Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[rwfan007 18]

the literal meaning of that rule is the instant the referee wants the play dead then that is when the "whistle" is blown. So as soon as he sees the goalie cover it up or the ref loses sight of the puck, that instant the play is dead, and anything extra that happens from that instant until the time he actually blows the whistle is irrelevant.

so, I know the puck was in the net, but the ref could not see the puck because the net has a little white skirt around the bottom of the net that is used to tie the net to the goal frame that would have impeded his view of the puck. Based on line of sight, I see where he would have "blown the play dead" but there needs to be some kind of loop in that rule on obvious plays such as tonight that would allow that "intent to blow the whistle" rule to be lifted.

[egroen 384]

NHL Network just stated the Stars "maybe had a little help from the refs..."

[egroen 384]

Entire panel on NHL Network states it should be a goal.....

Lol... though they did manage to include "the refs get it right 99.9% of the time."

Edited November 19, 2009 by egroen

[Brad Kepler 0]

NHL Network just stated the Stars "maybe had a little help from the refs..."

The Fact the NHL Network isn't talking about this ...is an indication SOMETHING isn't 'kosher'

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Lol... though they did manage to include "the refs get it right 99.9% of the time."

Had this crap rule been applied in 2002, Yzerman's goal in Game 5 against the Avs wouldn't have counted, when he snuck it past Patrick's pad and he cleverly tried to hide it in the net. Replays clearly showed the puck went in, and it counted. Tonight was almost a carbon copy of that play, but it didn't count.

[Carman 387]

The Fact the NHL Network isn't talking about this ...is an indication SOMETHING isn't 'kosher'

NHL on the Fly pretty much had the same interpretation as everyone else here did. It's a unanimously horrid call, that will hopefully be used in changing the rule.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

It's a 3rd rate league.

This is what 3rd rate leagues do. They blow calls and then immediately deny the blown call was ever made, DESPITE ample evidence otherwise.

Like I said if you recorded the game on a DVR, find a way to download it because we won't ever see replays of this game after tomorrow and ESPECIALLY of that goal.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

This just in

The NHL is going to hire the Hebner brothers to referee games. They cited their sterling records in "keeping the story straight".....

yes yes that's a pro/fake wrestlign reference, but it feels appropriate here.

[Glubki 17]

The ref said the whistle had already blown and so does the nhl recap - video proves there was a long delay after it was in the net. B.S no matter how you look at it and it needs to change.

[Jedi 1,865]

BUT I didn't read were Brad Watson was punished for his evil. Nor will we see THIS ref get punished...he probably just earned a a Fat Christtmas bonus if not from teh front Office then from someone else

Read my post at the top of page 2. The NHL RARELY ever publicly acknowledges that the ref made a mistake. They do discipline the refs, but it's usually all done in-house.

The NHL did fire referee Dean Warren last year, claiming "substandard performance". Though, to be fair, there are allegations aplenty that there was more to his firing than that (specifically, his pro-union activities with the NHL Officials Association).

[Brad Kepler 0]

NHL on the Fly pretty much had the same interpretation as everyone else here did. It's a unanimously horrid call, that will hopefully be used in changing the rule.

You honestly think so? It SHOULD have been changed after Brad 'Quick Whistle" Watson did his skulduggery.

Again it won't change the front office needs those refs to do their dirty work

[blankrap 9]

It's a 3rd rate league.

This is what 3rd rate leagues do. They blow calls and then immediately deny the blown call was ever made, DESPITE ample evidence otherwise.

Like I said if you recorded the game on a DVR, find a way to download it because we won't ever see replays of this game after tomorrow and ESPECIALLY of that goal.

If you have center ice they replay the games later in the night... I have it but I don't have dvr so I am out. I could break out the old vhs but that doesn't really do us any good at getting a copy here.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

I don't understand how this can be classified as "intent to blow the whistle". The reason the whistle was blown was because he had lost site of the puck because it was in the net. In watching the replay, the ref should have realized this. Call me biased, but I don't think this situation warrants anything but logic.

Agreed but logic seems to be missing in the whole NHL review process. In watching the replay - the whistle was blown long after the puck went in the goal - so at what point was the ref *intending* to blow the whistle otherwise??

