Officials...Conspiracy or Incompetence?

[Brad Kepler 0]

I'm not sure how it works when Toronto calls on a disputed goal, if they have ultimate say or what, but it seems like "intent to whistle" could only be decided by the ref. Therefore, Toronto could not tell him that it was his intent to blow the whistle way too soon.

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

[clutchngrab 12]

Enough with this "intent to blow the whistle" rule. It's bulls*** and needs to go... seriously... how long does it take to bring a whistle up to your mouth?

There was no intent - May score on the SHOT. LaRue just didn't want to be overturned by Totonto and that's what is maddening. Ass clown ego tripping ref.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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.

[Jedi 1,865]

I'm not sure how it works when Toronto calls on a disputed goal, if they have ultimate say or what, but it seems like "intent to whistle" could only be decided by the ref. Therefore, Toronto could not tell him that it was his intent to blow the whistle way too soon.

That's exactly it. Toronto can't overturn the ref's "intent" to blow the whistle, which is why they couldn't overturn that goal.

Toronto reviews every single goal that's scored, and reviews every single close call, etc. I have no doubt that they realize that this was a goal, and should have been a goal. But the ref's intention cannot be overturned, thus no goal. It's a horrible call, of course, but that's the way the rules are in the NHL.

[WpgMikos 17]

I was at the gym so I was watching the game but didn't hear the explanation as to why the whistle was blown, or if it wasn't why the goal was disallowed. What was the reason given?

[blankrap 9]

Enough with this "intent to blow the whistle" rule. It's bulls*** and needs to go... seriously... how long does it take to bring a whistle up to your mouth?

Apparently a good three seconds after the puck was in the net... which makes a good 6-10 second from when he decided to blow the whistle to the actual whistle time. Brad May had time to shoot the puck, locate the rebound and backhand it in... then the puck sat in the net for three seconds the ref couldn't find it and bam... whistle.

Then the ref watched the replay, felt incredibly stupid (as he should) and decided that he had the intent to blow the whistle. Then, his friends from Toronto that were watching the Nebraska Cornhuskers lose in college basketball said man you look stupid... tell them you had the intent to blow... and then he said, that is what I was thinking... So then he went to babcock and was like hey man you have nice hair but I had the intent to blow... and babcock said it is apparent you blow on a regular basis. Ruined the game, ruined mays night, and now we get to rant.

Super Fail Boat.

[dat's sick 1,002]

I can't believe they still get these things wrong with video review..

I'd really like to know what they were watching over there in Toronto.. probably a re-run of the last game the Leafs won, all they heard was that a review was needed on a Wings goal and they called and said "no goal, goalie interference. what holmstrom wasn't on the ice? well high-sticking then. franzen wasn't out there either? well just say the whistle was blown or something.."

(for the record, I don't believe in a conspiracy)

[Pavel Hossyukstrom 2]

Incompetence. Clearly and obviously. There is no conspiracy, they just suck at their jobs and they suck at executing those jobs and they suck at interpreting the rules.

Baseball makes their umpires know the rule book back and front, they have to go to school, there are ramifications if they continually suck at what they're doing. Maybe the NHL should invest in something like this.

really?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb,195187

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb,197210

[Brad Kepler 0]

Toronto reviews every single goal that's scored, and reviews every single close call, etc. I have no doubt that they realize that this was a goal, and should have been a goal. But the ref's intention cannot be overturned, thus no goal. It's a horrible call, of course, but that's the way the rules are in the NHL.

Then A) The rules need to change and bloody quick...and B) why these calls seem to be the exclusive franchise of the Wings again we have been burned twice

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Enough with this "intent to blow the whistle" rule. It's bulls*** and needs to go... seriously... how long does it take to bring a whistle up to your mouth?

That's something else I never thought of. It takes literally less than 1 second to raise the whistle to your mouith and blow in it. Now, unless the referee had just slipped and fallen or was somehow tied up by another player when the play happens, I can understand the "intent to blow" call. That, so far as I know, has NEVER been the case.

[barabbas16 499]

I think the original bad call was just a mistake/incompetence. Then, he got the call from toronto saying he was wrong and it went in. THEN, I think he was too proud to admit he was wrong and so he gave the 'intent to blow' B.S...... which was obviously a lie since there is no way he had intent to blow the whistle before the puck went in. The only other possible explanation is that he is WAY more incompetent than I give him credit for and he thought it was frozen under Auld when May had the puck on his stick not even in the crease.

On a related note, do referees receive any punishment for blantantly incorrect calls such as this?....monetary?...do they lose their jobs if they do this with any consistency?....should there be something like this in place?

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

It's what I call enforced incompetence.

If the NHL truly wanted to make it's officiating better, it would.

But for now, for some reason, the incompetent refs are generating results to the point that the NHL isn't canning their asses for it.

It might not be a conspiracy, but when shows like "Sid and Stanley" pop up less than 2 months after a semi-controversial Cup win, people might start to see things.

I would say something dumb like "Let's boycott the NHL" or "just don't watch", but since most of the US and more and more of Canada is doing that anyway, why bother.

