Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[19Wingsfan4ever 0]

What a terrible call last night! The refs are bunch of idiots!

[egroen 384]

All goals are reviewed by the Toronto office anyways -- and a called goal can be overruled in the case of the stick being higher than the crease or the puck being kicked.

A puck caught on replay being in the net without a ref seeing it can also be called.

Yet somehow if a ref "intended" to blow a whistle, even for no apparent reason, all bets are off.

It does not take an overhaul of the league to right this -- simply allow for Toronto, where it is already being reviewed, to make sure the right call is made. This will correct 90% of these problems right there. Simple and obvious.

[Guest Crymson]

Once an official tells Toronto that he had intended to blow the whistle, no replay can over turn it. It is all this ambiguity in the NHL rules that are causing all these problems.

In that event, LaRue told Toronto an utter and complete lie.

[YMHC 23]

110% conspiracy

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

I think the worse thing out of this whole thing is that is very minimal reports about it in the media. This in turn, I believe, allows the NHL to maintain their less then mediocure approach to the rules of the game and how they are allowed to be interpreted.

[Opie 308]

Not a conspiracy, but administratively the league is run 110% wrong and that starts with Bettman.

I never ever ever thought I would agree with you so strongly!

EVER!

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

I used to think that this was not the case, I used to think that.

How can you let that bs call go, the only hope for me to think the league is not bush league, is to change the intent rule. If they can create and Avery rule in the middle of the season, they can change this now or at the end of the season, at some time this has to change.

Again, what was he intending to blow the play dead because of, are backhands now illegal?

No he thought, not he knew, not he saw, he THOUGHT the puck was under Auld, he was wrong and unable to admit it!

Toronto should have said, dude, it went in directly off of the shot, not shot then bounced around the crease or any of that, it just went in the gap between Auld's toe and the net. I don't care what you thought happened and why you thought you were blowing the whistle, but it went straight in.

I have seen this crap against too many teams to think it is a conspiracy!

[evilmrt 636]

Pure Incompetence from the Commissioner down to the refs. The amazing thing is how out-of-date the NHL looks in 2009 when it comes to things like this. They're stuck in the late 80s. Seriously....you have on-ice refs that have no communication with the video judge up in his box unless they skate over to a telephone behind glass? And that video judge isn't in constant communication with the "war room" in Toronto, either? He uses a fax machine for after game reports? What??? It boggles the mind when you consider how backward the league is in some ways, and I'm not even getting into the rule system.

[chrisdetroit 189]

I don't think that it is either a conspiracy or incompetance.

The problem is in the way the rules are written. The refs are supposed to blow the whistle or "intend" to blow the whistle when they lose sight of the puck AND this cannot be overidden by replay.

Think about it. That is crap. Last night's non-goal was clearly a case of the puck going in from the shot and it was clearly not frozen by the goalie. There was undisputable video evidence.

Why in the hell then was it called a non-goal?

The video should be allowed to over-rule the call on the ice if there is undisputable video evidence.

The NFL can get it right why can't the NHL?

The most important thing should be TO GET THE CALL RIGHT even if it means that the replay overrides the call on the ice.

[egroen 384]

http://radiotime.com/genre/c_379/NHL.aspx

Live right now...

[egroen 384]

“It is a difficult situationâ€

Admitted the puck went in the net directly from the initial shot.

Happened 3 or 4 times this season, but the refs call on the ice stands…. Until they make any changes. Implied they will be looking into making a change.

[Donaldjr2448 43]

Plain and simple!! WE NEED GIBBS!! From NCIS of Course!! LOL

I'm not sure what to think anymore! It seems as if you are not just competing against other teams, but the men in stripes as well. And its not only the NHL, it's all sports! I was pissed lastnight when they called off the goal. I thought the Wings were coming on during the third period and you could just see the wind come out of their sails when that was waived off!

Like someone else said, The NHL needs to adopt the red challenge flag the NFL has, the game is so fast now anyone can make a mistake and with all the technology at the games now, there is no reason to have a situation like this.

I put some blame on the official from lastnight, but most of the blame goes to the NHL for not correcting the grey areas in the game!

Edited November 19, 2009 by Donaldjr2448

[egroen 384]

Explained that Toronto calls the ref when a puck goes in the net unobserved -- but if the ref states he intended to call it earlier it is a non-reviewable call. End of story.

