Bettman stands by his officials

[Frozen-Man 144]

As leader of an organization you have to publicly stand by your officials. If he is worth his salt he is dealing with it behind the scenes.

Banning screens pretty much guarantees we go back to the old days of 1-0 games all the time, which is the opposite of what Bettman wants. Let's hope he realizes it.

Again I think he can stand by his officials (stating they are the best in the world) without calling red blue just because the ref accidentally called it blue. Thats just a silly thing for him to do.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Did Bettman say anything about his prediction for the winner of the horse race tomorrow?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

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.

Wonderfully stated.

I'm going to address your last paragraph first. It's a lot like the ridiculous "Media Bias Against the Detroit Red Wings (or *Insert Your Favorite Team Here*)" syndrome. Basically, if an announcer doubts the Red Wings/your favorite team or gives excuses to the other team losing, even if those doubts about the Red Wings/other team are fairly legit, that means MEDIA OUTLET/ANNOUCER BAD. Throw everything in reverse, then ANNOUCER GOOD. No if's, and's, or but's. Basically it's almost impossible in here lately for a media outlet to have uncertainties about the Red Wings without being labeled a basher or that media outlet being retarded when the source is still probably very knowledgable. It's really pitiful to see fan response to this in here sometimes. There can be a middle ground in this, much like what you are describing with trying to officiate.

I have some experience being a sports official for games of soccer and basketball years ago when I was in college, and I officiated games at a much slower level than professionally (but to where the players still knew how to play the game and were respectable playing, etc.). It definitely wasn't easy for me then and at that level. I certainly made my fair share of bad calls. I've said it multiple times and I'll repeat that while I didn't like the call against Holmstrom, I can't blame the referee for calling the no-goal trying to make a heat-of-the-moment judgment decision. I'm more frustrated that such an occasion isn't reviewable to get the call 100% correct or as close to 100% accurate as possible.

What do you all expect Bettman to do, not stand by his officials? I understand perhaps maybe saying you didn't think a call was right, but Bettman is the commissioner of the league no matter how much we piss and moan. You expect him to put down his own league that he runs? That's ridiculous. That is like a CEO putting his/her own company down. Bettman is going to publicly stroke the league's ego as best he can and say that everything is hunky-dory towards the public, that's part of his job doing PR. As a few have thankfully at least reecognized and are aware of, he's not going to be involved in negative public relations when he runs the league, that's stupid.

And before somebody tells me to lay off the peace pipe, I will also emphasize again that Bettman is far from my favorite and I still say the call on the no-goal was bogus. I'm just trying to give more insight than just saying BETTMAN BAD or the 12-year old immature cursing explicatives toward him without any other insight.

[Dabura 12,207]

it's almost impossible in here lately for a media outlet to have uncertainties about the Red Wings without being labeled a basher or that media outlet being retarded when the source is still probably very knowledgable.

You're missing the point.

As Frozen-Man said, nothing positive can come from Bettman saying the call was the right one -- because it absolutely, unequivocally, 100% was not. The officials themselves said as much when they didn't challenge the Stars' first goal, which, in light of the call against Homer, absolutely, unequivocally, 100% should have been called off, as it was a textbook example of what the officials were claiming Homer was doing in that particular instance (i.e. being in the crease, interfering with the goaltender).

This is about more than the Wings and Game 4. This is about a precedent that, in the long run, will only serve to deepen the hole the NHL has dug for itself in terms of marketability, respectability, and overall viability relative to the other professional sports leagues and their respective markets. The precedent is that a wholly erroneous call is, apparently, wholly correct. At worst, this sets the stage for a world of s***. At the very least, this is another bruise on the face of the NHL -- and in a broader sense, hockey in general.

Bad stuff. Just really, really bad stuff.

[miller76 463]

" The Red Wings again? ahh, I was hoping for my Predators"

[Aeothe Kaear 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.

Exactly! What a bunch of *******. Some of us remember when hockey used to be a contact sport.