Would it have made a difference in the game? I don't know the Wings were slow out there - but it shouldn't matter whether it's a close game or a blowout or reg season or POs - they should at least attempt to get it right, and in this fan's opinion they don't.

[eva unit zero 271]

Solution to all of this; technology.

Place sensors inside the puck. Attach sensors to the back of the goal posts and crossbar to form a 'gate' at the back edge of the goal line. If all of the sensors inside the puck pass through this gate, therefore meaning the entire puck has crossed the line, then we have a goal. The goal light and siren are automatically set off, and the clock is stopped.

As for the referee, the whistle is replaced with a handheld buzzer device. It could attach to the index and ring finger in the same way even. The referee or linesman, when he chooses to stop play, presses a button on this device with his thumb. Almost instant between intent and action. The 'buzzer' would cause the clock to stop, as well as emit a whistling sound to indicate the play was dead.

The 'buzzer' could also perhaps deactivate the 'gate' or at very least, there would be a way to tell whether the buzzer or gate had been activated first.

The physical technology to implement this idea exists; the programming is what would need to be created. Unfortunately, while I am an excellent innovator with regard to what could or should happen, I am not terribly skilled as a programmer.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

If you have center ice they replay the games later in the night... I have it but I don't have dvr so I am out. I could break out the old vhs but that doesn't really do us any good at getting a copy here.

I have an older DVR, so I can try to see if I can mount it as a volume on my LINUX laptop....maybe that'll work, I don't know, I'll give it a shot tomorrow.

[blankrap 9]

This

From Freep

“It wasn’t blown dead. It was a goal,†Detroit coach Mike Babcock said. “The guy never meant to blow the whistle. It was a shot.â€

Auld, obviously, didn’t agree.

“They’ve got enough cameras in the building. If they say it’s not a goal, it’s not a goal,†he said. “I think the biggest thing was the intent of the official to blow the whistle.â€

[WpgMikos 17]

This

From Freep

“It wasn’t blown dead. It was a goal,†Detroit coach Mike Babcock said. “The guy never meant to blow the whistle. It was a shot.â€

Auld, obviously, didn’t agree.

“They’ve got enough cameras in the building. If they say it’s not a goal, it’s not a goal,†he said. “I think the biggest thing was the intent of the official to blow the whistle.â€

Someone's going to be fined. hehe. Good for him for speaking out.

[stevieisthebest 80]

Yeah, lets just ***** about it.. maybe then things will get better!

[Brad Kepler 0]

Maybe it's time for a different 'whistle' to be blown. On this whole sorry excuse for officiating. Is this Professional Hockey or the WWE

[mjlegend 155]

Read my post at the top of page 2. The NHL RARELY ever publicly acknowledges that the ref made a mistake. They do discipline the refs, but it's usually all done in-house.

The NHL did fire referee Dean Warren last year, claiming "substandard performance". Though, to be fair, there are allegations aplenty that there was more to his firing than that (specifically, his pro-union activities with the NHL Officials Association).

Re: Warren

“I’ll be frank: he was horse s***,†said Paul Devorski, a 21-year referee who regularly works Stanley Cup Finals.

Never heard one referee describe another like that in public.

As I said in the GDT, I don't think there's any real point to having a war room in Toronto with the ability to call down about all the games if these exact situations can't get ironed out so the correct call is made. I think I'm done being pissed off about this.

[cmonster 11]

In layman's terms the ref is a moron. The fact that he pulled the intent to blow the whistle rule makes him an even bigger moron. That rule, the intent to blow the whistle rule, has taken the game out of the players hands and put it in the hands of the referees. A ref could theoretically make an entire game disappear b/c with 1 second left he could say he had an intent to blow the whistle 1 seond into the game. It gives them carte blanche.

Now, what really irks me is that if a goal or no goal call can be determined by the referee why have goals reviewed by the so called "war room" in Toronto? Why is the referee given the power to determine this? Why can't the guys in Toronto overrule a ref? It messes up the power structure of the NHL. Play till the whistle blows, not to when it was intended to be blown.

I seriously hope that the Red Wings brass files a formal complaint. And I hope that ref gets his butt handed to him. Fine, suspension w/o pay, whatever. Just something to show that refs are accountable for their mistakes. But knowing the NHL, nothing will happen and they will claim that he was in the best position to determine whether it was a goal or not. They will hide behind the POS rule book.