[egroen 384]

"Less video review is better"

Fans can not expect perfection.

"At what point do you stop with video review?"

"Do not want refs influenced by video review"

Just going to have to live with the 4 or 5 times this happens a season [to the Red Wings].

[egroen 384]

Essentially the answer is -- "Hey, we can't be perfect!"

What a joke.

It's not perfection we are asking for - it is simply using the tools you already have available to make the right call ON GOALS.

[ChitownWingsfan 54]

That entire interview was absurb. "Yeah, we had video evidence of the goal but LaRue said he didn't see it the puck so we can't look at the video. Sorry."

Wha . . . HE COULDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE GOAL! The puck wasn't flying around in the rafters, it went in the goal, just f***ing tell him he's wrong and thats why he didn't see the puck!

Edited November 19, 2009 by ChitownWingsfan

[WpgMikos 17]

I don't think you can expect perfection (I asked IC readers the same question) from the ref's but that's the point of video review. To correct any mistakes made by the officials.

[SDavis35 140]

"Less video review is better"

Fans can not expect perfection.

"At what point do you stop with video review?"

"Do not want refs influenced by video review"

Just going to have to live with the 4 or 5 times this happens a season [to the Red Wings].

I have more issues with officiating than simply Wings issues... I watch other teams too. I think they should be able to challenge at the cost of a "delay of game" penalty.

- Montreal 7-on-3 PP

- Waving off a goal on account of GI

- McCreary Getting in the way of a player en route to the net

- Intent to blow

These types of issues need to be addressed, and it would be nice if the Captains were able to hear what was being said from Toronto to the refs.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I have more issues with officiating than simply Wings issues... I watch other teams too. I think they should be able to challenge at the cost of a "delay of game" penalty.

- Montreal 7-on-3 PP

- Waving off a goal on account of GI

- McCreary Getting in the way of a player en route to the net

- Intent to blow

These types of issues need to be addressed, and it would be nice if the Captains were able to hear what was being said from Toronto to the refs.

What's so secret anyways that they just can't be entirely open about it?

Edit: Now were stuck not knowing if the refs or NHL made the call, who do we blame? who do we trust?

Edited November 19, 2009 by CaliWingsNut

[WpgMikos 17]

What's so secret anyways that they just can't be entirely open about it?

Edit: Now were stuck not knowing if the refs or NHL made the call, who do we blame? who do we trust?

Interestingly, the NHL has a procedure in place anytime video review is used:

39.3 Reports – Following every game, the Video Goal Judge must call the National Hockey League Toronto office and provide a verbal report of all video reviews conducted during the game.

Video Goal Judge reports are to be faxed or sent electronically to the National Hockey League Toronto office immediately following the game.

Wouldn't it be great to be privy to that fax or email!

[StormJH1 231]

I don't think that it is either a conspiracy or incompetance.

The problem is in the way the rules are written. The refs are supposed to blow the whistle or "intend" to blow the whistle when they lose sight of the puck AND this cannot be overidden by replay.

Think about it. That is crap. Last night's non-goal was clearly a case of the puck going in from the shot and it was clearly not frozen by the goalie. There was undisputable video evidence.

Why in the hell then was it called a non-goal?

The video should be allowed to over-rule the call on the ice if there is undisputable video evidence.

The NFL can get it right why can't the NHL?

The most important thing should be TO GET THE CALL RIGHT even if it means that the replay overrides the call on the ice.

The problem with that is that the referee never made the "intent to blow whistle" argument...that's just what Alex Auld said, and his opinion is irrelevant. What the ref on the ice actually said was that the puck went in after the whistle blew. That's a factual statement, not a judgment call. And not only is it patently false, but it should be totally reviewable and they STILL screwed it up!

But even if the league does come out and defend the ref based on his "intent" (they haven't said anything yet, right?), that doesn't work either. If you watch that ref, he SAW the play. He didn't budge until the puck was in the net and that's when he blew the whistle. The only mistake he made was the initial call (not seeing that the puck was in the net).

So, given that set of facts, how can you argue that the ref "intended" to blow the whistle any earlier than he did? The NHL's only argument to defend its ref is to say that the ref actually intended to make the wrong call (that the play was dead), but made the right call by accident (waiting to blow the whistle). NICE!

[StormJH1 231]

Explained that Toronto calls the ref when a puck goes in the net unobserved -- but if the ref states he intended to call it earlier it is a non-reviewable call. End of story.