And I don't care if the media has been selling it since it happened, there was nothing wrong with the Holmstrom screen in Game 1 either. Incidental contact, suck it up. Anaheim scored half their goals in the WCF last year by interfering with Dom a hell of a lot more than that.

Meanwhile, Detroit lost Game 4 because they weren't good enough and Dallas wanted it more, but that garbage sure didn't help.

[eva unit zero 271]

You're missing the point.

As Frozen-Man said, nothing positive can come from Bettman saying the call was the right one -- because it absolutely, unequivocally, 100% was not. The officials themselves said as much when they didn't challenge the Stars' first goal, which, in light of the call against Homer, absolutely, unequivocally, 100% should have been called off, as it was a textbook example of what the officials were claiming Homer was doing in that particular instance (i.e. being in the crease, interfering with the goaltender).

This is about more than the Wings and Game 4. This is about a precedent that, in the long run, will only serve to deepen the hole the NHL has dug for itself in terms of marketability, respectability, and overall viability relative to the other professional sports leagues and their respective markets. The precedent is that a wholly erroneous call is, apparently, wholly correct. At worst, this sets the stage for a world of s***. At the very least, this is another bruise on the face of the NHL -- and in a broader sense, hockey in general.

Bad stuff. Just really, really bad stuff.

Bettman has to say that the call is good.

Why?

Because it is a discretion call and a judgement call. If, in the referee's judgement, the player interfered with the goaltender's attempt to make a save while the goaltender was in his crease, goaltender interference can be called. Typically, it isn't, but to say that it was absolutely the wrong call for the situation is not accurate. I wouldn't have called it, but Sutherland clearly felt Holmstrom's conduct and positioning directly impaired Turco's ability to attempt the save. On this level, regardless of whether Bettman himself feels the call should have been made, he has to trust his ref. If it becomes a series of questionable calls involving the same ref, that is a different issue. but Sutherland is typically considered one of the league's better refs and I don't remember the last time his name was mentioned with regards to a blown call.

It's like if, on a 3-on-1 against Pittsburgh, Lidstrom decides to cover Malkin tighter than he covers Orpik. Crosby then dishes the puck to Orpik, who manages to score because Lidstrom is cheating towards Malkin. Obviously, Lidstrom made a judgement call. Obviously, it directly resulted in a goal against. Do you think Babcock will say 'Lidstrom obviously should have covered Orpik and left Malkin more open' or do you think he's more likely to back up Nick's judgement, even if it ultimately resulted in a goal against?

Sutherland cheated towards Malkin, making the judgement he felt was the most accurate. The way the league is set up right now, he can't turn around and say 'oops, I was wrong, it's a goal' and that's a problem, but it doesn't make Bettman a ****** or an ass or anything else for backing up one of his best refs' judgement calls.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

You're missing the point.

As Frozen-Man said, nothing positive can come from Bettman saying the call was the right one -- because it absolutely, unequivocally, 100% was not. The officials themselves said as much when they didn't challenge the Stars' first goal, which, in light of the call against Homer, absolutely, unequivocally, 100% should have been called off, as it was a textbook example of what the officials were claiming Homer was doing in that particular instance (i.e. being in the crease, interfering with the goaltender).

This is about more than the Wings and Game 4. This is about a precedent that, in the long run, will only serve to deepen the hole the NHL has dug for itself in terms of marketability, respectability, and overall viability relative to the other professional sports leagues and their respective markets. The precedent is that a wholly erroneous call is, apparently, wholly correct. At worst, this sets the stage for a world of s***. At the very least, this is another bruise on the face of the NHL -- and in a broader sense, hockey in general.

Bad stuff. Just really, really bad stuff.

What good would have come of him saying the call was wrong? This means the credibility of the referees would be in question then.

And I would not be worried about an instance such as this "marring" the NHL in terms of respectability. It's not going away, it will continue to have a majority of its hardcore fans, etc. This will do little/nothing to deter any new fans from joining the sport more in-depth.

[Nightfall 871]

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.

