Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[b-random 0]

Bitching and complaining in a forum won't do anything. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if a ton of folks wrote letters to the NHL, maybe they would do something to stop this type of thing from happening. I'm not the type to "write a letter to my senator" but I feel like I've been s*** on as an NHL fan post-lockout, and this is just the icing on the cake.

[Gizmo 21]

One of my rules to live by: "Never assign to conspiracy that which can easily be explained by incompetence."

[55fan 5,133]

A few ways to solve this:

Coach's Challenge- NFL style, go directly to Toronto.

Puck/Line Sensor- Review it and if the sensor went off then goal. This was discussed after a game a few days ago.

Eliminate the "I thought about blowing the whistle." If you didn't blow it or weren't in the MOTION to blow it, then it counts. PERIOD!

Here we have it! Right here, folks.

If a ref is going to use the "intent to blow", the ref must have been in the process of blowing when the incident occurred or have a valid reason for being late (whistle malfunction, hit by a player, lost his footing) or else TO can overrule it.

The ref must also give a valid reason for intending to blow the whistle, and no, "I intended to blow it if Detroit scored the tying goal" is not a valid reason.

[OsGOD 3]

Basically now the precidence has been set that only Empty Net goals are "officially" legal. Because if you shoot the puck and it hits the goalie there is now always intent to blow the whistle.

No s*** he intended to blow the whistle... you usually blow the whistle to stop the play when the goalie covers the puck or it goes in the net! Which is quite funny now because how many goals have been called because the goalie gloved the puck over the line or the puck was found under a pile of players resting nicely inside the goal under the goalies leg pad?! They should all be no goals as well because the ref intended to blow the whistle as he rightfully should at the end of each stoppage of play

Edited November 19, 2009 by OsGOD

[Wings17 1]

Are you kidding me, Toronto couldnt view the live play and the whistle blowing after the puck was in the net....What a f***in JOKE !!!

[Guest ZetterbergFourty]

Not a conspiracy, pure incompetence.

Edited November 19, 2009 by ZetterbergFourty

[mmamolo 287]

Incompentance.

As a few ppl have said the 'intent to blow the whistle' rule is really stupid. The fact that Larue had no reason to blow that play dead, as the puck crossed the line directly from a shot, just depicts the overly large grey area this rule creates. A lot of the NHL's rules are overly grey and they are used to protect refs and front office decisions. When a rule is as grey as this one you can spin it to fit your situation and hide your incompetance.

One thing I will say on the whole conspiracy, and in reference to the yahoo article link that was posted, where it claims that the NHL wouldn't want Detroit not to succeed because of their stars, ratings etc. Persaonlly I think the NHL wants more diversity. PPl don't want to see the same team win over and over again. I can understand some conspiracy theorists points of views because the more you think about it the more youc an see how the NHL wants teams in non-traditional hockey markets to go deep in the playoffs and for the perennial contenders to be beaten by these teams. I don't think it's a coincidence that Carolina and Anaheim won cups right out of the lockout. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy per say, but a little guidance here and there doesnt hurt.

At the end of the day I think ppl could accept bad calls if there was some owness. The NHL makes all these references to human error in the rule book and yet they never seem to acknowledge that their refs made an error in a public forum. If the NHL came out and said that last night's call was wrong it would be a dead issue and I think most would move on. The fact that they'll hide behind the intent rule and never acknowledge the mistake is what pisses ppl off the most, I think.

[mmamolo 287]

Brad May calls the call a joke:

RedWingsCentral

[Guest ZetterbergFourty]

Incompentance.

As a few ppl have said the 'intent to blow the whistle' rule is really stupid. is what pisses ppl off the most, I think.

What in the f***? "Attempt to blow the whistle" ??? So instead of blowing the whistle they blow the call? I think I'm starting to understand this. For f***s sake these cocksharpeners have the whistle attached to their god damn finger, so what is it? "Oops, I dropped my whistle, couldnt blow it like I do Bettman, sorry guys!"

INCREDIBLE!

[OsGOD 3]

Get off your knees, LaRue. You're blowing the game.

Isn't that why he would be on his knees assuming the position?

fyi they blow the whistle on a goal to.... there is always intent to blow the whistle for a play at the net

Edited November 19, 2009 by OsGOD

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

As long as the League has all these CYA rules, that allow the referees to make bad calls and get away with them, we can expect them to happen to ALL teams.

[Motown4013 350]

I'm fine with the intent to blow the whistle rule, if a goalie freezes the puck (legitimately, not try to fall on it and miss Hiller style ) and there should be a whistle and some guy pokes it away and scores before the ref can make the call, okay.

But this is not like that at all. May shot the puck directly straight into the net. The ref just didn't see it, but clearly could have during the review. Unless he intended to blow his whistle as May shot the puck, or it was in flight towards the net, there's no way he can logically make the call. He's seriously just lying if he intended to blow the whistle at any point on that play; it was off May's stick and right into the net.

This was a joke and my biggest complaint about it not being allowed. It was from May's stick to the back of the net...nothing controversial. Zebra could have said to th ewar room in T.O that he missed it and it would have counted but because he took the coward way out and said " I had the intent to blow the whistle" he was trying to save his obvious stupidity. At least wne you f#ck up, own it. Grrrr

[Mors 201]

NHL is bush league, plain and simple. I don't think this goal could have been more indisputable.