And again, I simply cannot believe that this ref would've told Toronto that he ACTUALLY meant to blow the play dead while the puck was still in play. The timing of his whistle was 100% appropriate...why the hell would he lie and say that he did his job wrong? This was on Toronto to fix this, and they screwed it up.

[eva unit zero 271]

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.

GPS is a satellite transmission. Of course it's not that precise.

This is not a matter of some giant scanner knowing where the puck is all over the ice. It's a matter of a few chips or emitters inside a puck being detected by sensors within four feet of the puck. Say there are sensors inside the goal posts and crossbar which create a sort of field the puck would have to pass through to enter the goal. The FoxTrax puck system wouldn't work for this because it was based on similar technology to GPS; it was an imprecise location based on an in-arena satellite. Another advantage to my system? The nets could be set up so that when knocked off, the gate is deactivated but the clock is still stopped. Now we just need someone to design the actual programming and get the technology working together.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Well Gary? Your League Is A Joke

by IwoCPO on 11/18/09 at 10:02 PM ET

Comments (109)

2-1 Dallas. Approximately thirteen minutes left in Detroit. Wrist shot gets by Alex Auld, rests beyond the goal line, under his pads, nestled and a clear goal. Referees Stephane Auger and Dennis LaRue? No goal. No whistle, no mention of the term “intent to blowâ€...just no goal.

Oh, but good. Toronto called. They’d seen it and the voice of reason jumped in to save the day.

“There is no goal. The whistle was blown to kill the play.â€

Really? Watch for yourself.

“The whistle was blown to kill the play.†The whistle came at least a full second after the goal. What we have here is a LaRue or Auger screw-up, then a LaRue or Auger ego that won’t let them allow to admit, or even consider, their own mistake.

You guys have watched the video. You’ve seen that Toronto reviewed it. They saw, and heard, exactly what you did. Why didn’t they overturn it? Anyone have an answer for that?

It almost lends credence to this comment left below just a few minutes ago…

Are you sure they didn’t? Something tells me they did...and LaRue ignored it.

Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 11/18/09 at 10:45 PM ET

That was such an obvious miscarriage, such a clear, blistering prison washroom assault of a call...that it’s almost impossible to believe Toronto missed it. If they didn’t, if they overturned it, could LaRue have simply ignored them out of sheer embarrassment? Not likely, but something idiotic happened.

And nothing will be done. Nothing. LaRue, of course, is one of Gary’s best. A ref in last year’s Stanley Cup Final, so you know he has to be good, right?

I’m wondering what the reaction to this will be from the MSM and blogging “eliteâ€. I’m wondering who has the nad to call this exactly what it is...another example of a travesty by the most inept professional sports league in North America.

Oh. That’s right. It’s just another Wing fan and a conspiracy theory, right? Ok. Go with that if you want, but I’d suggest you watch this joke real close before stepping out on that branch.

It’s no conspiracy. It’s reality and we all just accept it. We, all hockey fans, just bend over and accept it. We accept the worst officiating in sports. We accept a crooked, incompetent commissioner. We just take it because we love hockey and we love our teams.

It’s time somebody stood up for the fan. The guy to do that may be the guy who hung up the skates yesterday. He’ll never be a commissioner, but he can definitely be a voice to be reckoned with.

It’s sickening and embarrassing what we’ll put up with. If you’re a fan of the NHL, you’re nothing more than an idiot pawn. And I’m right there with you.

“It’s as dumb as I’ve ever seen.â€

--Uncle Mike Babcock

[hooon 1,089]

GPS is a satellite transmission. Of course it's not that precise.

This is not a matter of some giant scanner knowing where the puck is all over the ice. It's a matter of a few chips or emitters inside a puck being detected by sensors within four feet of the puck. Say there are sensors inside the goal posts and crossbar which create a sort of field the puck would have to pass through to enter the goal. The FoxTrax puck system wouldn't work for this because it was based on similar technology to GPS; it was an imprecise location based on an in-arena satellite. Another advantage to my system? The nets could be set up so that when knocked off, the gate is deactivated but the clock is still stopped. Now we just need someone to design the actual programming and get the technology working together.

This was my thought exactly. Seems like pretty simple technology. Small chip in puck. Censors in ice/posts. That simple.

Refs fail immensely.