CenterIce 83 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) The Wings have been strewed by the "intent to blow" BS before The call that lead to the ducks second goal was BS The no goal at the end was BS I am a calm guy normally, but im in FULL RAGE MODE right now!!! Agreed on all counts, and you can add all the no goals from various Holmstrom body parts some were in the vicinity of the crease rule. Edited May 6, 2009 by CenterIce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 I like this quote from the NHL.com review of the game: Hiller also got a break with 1:04 remaining when he was unable to control a loose puck in his crease after a misplay by Scott Niedermayer -- only to have the play blown dead, an instant before Marian Hossa jammed it into the net, because referee Brad Watson had lost sight of the puck. The puck was actually next to Hiller, in clear view of almost everyone in the Honda Center except Watson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoninJai 5 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Detroit is always getting raped out of goals. Look at all the goals waived off in the past two playoff years. It's to believe all of them are just a coincidence. It's disgusting! I would LOVE to see metrics on this....how many goals have been disallowed, BY TEAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FireCaptain 563 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Why can some of you not seem to grasp this simple truth about this rule: The puck going over the line AFTER the whistle is irrelevant. He was raising the whistle to his mouth. The NHL has always counted that as intent to blow. This is not a new rule. Does it suck tonight? Yes. Is it some stupid conspiracy by Gary Bettman? Give me a frigging break. Is it a conspiracy by the NHL? Or the refs? Yeah, sure, put your tinfoil hat down please. It's a loss. It sucks. No amount of whining and crying will change the result, nor will it make you feel better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jake Ryan 1 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2007/04/20/the-intent-to-blow-rule/ No wonder this league has a problem drawing fans. The actual game can stop depending on what's going on in the referees mind. This has got to be the DUMBEST "RULE" in a sport that has the benefit of cameras and replay. That call tonight could have been so easily reversed had this stupid rule not been in place. It could have been black and white. Camera with audio shows puck going in, then whistle blows. Bad call by ref overturned. Goal Red Wings. No arguments from EITHER team. OT. Game decided by the players INSTEAD of an out of position referee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Yeah, but that would be logical, rational and objective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NHLrules? 32 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Clearly the Gary Bettman saw Minority Report at least one too many times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike 0 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 yep, I saw that immediately. thats why I am questioning why it wasnt reviewed Because it was the intent of the ref to blow the whistle. The whistle doesn't need to be heard for the actual play to be blown dead. It's stupid, I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 No amount of whining and crying will change the result, nor will it make you feel better. Clearly you're not familiar with the concept of venting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heed316 7 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 In case you didn't see it... name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /> Taken from the thread over on HF Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vOrophin 5 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 So, what kind of accountability is there on the refs in this kind of situation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Statts 4 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Why can some of you not seem to grasp this simple truth about this rule: The puck going over the line AFTER the whistle is irrelevant. He was raising the whistle to his mouth. The NHL has always counted that as intent to blow. This is not a new rule. Does it suck tonight? Yes. Is it some stupid conspiracy by Gary Bettman? Give me a frigging break. Is it a conspiracy by the NHL? Or the refs? Yeah, sure, put your tinfoil hat down please. It's a loss. It sucks. No amount of whining and crying will change the result, nor will it make you feel better. I know that. The rule is BS. "intent to blow the whistle" is not clear cut, it leaves too much in the air. Rules need to be clear cut, not when a ref "thinks" about blowing the play dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,804 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 So, what kind of accountability is there on the refs in this kind of situation? They should be forced to commit suicide. An alternative could be to replace referees with robots, which will likely happen in the year 2100. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilmrt 636 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 so when the clock horn sounds after the puck goes into the net, why is it still a goal? there was clear intent on the part of the clock to turn to ZERO in the next moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyukian Geek 2 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 so when the clock horn sounds after the puck goes into the net, why is it still a goal? there was clear intent on the part of the clock to turn to ZERO in the next moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FireCaptain 563 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) There's about 25 threads about this. Almost all of them are quickly spiraling into name calling and other idiotic behavior. That's not venting, nor is it constructive. Watch some of the threads, they'res not venting either - they're closer to rioting. Clearly you're not familiar with the concept of venting. Edited May 6, 2009 by FireCaptain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yak19 303 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 I work as a carpenter when i am not at the University of Windsor and the equivalent of this ref failing at his job would be me sticking my dick in a jigsaw..... balls too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 We're drunken hockey fans who just stayed up late to watch our team put in a piss-poor first effort and come back to tie it up -- only, not, because they got robbed by a piss-poor excuse for a call. And this is just the latest in a long line of similar piss-poor, backbreaking calls made against our team in the postseason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,804 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 If Downey was dressed for the game, he would have at least elbowed Brad Watson in the head. What did Kopecky do to Brad Watson? Nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 I would be all for dressing Downey if it meant seeing Watson "accidentally" go flying through the plexi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,804 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 I would be all for dressing Downey if it meant seeing Watson "accidentally" go flying through the plexi. See, I told you having an enforcer in the lineup is a good thing. BTW, what are the chances Watson refs another Wings game anytime soon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 BTW, what are the chances Watson refs another Wings game anytime soon? Considering how often the Wings draw O'Halloran, I'd say being a goddamned retard and having a history of jobbing the teams in question doesn't affect which ones referees are assigned to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stillwater 186 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 I can clearly remember watching games where they've gone to the booth to determine whether the puck crossed the line before the whistle blew. Why wasn't that done? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pavyaz19 1 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 it's just like the rule in the NFL where the ref can deem a play un-reviewable because he decided the player was down by contact. It's bullcrap, but it's the way it is. I'm not sure what can be done... it's up to the ref to decide if the puck is frozen or not. This ref was 100% wrong and I'm not sure why he was so excited about blowing his pretty little whistle during a game of this magnitude. Never once did Hiller look like he knew where the puck was... what does that tell me? It's Loose!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotorCityMadness 388 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Ok here are my thoughts after seeing the replay a few times over..... I understand that the rule is what it is and the play was dead, but how does a group of 4 officials let one guy make the call on his own? In hockey when your reffing you have a partner(s) for a reason. I have been doing games for 12 yrs now and can remember instances where I was in a similar spot as Watson was and having a play like that happen and then asking my partner(s) if they had a better look at it than I did from where they were standing. 3 other game officials are standing on the ice in that instance and I'm pretty sure atleast 2 of them were looking directly at the puck from the side of the rink that the puck went to once it skipped under Hiller. This past year even I have done some games in a similar fashion that the NHL uses with 2 refs, 2 linesman (USA Hockey is trying the experiment for higher level games) and I know for a fact where the other ref was standing and what he saw. If I were him I would have gone over to my partner and given him my interpretation of what took place as well as asking the linesman on that same side of the ice if he saw he same thing. Bottom line is in this case was that Watson failed to use any kind of COMMON SENSE. Now this does not take anything away from the fact that the Wings came out playing a bit lackluster, but when a call of that magnitude gets made without any COMMON SENSE then I can just see how the Officials committee is gonna see that and prolly do this to Watson's name on the list... BRAD WATSON That is my take on the whole situation Have a good night everyone p.s. If anyone wants to see some analysis of the call then here is a video from TSN...James Duthie took the words right out of my mouth when he mentions COMMON SENSE... http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip168978#clip168978 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites