Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[blankrap 9]

Anyone know where we can get the ref schedules to see who is reffing the games (prior to game center being available on NHL.com) in advance? Is there such a place?

[WpgMikos 17]

From what, other boards?

Yup, was on Hockey Futures and it would seem like it was 90% in favor of Detroit.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

EVEN NHL09 Refs have the intent to blow the whistle... I found this on Youtube and the goal didn't count when it was clearly in... Just to throw a little humor in for us.

How pissed would you be if you were in a heated tourny with someone and that was the clincher or tier...

hahahaha thats awesome..and it sucks..although i have had that crap happen to me.

[zettie85 106]

There will be no disciplining. A Red Wings fan punishment is the only thing that can be done. The next game officiated at the Joe by LaRue should be nothing but a shower of boos through out the game. The NHL won't do anything. It's up to the fans to show their disapproval.

[One4TheWings 11]

I'm beginning to think there might be something to this conspiracy theory. I mean I haven't seen much about this phantom goal except from Detroit news sources. But how often do you read tsn.ca/nhl and see a coach fined for saying something about the refs? What Mike Babcock said sure warrants a fine when you consider that other coaches have been fined for saying very similar stuff.

"It was not blown dead," coach Mike Babcock said. "It was a goal. The guy never meant to blow the whistle; it was a shot. The puck went in on a shot. It was as dumb as anything I've ever seen. Toronto probably thought there was no way you can shoot it in the net and have it waved off," Babcock joked. "They tried to make a way for him to change it."

Maybe I missed where the fine was announced but if this goes ignored. I have to give a little credibility to this whole conspiracy theory. It seems like it's being swept under the rug.

Edited November 20, 2009 by One4TheWings

[agziolkow 1]

"The NHL's Murphy said the League's Hockey Operations group will "internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer. If there is one we'll find one.""

Really?

Screw you

Edited November 20, 2009 by agziolkow

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

"The NHL's Murphy said the League's Hockey Operations group will "internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer. If there is one we'll find one.""

Really?

Screw you

Honestly, should we really have expected anything different?

With blunders like Wednesday, does Bettman and co. ever answer questions directly? Very rarely, in my opinion. There's always sidestepping.

I know you have to support your employees, in this case officials, which is fine.

I think a lot more of people though when they admit they were wrong and not try to dodge questions to not be embarassed. It's all right to admit you made a mistake, and try to move on from it. Don't cover up though or say that nothing is wrong, that makes it even worse.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Honestly, should we really have expected anything different?

With blunders like Wednesday, does Bettman and co. ever answer questions directly? Very rarely, in my opinion. There's always sidestepping.

I know you have to support your employees, in this case officials, which is fine.

I think a lot more of people though when they admit they were wrong and not try to dodge questions to not be embarassed. It's all right to admit you made a mistake, and try to move on from it. Don't cover up though or say that nothing is wrong, that makes it even worse.

And yet there's nothing wrong with admitting that they made a mistake at times. As others have said, it would happen if any one of us screwed up in our jobs - why should NHL referees be any different?

[egroen 384]

They made the Avery Rule right out of the blue... and thank goodness they did!

But for a legitimate problem like this, that keeps popping up again and again, and a problem that could be fixed instantly (put in the rules that an "intent" to whistle is reviewable on goals and non-goals)... "maybe it will come up at the next General Manager's Meeting."

[Opie 308]

You know this almost falls under my new Andy Petite rule:

Andy (I hate the yankees btw, Red Sox fan!) admitted using steriods, said I f-ed up, and most of the baseball world either forgave him or has gone a hell of a lot easier on him than say, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, or A-Rod.

here is the point to bringing this up:

If they just said we made a mistake and are trying to change it.

Right away, not the "We do not want replay officiating the game" answer the fan reaction would be different.

I mean come on, one set of announcers is in complete befuddlement over the call (DET) and the other (DAL) the announcers can not stop laughing at the call. The goalie threw the puck out and made a face like "Oh s***, that's a goal" the replay shows it in the net off of the shot, no penalties, no nothing to be called. Yet Toronto cannot say, that is a goal because there is no way you were blowing the whistle.

[Electrophile 3,554]

You know this almost falls under my new Andy Petite rule:

Andy (I hate the yankees btw, Red Sox fan!) admitted using steriods, said I f-ed up, and most of the baseball world either forgave him or has gone a hell of a lot easier on him than say, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, or A-Rod.

here is the point to bringing this up:

If they just said we made a mistake and are trying to change it.

Right away, not the "We do not want replay officiating the game" answer the fan reaction would be different.

I mean come on, one set of announcers is in complete befuddlement over the call (DET) and the other (DAL) the announcers can not stop laughing at the call. The goalie threw the puck out and made a face like "Oh s***, that's a goal" the replay shows it in the net off of the shot, no penalties, no nothing to be called. Yet Toronto cannot say, that is a goal because there is no way you were blowing the whistle.

First of all, yay a Yankee Haterâ„¢! I love each and every one of you delusional yet beautiful people. Two, it's Pettitte. If you're going to talk about him, spell the name right. Three, Alex is in the same boat as Andy Pettitte. The only people that give him a hard time are Yankee Hatersâ„¢, and while they're special, special people.....they don't count for much. Four, I find it sad that you said you were a Yankee Haterâ„¢ BEFORE you said you were a Red Sox fan. So typical, yet so wonderful at the same time. You people never cease to fill me with mirth and joy.

BTW, Clemens and Bonds are in a boat all by their little lonesome, way out in the middle of the ocean, forever.

[Vladifan 680]

"The NHL's Murphy said the League's Hockey Operations group will "internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer. If there is one we'll find one.""

Really?

Screw you

And how long has professional hockey been played? And how long should it take to permanently REMOVE the opportunity to make such s***ty decisions mainly made because of a referee's ego and arrogance? And how long should it take to also remove the cover-up by other refs on the ice to save his ass, in spite of how it might affect the outcome of the game? (I.E., the call from center ice on Stuart for high sticking.)

[eva unit zero 271]

This makes no sense.

The US military (its our satellites afterall) restricts accuracy on GPS devices to within a few meters. Military GPS devices can gauge in inches (or maybe smaller).

There's auto car alarms designed for Jeeps and similar open vehicles that work off high frequency sonar.

The technology is there.

Yes, I have said the technology is there many times. I simply said that GPS uses satellite transmission, which would be ridiculous trying to detect whether a puck had crossed a line. We're not trying to tell whether the puck has left the arena and taken the People Mover and is now rocking a few piercings and some eyeliner at City Club. We just want to know one thing: did it cross the line?

[EuroTwin 240]

They made the Avery Rule right out of the blue... and thank goodness they did!

But for a legitimate problem like this, that keeps popping up again and again, and a problem that could be fixed instantly (put in the rules that an "intent" to whistle is reviewable on goals and non-goals)... "maybe it will come up at the next General Manager's Meeting."

You know, this is what pisses me off the most about this situation, I think, because pretty much every faucet of this situation enrages me.

Sean Avery decides that instead of waving his ass in the goalie's face, he's going to wave his arms, and OMG IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WE NEED A NEW RULE RIGHT AWAY HOW DARE HE, and LaRue absolutely f***s up by not counting this as a goal and maybe they'll talk about it later? This was a game-tying goal. A game changing goal, both because it didn't count and if it had. And when that s*** gets less official attention than Avery deciding to wave at Brodeur? Then there is something seriously wrong.

Edited November 20, 2009 by EuroTwin

[MacK_Attack 108]

To me it appears that the league is working overtime to maintain the rep of it's on-ice officials which includes backing them up irregardless of what said official conjures up...In other words - the league won't call-out officials who f*** up.

They will never do it in public, but the NHL does heavily scrutinize officials behind closed doors. It's of no benefit to anyone if the NHL called out their officials in public.

[Opie 308]

First of all, yay a Yankee Haterâ„¢! I love each and every one of you delusional yet beautiful people. Two, it's Pettitte. If you're going to talk about him, spell the name right. Three, Alex is in the same boat as Andy Pettitte. The only people that give him a hard time are Yankee Hatersâ„¢, and while they're special, special people.....they don't count for much. Four, I find it sad that you said you were a Yankee Haterâ„¢ BEFORE you said you were a Red Sox fan. So typical, yet so wonderful at the same time. You people never cease to fill me with mirth and joy.

BTW, Clemens and Bonds are in a boat all by their little lonesome, way out in the middle of the ocean, forever.

The only reason I brought the Yankee thing was that I agree with the treatment of Andy Pettitte (sorry I spelled it wrong), he admitted wrong and has been allowed to move on un-harassed. While Arod, Bonds, and Clemens are still persecuted. You agree correct Arod is not given the Pettitte treatment, he is still harassed?

I was merely (yet poorly) trying to state that if they had taken the correct path, that which Andy took (and Arod tried to take) that perhaps they would be given more leeway.

I was not trying to say he deserved more criticism, I blame all of Baseball for Steroids, the players who used and didn't use, managers, gm's commish, all of Baseball.

I only brought up my dislike for the Yankees (is it horrible to hate the rival, didn't we all hate the Avs?) to make it apparent that I wasn't biased.

And that if the league had stated they have the wrong rule in place and need to change it. Instead of look into it, they may actually get a different reaction from the public.

But I am glad you grabbed one part of my post, the irrelevant part at that, and took off with.

[Vladifan 680]

They will never do it in public, but the NHL does heavily scrutinize officials behind closed doors. It's of no benefit to anyone if the NHL called out their officials in public.

They don't even have to "call them out". It would be more than enough if the refs admitted their own errors, but they NEVER do.

As for heavy scrutiny, I'd like to think that actually happens but I have not seen any instances where referees were taken out of the "lineup", or penalized in any way. The only way I know of that they're affected negatively is that their "grades" may keep them out of refereeing the playoffs and finals. BFD.

[lookalive07 251]

To me, it's a little of both.

For one, incompetence played a huge role in both the goal last year that was disallowed, and the one on Wednesday. I am biased solely because I am a Wings fan, but I am unbiased because both of those goals should be on the books, and possibly could have been game/series changers, not only because they are goals, but because there is indisputable video evidence of both goals. To me, the incompetence starts with the rule book because the "intent to blow the whistle" rule gives the referees way too much power in a game that is already controlled enough.

If the referee is going to stop play because the puck is covered, fine. But with video review, we also need audio. That, in my opinion is the major downfall with the Toronto Review they have. Add in audio review, and you'd have clear evidence when there is a goal and when there is not. If the referee can't see the puck, fine. He blows the whistle, and play is dead. However, if he blows the whistle, but then we find out like on Wednesday that the puck was in the net 3 seconds before the whistle is blown, the audio/video review should confirm this, and Toronto should tell the ref to call it a goal.

This is where conspiracy comes in. The problem with the Toronto Review is that the referee can't see the review. He's relying on someone miles away telling him what to do. It's hard enough for the refs to keep track of the puck in real time, but when he can't even see a video review of the play in question, how is he supposed to make the right call? Referee bias could come in because referees are human. How are we supposed to know how unbiased a referee is being during a game? We're not. All referees could be screwing the teams they don't like, because let's face it, a hockey referee wouldn't become one if he didn't grow up liking hockey, so it's relatively certain he has some bias when officiating.

Either way, we can't fix what was broken, so we just move on until something happens to fix it, or we get another blown call to ***** about.

[ami 273]

They will never do it in public, but the NHL does heavily scrutinize officials behind closed doors. It's of no benefit to anyone if the NHL called out their officials in public.

Really?

I don't see any benefits of scrutinizing official without taking some real actions to f-ed up official.

Dennis LaRue has been known to hockey world and, according to your logic, 'heavily scrutinize' before... Apparently, to no avail..

