.

On XM, he always goes to his ol' standby phrase to describe the officiating and the NHL as a whole:

"It's a game of mistakes."

I've never quite understood why he continues to say that. I understand what he's TRYING to say (scoring opportunities result from defensive mistakes, etc.) but when he keeps using that as an excuse for the refs, he's making his officials sound incompetent.

[Lazerbeam 13]

Guys please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks Bettman's the worst thing to happen to hockey in a long time.

WOW your just now realizing this?? Bettman has been a complete joke of a commish for the last 8 years! where have you been living? in a cave?

[servo 15]

If we win tomorrow....wait, WHEN WE WIN tomorrow and Bettman comes out on the ice to congratulate us someone should nail him with an octapus.

Bahhh haaa ahhhhhhh!!!!!

[Nightfall 871]

On XM, he always goes to his ol' standby phrase to describe the officiating and the NHL as a whole:

"It's a game of mistakes."

I've never quite understood why he continues to say that. I understand what he's TRYING to say (scoring opportunities result from defensive mistakes, etc.) but when he keeps using that as an excuse for the refs, he's making his officials sound incompetent.

To the winning team, the officials called a good game.

To the losting team, the officials are to blame and sucked. The losing side remembers all the bad calls, the penalities, the called off goals, and so on.

You have to be a true hockey fan and not part of hometown bias to really see the refs in a neutral light. I have seen many hockey games where I had no stake or didn't care how either team did. In those games, you really observe the game differently. Calls the refs make are not put under a microscope. The end result you just acknowledge and the basis on if the game was good or not really depends on what entertainment value you weret here for.

A game of mistakes is pretty damn accurate. To one side, the winning side, there were no mistakes. To the losing side, there were HUGE mistakes and the refs should be fired. Probably not what Bettmen meant though....

[Frozen-Man 144]

He should stand by his officials. Any organization or rink that doesn't stand by the refs they employ has a serious problem on their hands.

IMHO, the NHL has the best officials of all the major sports. For the speed of the game, and so much happening out there, I have to say they do a great job.

I know there are calls we all agree and disagree with. Holmstrom in the blue paint with the deflection that counted as a goal. Morrow with the back foot "kick in" goal that didn't count. This latest no goal call because of interference by Holmstrom. Those are just to name a few. Then you have all the minor penalties that are called or missed in the course of the game.

I ref ice hockey and rollerhockey games at the rec league level and I can say that its all based on perception. Some calls are clear cut and easy to make. Others you see something and your first inclination is to call it, but doubt creeps into your mind afterwards or even after you put your hand up. Its not an easy job, and as a ref you want to make every call 100% correct.

I review the tapes of any game that is recorded by fans or friends if I am reffing. While watching my own tapes there are times I may doubt myself. However, I can say that a vast majority of what I call is correct, which is the key thing. These NHL refs review tapes as well. They are reviewed by the league and discuss the calls with their peers. Adjustments and lessons are learned. In the end however, they are human.

Also, its amazing how the consensus of a game has to do so much with the reffing. If your team wins, then the reffing for the most part was good. If your team loses, the reffing was horrible. Either that or it was the one call that caused your team to lose. Or the one goal that was disallowed. Very very few people see a middle ground. They don't remember the "missed" calls if your team wins 5-2.

Just an observation.

I agree with your statement but not its application. Bettman should stand by the refs but that doesn't mean that he should lie about whether or not a particular call was correct. That does no one, not the league, the players, the refs, or the fans any good. He should stand by his refs by saying that it is a fast paced game, they are the best in the world at their jobs, and that no matter no one will ever get every play right every single time in every single game. The call was wrong and I have not heard anyone but Bettman and the Stars organization say that it was the right call. In my opinion it is just stupid to say that it was the right call when it is obvious that it was the wrong call. Standing by the refs doesn't mean bastardizing the rules to where they no longer matter. If Bettman is right then next time the ref should make the same call and fans, players, refs, and everyone else should expect the call to be made in the future and should be mad if it is not. That is not good for hockey - no one wants this to be the rule but Bettman basically said that in the future that it should be called.

Also, I don't think that people don't remember the missed calls if their team wins 5-2 its that the game wasn't lost because of a missed call so the effect is not the same.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Frozen-Man

[gordie_howe 0]

Now this is what should be called.

And whoever did the typography has bad grammar and spelling.