Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[Brad Kepler 0]

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.

why not sensors under the ice then...or cameras like they have in tennis?

[cmonster 11]

I was really hoping that Mike Babcock would refuse to send out players until the goal was re-reviewed by Toronto. Refuse to play until the ref pulled his head out of his ass.

[egroen 384]

I wouldn't be surprised if something crooked went on there -- the Red Wings are pretty much favored to win every single game they play, so good money involved. We all know this goes on in professional sports.

I'm not going to scream and yell conspiracy, but I would not exactly be shocked if it turned out at some point in the future that that ref was on the take or had side betting going on.

[clutchngrab 12]

That's always possible, especially in a 2nd rate poorly run league like the NHL. The chances of getting caught are minimal. But I don't want to go on record that this is my personal belief.

Edited November 19, 2009 by clutchngrab

[CenterIce 83]

why not sensors under the ice then...or cameras like they have in tennis?

They do have the goal cam and all the other cameras around and above the net. You can't put one below, because the ice is basically on the concrete floor. I remember way back someone had come up with lights on the perimeter of the goal mouth that would light up when the puck went in. I don't know what type of technology it used. Again, it would be very difficult to pin down the accuracy needed to say when the puck completely crossed over the goal line. You can't put anything mechanical in there, because the goalie or player backing into the net would set it off. Anything involving putting something in the puck would have to survive the freezing of the puck, not change the weight of the puck, or the normal motion of the puck.

The thing that needs to be done is getting rid of rules like the intent to blow the whistle. I always go back to the NFL and their use of replay. They don't always get it to work right, but their officials are told to let the play continue, so that if a replay is needed you don't have the whistles getting in the way. They NFL always had turnovers being called back, because the officials blew the whistle too earlier. They are now told to wait until the continuation of the play has stopped. Plus, the NFL officials confer on tough calls, and they can waive off a flag. NHL officials cannot take back a penalty call. Once an officials arm is up, it's over. No matter how much he finds out from his fellow officials that he was wrong. That is why I hate the center ice officials calling things they cannot clearly see.

[commadore183 103]

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.

I like this idea. It's simple, no need for any programming or whatnot, just, simple.

That's why the league would never go for it

What I want to come out of this is:

1) The league comes out and says, effectively, "he f***ed up bigtime", and

2) the league remedies any future cockups by changing the rules to allow the "war room" to override a bad call on goal (like in this case, Toronto should have said "Screw your incompetent ass, that's a goal.")

Sadly, with the league's track record when it comes to ref screwups, none of the above will likely happen, instead we'll be lucky to get "We stand by our refs" blah blah blah.

Damn.

[Yzerfan1999 81]

Pure Incompetence. Its actually worrisome that Toronto could call and actually allow this to happen. LaRue's excuse about intending to blow the whistle is shocking, and quite honestly, the guy is a f*cking liar if that's his excuse. The puck went almost directly in - it wasn't even a question of whether he could have possibly covered it in time to get a whistle, because the puck WAS IN THE NET. The only way his excuse stands up is if for some reason he was blowing the play dead while May was shooting, which doesn't make sense either.

If Toronto makes the call, it should be THEIR CALL.

Oh, and check out what Auld had to say:

"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."

Disgraceful. I'm not asking him to waive up his hands and admit it was a goal during the game, because he is there to win. But after the game, can't you be man enough, or at least smart enough to admit you got lucky? Its not even a question, the puck was in the net.

The only good thing to come from this is that you can bet the NHL is aware of the call, and this retard wont get a playoff game this year.

What a complete ******* moron.

[CenterIce 83]

I was really hoping that Mike Babcock would refuse to send out players until the goal was re-reviewed by Toronto. Refuse to play until the ref pulled his head out of his ass.

It was reviewed by Toronto. Toronto called to talk to the ref. He told them he lost sight of the puck, so he called the play dead. The officials are continously out of position for these goal calls, now. They don't want to get behind the net, because they don't want to get in the players way. So, they stand off in one corner, but as this goal, and the Anaheim one, showed, if the play is on the other side of the net, the officials can't see it.

[Yzerfan1999 81]

It was reviewed by Toronto. Toronto called to talk to the ref. He told them he lost sight of the puck, so he called the play dead. The officials are continously out of position for these goal calls, now. They don't want to get behind the net, because they don't want to get in the players way. So, they stand off in one corner, but as this goal, and the Anaheim one, showed, if the play is on the other side of the net, the officials can't see it.

Strange thing is that whistle came well after the puck had nestled itself into the corner, and before that it was clear from ANY point on the ice that it was a loose puck. There was no goalmouth scramble or pileup.

What took him so long to blow the whistle if he was intending to blow it for some other reason?

No sense whatsoever.

[egroen 384]

Imagine a ref actually calling a play dead for absolutely no reason, while a puck was being shot on net? Because this is what the ref had "intended" to do? Lol....

[CenterIce 83]

I like this idea. It's simple, no need for any programming or whatnot, just, simple.

It is not as simple as you might think. It would have to be wireless and on a frequency that does not receive any interference. How many times have you been talking on your cell phone and all of a sudden get static?