I think the reason why he doesn't come out and say that is it would give ammunition to the side that lost to ***** about it even more. Imagine if the NHL came out and admitted that Hull's skate was in the crease when Dallas won the cup in Game 6 against the Sabres. Could you imagine the backlash against the NHL for admitting such a mistake?

Making these calls is a split second decision just based on what the ref sees at the time. Its not easy to make a call when the game is played that fast. You say that the ref should make the same call and the fans should expect the call to be made. Well, its easy if you are an armchair fan watching the game on the television. On the ice, its a different story. If you put 10 refs on the ice for the Holmstrom goal, maybe 7 of them would allow the goal. The other 3 disallow it. Bastardizing the refs here is NOT the answer. Pointing out calls they "should have had" and saying they were wrong isn't the answer.

Course, I like actually hearing the refs are human and make mistakes, but die hard fans don't want to hear that. Die hard fans just want to see their teams win.

What should be done is the refs should be taken into training in the off season, like they do every year, and shown what should be done. Still, in the end, the human element of judgement is what dictates the calls in a game. Its for that reason why its a best of 7 series. That way, one game where the "calls go against you" is just that. One game. The Wings have outplayed the Stars 3 games in a row.

[Dabura 12,207]

Just to be clear: I'm not surprised that Bettman's backing his officials, and I can't say I really blame him. However, I do think there's something wrong with the situation. I also think it's a bit provincial to say it will have no real impact on the sport (granted, I'm thinking more along the lines of a compounding effect -- as in, further degrading Bettman's public image and, by extension, that of the league).

As I and others have said, there's nothing to say he can't praise the work of the NHL's officials on a general level ("We have the finest officiating blah blah blah....") while still acknowledging the nuances of this particular call, all while staying "within the bounds" of his role as commissioner.

Instead, he took the ivory tower approach. Just my opinion, but I think the league could use less of that.

[LivoniaGrinder 37]

I would rather they just review s*** like this and get it right. I mean, when it's an important goal like a "first blood" goal or a gamewinner and the call is blown sooo obviously bad there should be a review and the correct call should be made. Even if it goes against the Wings, I might be pissed that it happened, but I'm a lot less pissed off than when something horrible like this happens and they get STRIPPED of a legitimate goal that could have set the tone of the game and worked to crush the Stars come-back hopes. Now we have to crush their throats with the Detroit boot heel in Game 5 (provided we don't have to play the refs again as well this game).

And yeah, let me cast my vote for the "Buttman is a mental dwarf, run him out on a rail" movement as well.

Go WINGS! Bring the cup home to Hockeytown!

[marcaractac 3,963]

The way I see it, if it is a clear cut play, call it. If the nref has doubt or is unsire, don't call it. Like Babs said, there is no need for the refs to make s*** up, which is what they did in game 5. There was absolutely no interference. For Bettman to say the right call was made tells me he should NOT be involved with this game at all. No rules need to be changed to fix this at all. Everyone is all like the rules need changing!! Or, they say you have to draw the line somewhere, you can review everything it slows down the game. First thing I must say, review all you want, it can't get any slower than baseball haha. But anyway, the best course of action for the league I think is to give each team one challenge per game. If that was the case, in game 1 the penalty that would put Detroit up 5 on 3 in the first period would have probably be challenged, and in game 4 that no goal call would have been challenged, and we all now it would have been a goal. The challenge thing works for the NFL, why wouldn't it work for hockey? The Wings could have also challenged that goal San Jose scored when the puck was in the netting in the reg. season. I personally think it is the only way to solve the problem. That way, the ref still gets control (unless the play is challenged) and it gives the coach that extra thing to have contro, over in a game. It would work.

[RedRockit 0]

Just wanted to put my tuppence in and thank everyone for such great replies.

Lurrve LGW for the knowledgeable hockey talk. I'm a better, more informed fan because of threads such as this one.

(my SabreFiend bud can't believe we (LGW) are not referring to Bettmann as PeeWee Herman-- she's been calling him that for years, sez they were separated at birth)

[Louisville 112]

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.

HUH?