The NHL won't even exist after the next lockout anyway, and the evil elf will only have himself to blame. But maybe he can live with Cindy Crysby in Mario's basement or something. Hell they could share the same couch even.

[WpgMikos 17]

On a related note, do referees receive any punishment for blantantly incorrect calls such as this?....monetary?...do they lose their jobs if they do this with any consistency?....should there be something like this in place?

I don't know if they do, but if not, they should. After watching the video, its a terrible call.

[blankrap 9]

Quote from NHL.com game recap:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/recap.htm?id=2009020295

NOTES: Detroit G Chris Osgood missed his third game because of the flu. ... Dallas LA Fabian Brunnstrom missed his third game due to a shoulder injury. ... Stars' C Brian Sutherby missed his second game with a groin injury. ... The Red Wings' Brad May and the Stars' Krystofer Barch fought in the second period after having a good-natured conversation during pregame warmups. ... An apparent goal by May, 6:24 into the third period, was waved off because it was ruled the whistle had blown.

[LidsFan 68]

Incompetence, plain and simple. When they said it was a no goal, I had a flash back of Hossa's goal being waived off against Anaheim. How come it is always the tying goals that get taken away from the Wings?

I wish that the NHL would do away with the intent to blow the whistle rule. If the Ref can't get his whistle up to his lips in time the play should stand. That is only fair, and it would stop legitimate goals from being taken away from teams, especially during crucial times in the game.

[WpgMikos 17]

Just perusing the NHL Rules:

32.2 Disputes - The Referees shall have general supervision of the game and shall have full control of all game officials and players during the game, including stoppages; and in case of any dispute, their decision shall be final.

As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.

Stupid rule that needs to be amended.

Rule 39 - Video Goal Judge

39.1 General Duties – The following are the general duties of the Video Goal Judge:

(i) He will review replays of disputed goals when requested to do so by the Referees.

(ii) He will review replays of disputed goals when he observes an incident that was undetected by on-ice officials.

(iii) After viewing the incident he will promptly convey his decision directly to the Referee at the penalty bench. When a play has been referred to the Video Goal Judge, his decision shall be final.

(iv) During the review he may consult with a member of the League’s Hockey Operations or Officiating department staff if latter is in attendance at the game (or via telephone).

(v) No goal may be awarded (or disallowed) as a result of video review once the puck has been dropped and play has resumed following the first stoppage of play after the potential goal.

While I realize the ref didn't ask for the review it makes no sense not to overturn his error.

Edited November 19, 2009 by WpgMikos

[Jedi 1,865]

Then A) The rules need to change and bloody quick...and B) why these calls seem to be the exclusive franchise of the Wings again we have been burned twice

A - I don't disagree at all. I think that rule is sorely in need of changing. We're on the same page here.

B - I think you'd see that other teams get the short end of the reffing stick often enough too. Maybe they don't get burned on the same "intent to blow the whistle" rule, but they get their own fair share of blundered calls too.

Sometimes these things balance out though. I seem to remember us scoring the series winner against Anaheim in game 7 in much the same fashion as the goal from game 3 that was waived off because of that rule...

[mjlegend 155]

Just perusing the NHL Rules:

Stupid rule that needs to be amended.

Based on this, Larue must have ruled that the whistle was intended to be blown for no reason just as Brad May was shooting the puck.

[EuroTwin 240]

It started as pure incompetence, but then that ******* got embarassed when it was shown he was, in fact, terrible at his job and missed a goal, and he didn't want to admit it on TV or in front of a crowd of people.

[Brad Kepler 0]

Just perusing the NHL Rules:

THAT gives the refs a license to control the outcome of ANY GAME. This needs investigation a crooked ref could change fortunes in sports betting houses

We have seen how the Brad Watson call controlled the outcome of Game -3 in Annaheim. We saw how it controlled the outcome of THIS game time to see if any refs are living well

[henrik40 76]

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.

[Brad Kepler 0]

A - I don't disagree at all. I think that rule is sorely in need of changing. We're on the same page here.

B - I think you'd see that other teams get the short end of the reffing stick often enough too. Maybe they don't get burned on the same "intent to blow the whistle" rule, but they get their own fair share of blundered calls too.

Sometimes these things balance out though. I seem to remember us scoring the series winner against Anaheim in game 7 in much the same fashion as the goal from game 3 that was waived off because of that rule...

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

[WpgMikos 17]

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.

I've intercepted the Fax to the NHL and it reads as follows:

He blew the call. Simple as that.

[ShanahanMan 473]

Just perusing the NHL Rules:

Stupid rule that needs to be amended.

While I realize the ref didn't ask for the review it makes no sense not to overturn his error.

That doesn't make sense in this case. That would mean the ref just randomly had the intent to blow the whistle while Brad May had the puck.....

Oh and btw, NHL Live is going over the Florida/Buffalo game for the THIRD time and has not once even mentioned the Wings game. I wonder why......

Edited November 19, 2009 by ShanahanMan

[Icesurfer 75]

Ref didn't want to look incompetent.... so he makes another bad decision to cover up his mistake. What really looks bad is when the four of them got together to talk about it.

Puck went right into the net on the shot. They just didn't bother checking.

What's wrong with reviewing every goal???