So, I must agree with you - NO benefits to anyone...

Edited November 20, 2009 by ami

[redwingmachine 189]

It was a BS call, no doubt about it! The ref knows it, the war room knows and we all know it. If “intent to blow†is used, you should have to show on a replay and explain when exactly you “intended†to blow and why? This was never explained and most likely never will be – hence conspiracy theories on LGW. IMO – there should be a reasonable amount of time attached to that rule. Like, 1-2 full seconds. If you cannot make the decision in your brain and commit execution of an action (Putting the whistle in your mouth) within 2 full seconds then you should most defiantly NOT be a zebra for the NHL.

[Guest Shoreline]

To me it appears that the league is working overtime to maintain the rep of it's on-ice officials which includes backing them up irregardless of what said official conjures up...In other words - the league won't call-out officials who f*** up.

Regardlessless? (had to)

We know that it's possible for there to be some conspiring going on between officials -- proof in the pudding with the NBA. However, it was more than blatant the evidence to where that could be shown. In this case, the blame is often times calls aren't "even" or officials "miss" calls, and that in itself points to a conspiracy. We also know that people who love to point out conspiracies do so only by selectively acknowledging evidence to what they support and completely ignoring evidence (usually not even addressing said evidence) that points to the contrary.

There is a problem with officiating from my perspective, however, it was the same way before the 2 ref / 4 official system, so it could just be that I'm a Red Wing fan and that biases my perception of penalties.

[Electrophile 3,554]

The only reason I brought the Yankee thing was that I agree with the treatment of Andy Pettitte (sorry I spelled it wrong), he admitted wrong and has been allowed to move on un-harassed. While Arod, Bonds, and Clemens are still persecuted. You agree correct Arod is not given the Pettitte treatment, he is still harassed?

I was merely (yet poorly) trying to state that if they had taken the correct path, that which Andy took (and Arod tried to take) that perhaps they would be given more leeway.

I was not trying to say he deserved more criticism, I blame all of Baseball for Steroids, the players who used and didn't use, managers, gm's commish, all of Baseball.

I only brought up my dislike for the Yankees (is it horrible to hate the rival, didn't we all hate the Avs?) to make it apparent that I wasn't biased.

And that if the league had stated they have the wrong rule in place and need to change it. Instead of look into it, they may actually get a different reaction from the public.

But I am glad you grabbed one part of my post, the irrelevant part at that, and took off with.

Oh no, I think it's great that you hate the Yankees! Are you kidding me....it's fantastic! People like you put a smile on my face.

That being said, a Yankee Haterâ„¢ and a non-Yankees fan are two different breeds of fan. See, you said you hated the Yankees, then you said you were a Sox fan. That sent up a red flag in my mind. A non-Yankees fan would have just said they were a Sox fan, and the fact they dislike the Yankees would have been understood. Bless you people.....bless each and every one of you.

That being said, I think we've both derailed this thread enough with baseball talk.

[Guest zackmorris]

If there's a conspiracy, do you think it'd ever be made obvious enough that a good percentage of an internet forum would be able to guess it?

What's more, if anyone believed there was a conspiracy, do you think they'd risk being publically ridiculed to admit it? Just look, it didn't take long before the tinfoil hat picture was put up. All you'll be called is a Mulder if you think anything but incompetence.

Personally, I vote incompetence from the top down, but after the Cup final last year, a little bit of me will always think someone is (NOT fixing) heavily influencing what's going on out there. Do you really trust this league? Gary Bettman? Really? I don't.

[titanium2 867]

Personally, I vote incompetence from the top down, but after the Cup final last year, a little bit of me will always think someone is (NOT fixing) heavily influencing what's going on out there. Do you really trust this league? Gary Bettman? Really? I don't.

Nashville versus Atlanta Stanley Cup Finals FTW!!!

[Guest zackmorris]

Nashville versus Atlanta Stanley Cup Finals FTW!!!

Heh. Sadly Nashville doesn't have anyone marketable enough.