Mike Milbury- "get (refs) out of playoffs"

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

For what its worth, the refs didn't make the call that got Kronner tossed. A linesman did.

O'HALLORAN DID NOT MAKE THAT CALL ON KRONWALL. ONE OF THE LINESMEN DID. COULD SOMEONE PLEASE FIND THE PIECE WHERE IT EXPLAINS THIS AND PUT IT HERE? THANKS.

UNTRUE

1) LINESMEN CAN NOT EVEN MAKE CALLS, THEY SIMPLY CAN INFORM THE REF.

2) CBC's broadcasters later interviewed Ohallaran, and the Toronto war room, and both said Ohallaran made the call.

[esteef 2,679]

Like Cheli said, his daughters will soon be able to play in the NHL.

esteef

[Vladifan 680]

[

UNTRUE[/b][/size]

1) LINESMEN CAN NOT EVEN MAKE CALLS, THEY SIMPLY CAN INFORM THE REF.

2) CBC's broadcasters later interviewed Ohallaran, and the Toronto war room, and both said Ohallaran made the call.

Gotchya. I responded to what I'd read last night and didn't see a correction but THANKS SO MUCH for bringing this to my/our attention. However, I already apologized for my error, OK? If I need to apologize to you again directly, consider it done.

[RoninJai 5]

Dear Mike Milbury,

We have been saying that for years now.

Sincerely,

The Detroit Red Wings Fanbase.

[b.shanafan14 733]

On NHL Hour this coming Thursday...

Bettman: "Our referees are the best in sports, they're not perfect but they get it right 99.9% of the time..."

Caller: "Then why did they get it wrong against the Red Wings over 50% of the time in Friday's game?"

Bettman: "Our referees are the best in sports, they're not perfect but they get it right 99.9% of the time..."

Caller: "But I just asked-"

Bettman: "Our referees are the best in sports, they're not perfect but they get it right 99.9% of the time..."

Caller: "Am I even talking to a real per-"

Bettman: "Our referees are the best in sports, they're not perfect but they get it right 99.9% of the time..."

Caller: "You know, you're a real-"

Clement: "Oops, looks like we lost the caller!"

Bettman: "Our referees are the best in sports, they're not perfect but they get it right 99.9% of the time..."

Clement: "You're so right, Gary."

So true it makes me sick. He will never just admit his officials make mistakes, especially at the frequency they have this playoff. Babcock said it best: Players can have bad games. Coaches can have bad games. But THEY (the refs) aren't allowed to have bad calls or games?

The NHL's stance that their refs are infallible disgusts me.

PS: Drop the f***in' puck, stop this pump-fake BS they do EVERY faceoff, like instead of just getting on with play, they are intentionally trying to oust one player from the circle each time.

Edited May 23, 2009 by b.shanafan14

[esteef 2,679]

27 penalty minutes for the Wings in the 1st. O'Halloran and his crew should be gone for the rest of the playoffs.

That's all I have to say.

esteef

[Holmstrom96 347]

I watched this intermission clip this morning on YouTube and applauded them. Its true. Unfortunate Havlat got hurt, but that changed a momentum swinging clean hit into 5 minutes of offensive hibernation for the Wings. Removed their number 3 defenseman and changed the whole complexion of the game.

I also noticed that.

I think of it this way, the refs served up a game on a plate to the Blackhawks and we took it all the way to overtime. That's pretty darn good. We need to win Sunday and then end this thing in Detroit.

[Guest Shoreline]

27 penalty minutes for the Wings in the 1st. O'Halloran and his crew should be gone for the rest of the playoffs.

That's all I have to say.

esteef

Yup. This also helped contribute to the Wings slow start. I doubt a team can get going being on the PK for over half the opening period.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Shoreline

[Z and D for the C 712]

Like Cheli said, his daughters will soon be able to play in the NHL.

esteef

DUDE, that has to be what gary is going for. Slowly but surely soften up the game, and then allow women to play when it's safe. Who can resist that. Girls playing hockey is HOT.

[uk_redwing 495]

For what its worth, the refs didn't make the call that got Kronner tossed. A linesman did.

O'HALLORAN DID NOT MAKE THAT CALL ON KRONWALL. ONE OF THE LINESMEN DID. COULD SOMEONE PLEASE FIND THE PIECE WHERE IT EXPLAINS THIS AND PUT IT HERE? THANKS.

I'm not thrilled with him either but we really, REALLY need to get this straightened out and MOVE ON.