I was really hoping that Brad May would have just punched him in the face. Acts of stupidity should be punished accordingly. At the minimum, I was hoping the ref got hit with an "errant dump in" (*wink*, *wink*).

[CenterIce 83]

When it comes to conspiracies, I rarely believe in that stuff. IMO, the biggest case for a conspiracy from last year was the scheduling for games one and two of the finals, back to back with only 2 days off in between. But that was more a case of the NHL being handcuffed by their TV contract with NBC than "ZOMG, Gary Buttman wants teh Penz to win!!!11". NBC had exclusive rights to games 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals, and they would only play the games on a weekend. So either the NHL scheduled them back to back on short notice, or they scheduled them back to back with a full week and a half of inactivity before game 1. No conspiracy there.

The call tonight and the Watson call vs the Ducks is (IMO) a case of both incompetence, and the rule book SORELY needing an overhaul regarding "intent to blow the whistle". Both tonight's goal, and the Watson no-goal call were a case of the ref being out of position, and having the intent to blow the whistle, even though it was blown after the puck crossed the line. Since the rule states (or at least, is enforced as) the play is officially dead when the ref intends to blow the whistle, that's why we got jobbed on both calls.

But since the refs intent to blow the whistle can't be overturned by Toronto, then we get the fuzzy end of the lollipop on those goals, and in the end, there's nothing we can do.

Incompetence for being in a bad position. Incompetence for intending to blow the whistle too soon. Incompetence on the NHL's part to make that kind of call unreviewable.

Conspiracy? Hardly.

That is the issue, right there. Toronto will not over ride a officials call is he tells them he lost sight of the puck and intended to blow the whistle. They just need to teach these officials better, take the ambiguity out of the rules, and put the goal judges back behind the net.

[CenterIce 83]

They WHY at a critical time did this convienent 'mistake' occur? Like Brad Watson last season it was done at the best possible time to screw the wings. and in essence it has been repeated almost point for point. We were promised last year when it happen that it was a wild mistake and probably wouldn't happen again......well it has

The ref should have been in a better position to where he could see the whole net. Not off to one side. They used to have the goal judges behind the net, and the officials used to confer with them on the calls. The took all of that out of the game. Replays are fine, but if you throw the intent to whistle in there, no replay system is going to work, because who knows when the ref was really going to blow the whistle. They need to be like football is now, where they let the play continue and fix it on replay once everything has worked its way out.

[CenterIce 83]

Solution to all of this; technology.

Place sensors inside the puck. Attach sensors to the back of the goal posts and crossbar to form a 'gate' at the back edge of the goal line. If all of the sensors inside the puck pass through this gate, therefore meaning the entire puck has crossed the line, then we have a goal. The goal light and siren are automatically set off, and the clock is stopped.

As for the referee, the whistle is replaced with a handheld buzzer device. It could attach to the index and ring finger in the same way even. The referee or linesman, when he chooses to stop play, presses a button on this device with his thumb. Almost instant between intent and action. The 'buzzer' would cause the clock to stop, as well as emit a whistling sound to indicate the play was dead.

The 'buzzer' could also perhaps deactivate the 'gate' or at very least, there would be a way to tell whether the buzzer or gate had been activated first.

The physical technology to implement this idea exists; the programming is what would need to be created. Unfortunately, while I am an excellent innovator with regard to what could or should happen, I am not terribly skilled as a programmer.

They had something like this with the Fox Trax Puck, but because of the chip inside, they could not freeze the puck down enough and it would not settle down on the ice. Plus, it would have to be very precise in its location of the puck, going off just after it clears the line. GPS is not even that precise.

[clutchngrab 12]

I don't understand how this can be classified as "intent to blow the whistle". The reason the whistle was blown was because he had lost site of the puck because it was in the net. In watching the replay, the ref should have realized this. Call me biased, but I don't think this situation warrants anything but logic.

When the rules are specified in such a way as to negate the logical and common sense conclusion to an issue, then you have a problem.

The real problem is accountability. What was intended as an opportunity for refs to make the correct call after the fact has turned into a place where they can try to hide their incompetence. In the best world, Toronto should be able to overrule the intent when it is obvious that it should not be a factor in the call. Unfortunately, that won't happen because of the 2nd rate nature of the NHL and its blatant protectionism of its s***ty officiating. Can't show up the refs.