Let's keep track: How many games the refs call late penalties

[stormboy 47]

alright, we all seem to think that the refs are calling penalties against the winning team late in games to try to even things up to make things more exciting. i thought we could emperically test this and see if we notice any trends. you can only tell so much from box scores -- you can obviously see what penalties are called, but without watching the game you have no way of knowing whether the calls were legit or not.

even if no one else posts in this thread, i'm going to keep it updated (unless it gets deleted ) every once and a while. please add your thoughts about specific games as they occur. bolded games are games in which there seems to be an opportunity for the refs to attempt to swing the game, italicized games are games in which, in my opinion, an argument could be made that the refs attempted to make the game more exciting by showing a bias for the trailing team.

i'll go back for the last few days:

17 november.

ott. 1 vs. nyr 2 (SO). both teams were 0/3 on the power play, and as the game was tied for most of the third period, i see little evidence. there was a penalty on ott. a few minutes before new york tied it up, but it's hard to make a case here.

van 1 vs. nyi 2 (SO). again, i see little evidence though little opportunity for this theory here. tied for about 30 minutes and was tied since before the end of the second.

det. 4 vs. edm. 0. this is a game where there was a lot of potential for the refs to turn the bias towards the losing team. however, both teams were called for a total of five penalties with one each in the second period. there were no penalties on detroit after they went up 3-0 or 4-0; the only penalty in the third was against the losing team.

bos. 3 vs. tor. 2. this is a tough call. as the game was never more than a one goal difference after the first period, any calling by the officials has a high potential to make a difference. the losing team took the first three penalties of the third, which presents little evidence that refs were biased in toronto's favor. the reason i think you could make an argument for it is because boston took two penalties very late in the game, and one with thirty seconds left. because of the new rule, the faceoff would be in toronto's offensive zone and they would be up six men to four. yes, they had less than thirty seconds, but if they win that faceoff they have plenty of time with a 2-man advantage to score a goal.

sjs. 4 vs. nsh. 1 again, any game with a big spread gives the refs the opportunity to intervene. ignoring all the fights in the third period (i'm guessing this would have been a fun game to watch) the sharks got three penalties to nashville's one. one of the sharks' penalties came with less than five minutes. but there were no shark penalties between 4:24 and 16:06 of the third period, while there was one nashville penalty in that span. if the refs were trying to influence the game, i would guess that they would make more calls because the sharks were up by three and four goals in the third period. additionally the sharks had more powerplay chances in the game despite the fact that they were winning for the vast majority of it.

overall for the day: 1/3 games in which, in my opinion, you could make an argument that the refs attempted to favor the losing team.

16 november

tam. 2 vs. car. 3 (SO) this game was tied for the whole third period, so i see little opportunity for intervention.

mon. 3 vs. stl 2 (SO) between the time when st. louis went up 2-1 and the time bobby lang scored each team was assessed one penalty each.

atl. 3 vs. phi. 4 philly was called for two hooking penalties shortly after going up 3-1 in the second period. while the penalites were relatively mixed throughout the rest of the game, it seems to me that one could at least make a case, especially given the generally suspicious nature of hooking calls. however, having not seen the calls i can't make a definitive statement...perhaps someone who saw the game would care to comment.

sjs. 6 vs. chi. 5 this was a bit crazy, so it might be hard to tell what exactly went on here. two calls against san jose late in the second when they were up 4-3. then with chicago up by a goal, they start getting called for penalties. then after the sharks retake the lead, they are whistled for a hooking call. looks like ref intervention might be a possibility here.

la. 0 vs. ana 2 only one penalty called against anaheim when they were up 1-0, no penalties called against them when they were up 2-0. the refs called los angeles for more penalties in the game despite the fact that they are obviously the weaker team and never had the lead.

i give this day 2/3.

so, for these two sample days, i say you could make an argument that the refs attempted to intervene in 3/6 games. however, any and all of these potential games could be shot down if someone saw the game and the calls were indeed legit. anyone see any of the games in question here? discuss.

[toby91_ca 620]

I think if you actually did a study, you might find that teams leading into the 3rd period may get called for penalties later in the game, but I don't think that would point to any conspiracy. Firstly, I have no idea if that's what you'd find, but if you did, it would make sense to me. If you think about it, the later the game goes, the team that is down will get more desparate and really push for a goal....as this is happening, the leading team generally goes into defense mode to try and protect that lead, which tends to make teams play more of a clutch and grab game, which, in theory, would lead to penalties.

[edicius 3,269]

It's an interesting study here. Small sample size, true, but interesting. You planning on doing any more of these as the season progresses?

I must admit, I was shocked that we didn't get called for any penalties in the 3rd last night. I had a feeling that once we went up 3-0 in the 2nd, that was when the shifty calls were going to happen against us.

Might have to do with the refs we had last night too (Devorski and Furlatt).

And that makes me curious now... Let's look at some of the games in bold (I'll highlight any referees that I personally think are suspect):

11/17

Toronto vs. Boston - Brian Pochmara, Don VanMassenhoven

Nashville vs. San Jose - Frederick L'Ecuyer, Dan O'Halloran

11/16

Philly vs. Atlanta - Mike Leggo, Chris Rooney

Chicago vs. San Jose - Paul Devorski, Steve Kozari

Anaheim vs. Los Angeles - Kevin Pollock, Greg Kimmerly

Can't really make anything out of that because, honestly, I'm not even really familiar with half of those guys. Maybe a larger sample size will flesh something out further there.

[Datsyerberger 279]

The problem is not whether the calls are legit or not. The vast majority of calls are (even if some of the hooking calls are really weak, they are technically penalties by the letter of the law.)

The big problem is CONSISTENCY. Like, if the refs have had a relatively silent 1st and 2nd period, and then start dropping penalties on the winning team in the 3rd--ticky tacky stuff that's been going on all game and they haven't called. Or when the refs have had a very busy 1st and 2nd period (like last night's Wings game), and then swallow the whistles during the 3rd. Or when they're calling ticky tacky stuff on one team and missing large calls on another (ex. every other game with Pronger on the ice.)

I'd say there are a handful of situations in which hockey fans in general tend to get suspicious:

Reputation calls (ex. O'Halloran and Holmstrom)

Close game, refs busy 1st and 2nd, quiet in 3rd (especially if less penalties would favor the losing team.)

Close game, refs quiet 1st and 2nd, calling minor stuff all over the 3rd (especially if more penalties would benefit the losing team.)

Game with a 2 goal or > differential, refs calling lots of ticky tacky penalties on the leading team.

High scoring games with a back and forth lead (Ex 2-3 turns to 4-3 turns to 4-5) where penalties/PP goals have been directly relevant to the changes in lead.

High scoring games where the majority of goal scoring is coming from PPs off of really ticky tacky penalties (barely there hooks, phantom trips and holds.) Bonus points to this one if its a VS game or a highly touted matchup.

Oh, my personal favorite: Games where the zebras seem perfectly positioned to be in the way of the winning teams forecheck, and to deflect pucks around in their defensive zone. Oddly enough, these games seem to be accompanied with one of the above situations (I think this is directly relevant to refs that just have bad tendencies to be too involved in the game.)

Edited November 18, 2008 by The Wheeled Winger

[Echolalia 2,961]

I'm of the hypothesis that refs are compensating for teams that are behind, but its not because Bettman told them to.

I think because there has been so much scrutiny on the refs the past couple years, its only natural to evaluate your game as a ref more often, and when you see a team taking a lead and the experience the natural repercussions of any lead (other team bitching about a call or a noncall, regardless of whether its the right call, the crowd cheering or booing, etc etc), you tend to subconsciously be of the mindset the losing team is getting screwed over. Therefore a call later on may be a little more liberal in the losing team's favor. It may not even be a conscious effort to "balance the game", but more a subconscious thing.

[Nick137 0]

I always laugh when the word "conspiracy" is thrown around. Personally when I think of a conspiracy I think secretive, covert. There is nothing being hidden here, or at least being hidden well.

I personally think the refs are just being told: Watch the team that's leading with an eagle-eye and if it remotely looks like it could, in any way, be a penalty "call it".

I also feel that there are way too many penalties called period! I'm one of those people that just wants to see them play! Let them battle for the puck!! I get really miffed when they call all the little chincy things! If it doesn't effect the play and it's not excessive...let it go!! It will be obvious if it's out of hand or too much!

[toby91_ca 620]

Let's not forget, refs are human and simply make mistakes sometimes as well. Case in point...and the reason I bring this up is because it was hilarious when it happened. I was watching a game over the weekend (BUF vs. PIT) and a player on BUF slashed at a player on PIT ended up breaking his stick across the PIT player's stick (I can't even remember the players involved). The ref must have seen some of this out of the corner of his eye and assumed that the PIT player slashed the BUF player from and broke the BUF player's stick. The PIT player was given a slashing penalty. They then showed him sitting in the box as he watched the replay on the "jumbotron" and immediately pleeded with the ref to watch the replay (not that it would matter). Stuff like that (blantant missed calls) happen, it's just a part of being human.