[/b]

^ THIS. ^

I think it would be a really wise and grown-up thing if we understood this and not keep blaming the wrong person, whether we think highly of him or not.

I don't know who Scott Oake is, but if you could find that explanation, could you put it on here? Thanks. The latest I'd read (which was last night) was that O'Halloran didn't make the call. If he ultimately did, I stand corrected.

Quoted for the fail

When Kronwall got the boot, who else did you expect to have made that call? Someone throw an octopus at that ****.

[The_Cub 0]

Lot easier to speak up when you don't have to worry about fines.

Hopefully Dumb Dumb Dan has reffed his way right out of the Cup Finals.

[Mike 0]

Lot easier to speak up when you don't have to worry about fines.

Hopefully Dumb Dumb Dan has reffed his way right out of the Cup Finals.

Don't count on it. That guy f***s up regularly and gets rewarded with jobs in the SCFs.

[Guest Shoreline]

I'd say if O'Hell refs another game the Wings slip a Hawks helmet on him and send Kronner's arse flying his way.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Dont buy into this linesman made the call trash.

The linesman can tell the Ref what he sees, but it is the refs decision to make the call.

Both refs saw this play and we saw the result.

Trying to dodge responsability is exactly why the NHL is such trash.

Sure lets blame someone else.

Thank you!

What the heck are you guys talking about that the linesman made the call?!? In the HISTORY of the NHL a linesman has never made a penalty call. They CANNOT DO THIS. They can consult the refs, but cannot call the actual penalty. You guys that think the linesman did anything more than consult the ref really need to brush up on hockey 101.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

I've always feared a playoff game like this. We're in the Western Conference FINALS and the first period was all penalties. Keep in mind one very clear thing- it is NOT the officiating that's the problem, they are just the misguided robots. It's Bettman's Leadership, he's a horrid CEO and knows nothing about the game of hockey.

[cupcrazy 13]

It's like another member said the other day,expect even worse this time,no iam not taking credit for this,but its true

Kronwall 5 minute major and game misconduct for playing hockey.

Edited May 23, 2009 by cupcrazy

[Seraph 240]

Sorry if this was addressed somewhere else. Is it technically interference if he doesn't touch the puck? Or is the puck being between his legs imply possession and thus he's fair game?

[Holmstrom96 347]

Sorry if this was addressed somewhere else. Is it technically interference if he doesn't touch the puck? Or is the puck being between his legs imply possession and thus he's fair game?

Hits happen all the time as the person gets the puck. Hockey would be ridiculous if you could choose to shelter, but not touch the puck and be un-touchable.

I would be curious to know what the rules explicitly say.

[Seraph 240]

Hits happen all the time as the person gets the puck. Hockey would be ridiculous if you could choose to shelter, but not touch the puck and be un-touchable.

I would be curious to know what the rules explicitly say.

Yeah, I'm wondering what the rules say too. I didn't watch the Versus feed until I got on youtube, and "Edzo" was trying to say that Havlat hadn't touched the puck... Wondering if it was his bias toward the home team or an actual rule.

[swedishconnection 36]

Hits happen all the time as the person gets the puck. Hockey would be ridiculous if you could choose to shelter, but not touch the puck and be un-touchable.

I would be curious to know what the rules explicitly say.

56.1 Interference - A strict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink.

Body Position: Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may “block†the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent’s path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself “bigger†and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

NHL RULEBOOK

A side note:

21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player or goalkeeper for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner.

A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner.

SO, with the leeway the refs get to properly judge a game, they decided that Kronwall deliberatly attempted to injure Havlat....

[b.shanafan14 733]

Yeah, I'm wondering what the rules say too. I didn't watch the Versus feed until I got on youtube, and "Edzo" was trying to say that Havlat hadn't touched the puck... Wondering if it was his bias toward the home team or an actual rule.

Its his bias towards the home team and the Hawks official stance on the hit, that he hadn't yet played the puck. Rules say something along the lines of "last player to touch the puck is considered last in possession", but we all know sheltering the puck or skating with the puck like Havlat was is possession. He knew the puck was in his feet, he was glancing up to read the play before he got it with his stick, when he went to find it, he got mowed down cleanly.

[Seraph 240]

I guess the rule is technically by touch, but sheltering the puck is often interpreted the same way. I guess it's a tough call based on the books, but going by how things are usually interpreted, it's a clean hit.

What a farce though. Just because the player got injured, doesn't mean there was an intent to injure. Retroactive reffing is garbage.