[egroen 384]

It is not as simple as you might think. It would have to be wireless and on a frequency that does not receive any interference. How many times have you been talking on your cell phone and all of a sudden get static?

*OR*... you could have instant replay!!!

[CenterIce 83]

*OR*... you could have instant replay!!!

That is the point of this whole thing. Instant replay worked. It showed the puck went into the net. The whole intent to blow the whistle, again, is the thing that needs to be changed in this whole scenario.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,203543

Edited November 19, 2009 by CenterIce

[hak 21]

i think the whistle is part of the tradition and part of the sport and should be kept. it's one of those things you don't change. it's been that way from the begnning of the sport, and (i think) is that way in all of sports which have a ref on the field. i really don't want to see an electronic buzzer device, but that's me.

what i WOULD like to see is more competence and better procedures (maybe some tuning of the rules, better reviewing abilites etc). and in situations like this, the war room should be able to override the refs decision.

[zettie85 106]

BUT this 'intent' gives the official an awful lot of latitude they could have intended to blow the whistle 5 minutes before?....again this has an oder about it...and if this game of Hockey means anything to us we should demand some heads rolling

I'm not big on the conspiracy thing but I would imagine if there was fixing going on it wouldn't be just the Wings. If you want to believe this wouldn't you think that the intent rule is a grey area allowing officials to swing games in a certain favour in close decisions. I would like to hear what Toronto and the officials talk about on the headsets. They should be recorded. Anyways I do believe though it is a huge stain on the game the way the officiating is going. Something needs to be done about the incompetence.

[BUHdactyl 23]

The solution is quite simple to me.

When a player screws up, they are fined and/or suspended. Avery says something stupid (total joke btw, cannot believe they made something of it), Pronger does something stupid, like a dirty hit... they are fined and suspended. Players are held accountable for their actions, and perhaps if these refs were held accountable for their actions they'd put a little more effort into their jobs and call the game like it needs to be called.

I highly doubt that ref would have had the balls to call 'no goal' if a huge fine/suspension had been riding on the line.

These intent to blow the whistle calls are top on my list but I'm also nauseated by the hooking calls from center ice and the slashing calls like the one on May tonight. If the ref involved in the play did not find it necessary to call hooking why would some retard from the other end of the ice find it necessary?

Vanflip these refs so I can enjoy some Hockey.

[skyphoenix 153]

I've been saying this since the playoffs last season...intent should not matter at all. Why that is a rule is beyond me, I know it takes a second to blow the whistle but you are essentially giving the refs say over video proof that they were wrong and as the human mind works (or at least how I understand it to work) people do not like to admit they are wrong.

[egroen 384]

Bettman is going to give his canned response "that the game would take forever if they reviewed every single play with instant replay".... which is of course horse s***, because you would only need to review actual goals/non-goals, you freakin' jackass.

Edited November 19, 2009 by egroen

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

Like many have already stated I don't think it's a conspiracy but incompetence by the refs and the league. I myself am so sick and tired of the "intent to blow the whistle" rule. We are the only pro sport out there who gives the refs an excuss to overturn a score. The refs should only be able to over turn anything if the whistle is actually blown before the puck crosses the goal. And another thing about the refs that get to me is how so many times the back ref will call a penalty when the ref standing right there never called it. They need to give the refs to talk each other and over turn a bad call, just like how NFL refs will talk to each other and they overturn flags.

[egroen 384]

Like many have already stated I don't think it's a conspiracy but incompetence by the refs and the league. I myself am so sick and tired of the "intent to blow the whistle" rule. We are the only pro sport out there who gives the refs an excuss to overturn a score. The refs should only be able to over turn anything if the whistle is actually blown before the puck crosses the goal. And another thing about the refs that get to me is how so many times the back ref will call a penalty when the ref standing right there never called it. They need to give the refs to talk each other and over turn a bad call, just like how NFL refs will talk to each other and they overturn flags.

If you are going to have more than one ref on the ice, actually have it do something to improve the game... or replace the one with an ice girl.

[zettie85 106]

What is so hard about getting the refs to put the whistle in their mouth while the puck is around the net. They will have no excuse to haver that rule. I don't see what's so hard about the NHL telling them to do that, even though it's ******* common sense!

[Echolalia 2,961]

That is the point of this whole thing. Instant replay worked. It showed the puck went into the net. The whole intent to blow the whistle, again, is the thing that needs to be changed in this whole scenario.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,203543

There was no intent to blow the whistle, though. The puck was in the net for a good three seconds while everyone was standing around, refs included, assuming the goalie had the puck covered. The refs, after "seeing" the goalie had the puck blew the whistle to kill the play. Then they see its in the net.

[skyphoenix 153]

Exactly, the puck went in off the shot. There was no delay for the puck crossing the goal line so there is no possible way in the ******* world that he intended to blow that whistle.

[Echolalia 2,961]

If only Stevie Wonder was reffing. He would've made the right call.

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

If you are going to have more than one ref on the ice, actually have it do something to improve the game... or replace the one with an ice girl.

Exactly.