Based on my experience, I think the real problem is consistency, not that phantom calls are made late in games to get teams back into it. I also think that make up calls are made at times when a ref feels a borderline call was made on one team so the next borderline call they see, they make, even if they would have let it go earlier. I think in most cases, those are legit penalties, just not consistent calls.

[hockey&beer 16]

It's been well documented over the years that refs have a tendancy to make "make-up calls". If team A scores on the PP and the team B complains about the call afterwards, usually you'll see team A take a phantom penalty. A perfect example was the slashing call on Lilja last night shortly after Sourey tried to separate Homer of his left foot. Larry Murphy (who was between the benches) said that Sourey was in Furlatt's ear from the second he stepped out of the box and then all of a sudden... True Lils did knock the stick out of the Oilers hand, but that was far from a slash.

[toby91_ca 620]

True Lils did knock the stick out of the Oilers hand, but that was far from a slash.

If it wasn't a slash, how did he knock the stick out of the Oilers hand? Mind power?

Seriously, I think that kind of a play is almost automatic if seen by a ref. If you bat someone's stick out of their hands, you'll end up with a slashing penalty or unsportsmanlike. I must say that I have seen that call missed as well, but I would have to assume that the ref did not see it. However, I'm sure some refs choose not to call it as well if the stick falls too easily.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

If it wasn't a slash, how did he knock the stick out of the Oilers hand? Mind power?

Seriously, I think that kind of a play is almost automatic if seen by a ref. If you bat someone's stick out of their hands, you'll end up with a slashing penalty or unsportsmanlike. I must say that I have seen that call missed as well, but I would have to assume that the ref did not see it. However, I'm sure some refs choose not to call it as well if the stick falls too easily.

that's the crux of it. Lilja barely tapped the guys stick and it fell out of his hands. Yes it was a slash, but guys give each other little slashes like that all the time that never get called. The guy just wasn't hanging on to his stick.

I think the refs should use more discretion. If you give a guy a pretty good two-hander and knock the stick out, it should be a penalty, if you give it a tap like Lilja did, they should let it go. It's not like it happened in front of the net on a scoring chance.

[12Newf 0]

as cheli pointed out the other day i dont think its a secret the league is trying to keep. they say they want more goals and powerplays are clearly a way to increase scoring, especially with this stupid-ass new faceoff rule. i hate these late PPs too but its not a big secret, and if it is it just might be the worst kept secret going.

link for cheli's views chelios on wdfn

[egroen 384]

If it wasn't a slash, how did he knock the stick out of the Oilers hand? Mind power?

Well, in that case, it looked like the player was holding his stick with his two pinkie fingers.

The calls I see often abused are the following:

Hooking -- This is the worst one. What is being called nowadays is not hooking, it is touching or tapping someone with your stick. They should just make a new penalty if they want to keep calling this, call it "Tapping". These calls are the ones that rarely get called until a "makeup" call is deemed necessary or a team is running away with a game.

Slashing -- A lot of room for embellishment with this one. Just drop your stick and chances are you will get a call.

Holding -- In the "clutch and grab" era, players were literally being held with two hands, whether they had the puck or not. Nowadays I see the refs call this when a player simply extends a hand to someone else. A lot of room for abuse with this call.

Boarding -- This one just really bothers me, and is kinda off the subject. With the crackdown on runs from behind, I see players consistently turning their backs to someone coming in to hit them when they are along the boards. Not only is it embellishing, but it is dangerous to purposefuly put yourself in that position just to get the call. I think diving should be called on a lot of these players.

[WhiteCloud 0]

If it wasn't a slash, how did he knock the stick out of the Oilers hand? Mind power?

Seriously, I think that kind of a play is almost automatic if seen by a ref. If you bat someone's stick out of their hands, you'll end up with a slashing penalty or unsportsmanlike. I must say that I have seen that call missed as well, but I would have to assume that the ref did not see it. However, I'm sure some refs choose not to call it as well if the stick falls too easily.

It is automatic but IMO it should not be. When I played hockey our coaches would go off if we got our sticks knocked out of our hands even with a solid slash. Now in the NHL it seems like you are better off letting go even with a slight poke check because it will result in a penalty. If the slash is hard and legitimately knocks the stick out of a players hands by all means it should be called but if someone taps a stick and it goes flying across the ice it should be ignored.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Well, in that case, it looked like the player was holding his stick with his two pinkie fingers.