[Miss Wing Queen 154]

Two things:

1.) On the dissallowed goal and "intent to blow the whistle"--technically, a ref has the intent to blow the whistle during any part of the game, he knows he is going to do it eventually, so by NHL rules, does that mean that any of the goals scored during the game are waived off because of it?

2.) Overall, the officiating was very unbalanced, especially for May. Example: May gets a penalty for "slashing" on Auld when he was just trying to play the puck, and only tapped Auld's empty glove. Then a few minutes later, May is cross checked from behind, sending him flying into the net, and there is no penalty. And then the dissallowed goal.

The refs just need to learn how to interpret rules, and Toronto should have the ability to have the final say because 1) they are the command center and 2) they have the ability to see the replays.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

As long as the League has all these CYA rules, that allow the referees to make bad calls and get away with them, we can expect them to happen to ALL teams.

Except, it doesn't. No team in the last 4 years have had as many goals called back as the Red Wings have.

[StormJH1 231]

Okay, first of all, we need to tone down the conspiracy talk here. It's fun to kick around now and then, but do you honestly believe that the league thinks it could stop the Wings from making it to another Cup Final by strategically blowing obvious calls in non-descript regular season games in November? What's the plan, to make us finish out of the Top 8 in the West? I don't think so. We know that fans of other teams occasionally visit this board, and I'd hate for them to get the impression that we've got nothing better to do but cry about how unfair it is to be a Wings fan.

That said, the call was terrible. Intent to blow the whistle? Two things wrong with that:

(1) Why would you intend to blow the whistle for a puck that was free in the slot? Besides, the ref's explaination after the phone call was that the puck went into the net AFTER the whistle blew, which is a factual inaccuracy.

(2) Look at Auld's face when he stands up from his butterfly. He knows he just got scored on, and the reason he knows that is because he did a butterfly with his left toe in the net! There was never any question about where the puck was--it wasn't trickling into the net. Auld was positioned wrong, such that it hit him and was ALREADY in the net.

[egroen 384]

I just would have loved to see it if the ref actually had blown the whistle when he apparently had "intended" to, yah know -- when May was shooting the puck.

I'd love to hear that one explained.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Except, it doesn't. No team in the last 4 years have had as many goals called back as the Red Wings have.

With Holmstrom on the team, I have a feeling that this statement is correct. Does anyone have the numbers??? I'm looking at you eva.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Just to name a few. Bert had a goal against Edmonton waived off this year due to "intent to blow" bulls*** again, and also we all still can't figure out how 4 on ice officials don't notice a team having an extra player on the ice for 26 seconds during a Stanley Cup Finals game.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Hockeytown0001

[b-random 0]

I just would have loved to see it if the ref actually had blown the whistle when he apparently had "intended" to, yah know -- when May was shooting the puck.

I'd love to hear that one explained.

I think the problem is that the ref didn't have his eyes on the inside of the net, or the puck. It was just pure laziness why this goal wasn't noticed to begin with. Why a review couldn't overturn that is the real gaff here, hoplefully they have a meeting of the minds and this never happens again.

[egroen 384]

Exact same thing here at 2:50 only a month ago, though they got this one right -- ref calls the goal no good, but the war room confirms the puck was in the net. Goal counts.

Now, the ref could have still pulled out the ol' "I intended to blow it earlier" and it would not have counted -- but in the case above he at least has a leg to stand on there. Not last night, with the puck going in straight of a shot.

Edited November 19, 2009 by egroen

[Guest ZetterbergFourty]

I'd love to hear that one explained.

Go find a recording of a chicken talking.

[sliverck 3]

This was a joke call in a joke league. And just to rub it in Alex Auld was one of the three stars of the night on NHL.com. The force is strong with this one. "No goal referee, you intended to blow the whistle while the puck was in mid flight."

[nc19 0]

as a wings fan, i thought i was used to bias refs ******* us over.. all the no goal cuz holmstrom is in the crease calls im immune to cuz it happens so much. But ive actually never seen a call like that before in my life... im surprised they didnt get more argument from the wings though..

lets just count our blessings this didnt happen in the playoffs.

[mmamolo 287]

Except, it doesn't. No team in the last 4 years have had as many goals called back as the Red Wings have.

I would definitely love to see those numbers. I dont like to cry conspiracy but I defintely think certain players, and indirectly teams, get a bad wrap for this sort of thing. Obviously at times Holmstrom does interfere with goaltenders and by extension then gets some poor calls against him. I remember the phantom goaltender interference call against Dallas in the 08 WCF when Holmstroms butt was apparently crossing the imaginary plane of the crease. No contact was made between players and yet the goal was disallowed. Same idea here, I definitely do think that certain players get the benefit of the doubt at times while others do not.

Think if Sean Avery was accused of making racist comments and he denied it he would get the benefit of the doubt? No way. Think when Chris Simon is up for suspension he gets the benefit of the doubt? No way. But when Chris Pronger stomps someone's unprotected leg it was accidental and the league gives him the benefit of the doubt. It's just the nature of the beast. Some teams and some players get it and some don't.