Anyway, looks like your more of a cheater than anybody Mr. Ott

[Frozen-Man 144]

What good would have come of him saying the call was wrong? This means the credibility of the referees would be in question then.

And I would not be worried about an instance such as this "marring" the NHL in terms of respectability. It's not going away, it will continue to have a majority of its hardcore fans, etc. This will do little/nothing to deter any new fans from joining the sport more in-depth.

So instead of the credibilty of one referee on one call being questioned (which I still say isn't true anyway, no one thinks or expects that the refs get it right every time - that would be impossible - he missed the call big deal) the entire rule has to mean something it doesn't mean just so it appears that our refs are perfect. It matters Bettman saying that it was the wrong call because it would be honest, it shows greater support for the rules and the refs to say yep the call was missed, its a game and thats how it goes, our refs are are the best in the world and get it right most of the time and when a call is missed, which will sometimes happen, that too is part of the game and both teams need to continue to play knowing that the calls made as best we can and they are part of hockey. That would have accomplished several things: 1) allowed Mr. Bettman to be honest and truthful about the rule; 2) showed respect for the rules of the game; 3) taken away most of the controversy over the call because they acknowledged that it wasn't the correct call but told the players to deal with the breaks of the game; 4) allowed players to understand and be better able to comply with the rules rather than wonder if the rule means what is written or if it can randomly mean whatever that particular ref wants it to mean at any given moment; and finally 5) it would have shown that we have a game of people who are man enough to own up to mistakes that they make instead of the ref giving a totally absurd explanation that no one belives and then having it backed up by the Commissioner when everyone (even those defending his actions) think that he was dishonest about the call but "had to" in order to save face and support his refs. I will never understand why anyone should lie about a call just so that the refs feel supported. They make a lot of money to make the calls and they overall do a great job, so they blew it, who cares, man up admit the mistake and move on its not a big deal but the dishonesty bothers me.

[Avalanche Warning 0]

There are plenty of people on here who bad mouth Bettman (usually for a good reason), but you should all take into consideration that the year he stepped in as commissioner, the Wings became one of the best teams in the league and have been ever since. I find it hard to believe that "Bettman hates the Red Wings" when this team hasn't missed the playoffs since he's arrived.

[PaVel DaTsYuK fan13 0]

From Bettmans interpretation of the rule Marty could stand at the blue line and if homer was standing by his stick, the goal would be discounted.

It's unbelievable a guy with as little hockey knowledge as Gary runs this league.

Go back to the NBA!!!

[Dabura 12,207]

There are plenty of people on here who bad mouth Bettman (usually for a good reason), but you should all take into consideration that the year he stepped in as commissioner, the Wings became one of the best teams in the league and have been ever since. I find it hard to believe that "Bettman hates the Red Wings" when this team hasn't missed the playoffs since he's arrived.

Again, this isn't about big bad Bettman being out to get the Wings.

Frozen-Man is right on the money.

[Sgt. Angry 23]

Sorry, but I'm still super-pissed about that no-goal call. It has changed the whole complexion of the series. If the Wings somehow lose this, it will be at the Joe, and it would be fine with me if Bettman had to truly worry about his safety, just as Clarence Campbell had to at the Forum back in the 1950's when he suspended Richard. (although I can't imagine many Wings fans smuggling produce and eggs into the Joe.)

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Sorry, but I'm still super-pissed about that no-goal call. It has changed the whole complexion of the series. If the Wings somehow lose this, it will be at the Joe, and it would be fine with me if Bettman had to truly worry about his safety, just as Clarence Campbell had to at the Forum back in the 1950's when he suspended Richard. (although I can't imagine many Wings fans smuggling produce and eggs into the Joe.)

And the goal they allowed earlier in the series (was that game 1?) when Homer was clearly in the crease and pretty clearly in Turco's way, also changed the complexion of the series.

If the Wings lose this after being up 3-0, it's their own damn fault and they don't deserve to play for the Stanley Cup after such a horrific collapse.

But I think they're going to close it out tonight.