The calls I see often abused are the following:

Hooking -- This is the worst one. What is being called nowadays is not hooking, it is touching or tapping someone with your stick. They should just make a new penalty if they want to keep calling this, call it "Tapping". These calls are the ones that rarely get called until a "makeup" call is deemed necessary or a team is running away with a game.

Some of them called are pretty friggin weak. The main thing I'd like is just some consistency throughout a game from the refs. They'll call a guy for tapping a player around the hands, then later Hossa can get nearly yanked off his feet (and that's hard to do) but the refs don't call it because it's late in the game and he's trying to score an empty netter.

Holding -- In the "clutch and grab" era, players were literally being held with two hands, whether they had the puck or not. Nowadays I see the refs call this when a player simply extends a hand to someone else. A lot of room for abuse with this call.

Honestly I'm okay with this, and they actually are calling it relatively consistently. If you take your hand off your stick to grab a guy, they should call it. The simple way to avoid a penalty is not to take your hand off your stick and grab. Simple. Otherwise it's probably a slow creep back to the clutch and grab days.

Boarding -- This one just really bothers me, and is kinda off the subject. With the crackdown on runs from behind, I see players consistently turning their backs to someone coming in to hit them when they are along the boards. Not only is it embellishing, but it is dangerous to purposefuly put yourself in that position just to get the call. I think diving should be called on a lot of these players.

This one is interesting. I can't remember what former hockey player I saw talking about it and said it shouldn't be a penalty. It's a tough call though. There's times when a guy is really just trying to play the puck, and there's times where a guy definitely seems to be turning his back so a player can't hit him.

Along the lines of diving, I would love for the league to review footage and give players fines for diving, regardless of how it was called in the game. Tucker had a couple doozies in the last Toronto game I saw, both of which were called penalties. But it's pretty easy when you see the replay that he jumped off his feet. Players are embarrassing the refs and embarrassing the league by doing it. Obvious dives should be called out by the league to embarrass that player, and slap them with a fine.

but I'm getting off topic, I guess.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Let's not forget, refs are human and simply make mistakes sometimes as well. Case in point...and the reason I bring this up is because it was hilarious when it happened. I was watching a game over the weekend (BUF vs. PIT) and a player on BUF slashed at a player on PIT ended up breaking his stick across the PIT player's stick (I can't even remember the players involved). The ref must have seen some of this out of the corner of his eye and assumed that the PIT player slashed the BUF player from and broke the BUF player's stick. The PIT player was given a slashing penalty. They then showed him sitting in the box as he watched the replay on the "jumbotron" and immediately pleeded with the ref to watch the replay (not that it would matter). Stuff like that (blantant missed calls) happen, it's just a part of being human.

Based on my experience, I think the real problem is consistency, not that phantom calls are made late in games to get teams back into it. I also think that make up calls are made at times when a ref feels a borderline call was made on one team so the next borderline call they see, they make, even if they would have let it go earlier. I think in most cases, those are legit penalties, just not consistent calls.

Key word in that post highlighted. I think that's one of the largest problems with officiating at the moment: assumptions. Ref thinks something might have happened, he calls it, rather than endure the criticism that comes along with not making a missed call. He doesn't get penalized either way, so he calls the penalty--something the league seems to favor at the moment. Someone drops a stick? Musta been slashed. Holmstrom near the net? Must be GI.

Refs have a tough job, and I'm all for them going unpunished for tough/close calls.. sometimes you've just got to make the best judgement you can with the resources available. However, in cases such as that BUF/PIT one, some pay needs to be docked. Same goes for the O'Halloran/Homer 'ass' call. Let them know that calls made off of reputation and assumption won't be tolerated. The problem is, the NHL at the moment WON'T do this, because they want more goals, and giving more penalties (and thus, PPs) is the easiest and cheapest way to do so--as opposed to having to, ugh, change the rules, or worse, equipment sizes (be they goaltender equipment or the goals themselves).

Edit: I should say that the conclusion of my statement above is not that the NHL is encouraging more penalties to be dealt out, but rather is tolerating the increased penalties that's coming about from deteriorating officiating because 1: it's ultimately help meeting a goal they want to begin with (more goals) and 2: fixing said problem would somehow cost money they don't want to spend, and furthermore they're saving money by fixing the goal related to 1. by letting it come about in a way that (for now) doesn't cost money.

Typical shortsighted NHL leadership.

Edited November 18, 2008 by The Wheeled Winger