• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DirtyD

Let's Talk About the Refereeing

Rate this topic

222 posts in this topic

I completely disagree with Nightfall when it comes to refereeing, as I've seen more than enough consistency in purposely making even-up calls to suggest that there is quite a large bias in referee calls for penalties, especially that, in this discussion, transpired late in Game 2. However, the Wings got the benefit of calls earlier in that game. Now, normally one would suggest that I should shut up because the Wings got the benefit of calls first but no, refereeing is not and should not be about evening up calls, it should be about consistently calling penalties regardless of who it is, what the score is, and how many penalties each team have been called on. How many times do analysts need to point out when one team gets called on penalties often that there is very likely going to be calls the other way? This was part of the CBC discussion during Game 2 that you knew penalties were gonna come the Wings' way, and the same thing was said quite often last night in the Vancouver/Chicago game, sure enough, happened.

That being said, the hit on Franzen was not a penalty. He saw the hit coming and slowed down to absorb the hit.. he obviously made a huge miscalculation and tried to absorb a hit that he couldn't take too far away from the boards and in the danger zone to faceplant into them. That is Franzen's fault. You see our defensemen every game take dump-ins from opposing forwards and go to the boards to retrieve puck to clear it around the boards yet guys like Lidstrom play smart and side-step it or know how to absorb a hit near the boards without injuring one's self. Franzen too often puts himself in a vulnerable position to be injured which is why he does, in fact, get injured frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a scary trend yesterday, the teams down 2-0 got a lot of PP's.

I believe each also got on 5-3.

Add that to the Penalties the Wings have been taking(and some getting called on them) and I think are going to have to play the whole game on the pk, and any penalty has to be served by two people.

Oh but this has nothing to due with the league, the officials sucking, or the league wanting long series.

Even Chicago got a lot of calls (although Torres should have been a 5, not a two minute penalty), and it appeared to me that the iffy ones went Chicago's way, while if Chicago committing an iffy penalty it wasn't called.

I am not saying the league has picked teams to get the calls, but rather the situations.

For instance:

In the regular season lots of times the team behind gets a power play late, almost inevitable. Same in the post season, only now it is also the team behind in the series.

Watch, if Chicago is up 2-3 goals the next game Van will not get that seemingly timely PP, that Chicago was getting, because Van is winning the series.

I only use Chi Van as an example, New York got a plethora of calls in there favor, all but the goal.

I just think that between the refs sucking and the fact that it looks like they are trying to make games/series closer than they are for ratings and viewer interest, it looks like some one is tinkering with results.

Overall, I think the refs just suck in all sports, in general I think many are too slow, too old, and none of them are in any where near the shape nor have the speed of the players they are trying to referee, they are almost always out of position.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going into stuff like officiating conspiracy or things like that, but I am not going to get on people's cases in here if they do so as they continue to show they are horribly inconsistent or opening themselves up to suggestions that they are trying to spin games in a certain direction.

Make-up calls to balance games out drive me nuts like our game against Phoenix Saturday, and how many PPs did Vancouver have all evening? Couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 (I didn't watch the whole game, off/on while doing house chores) and I know Chicago had a lot more. Again I personally won't go that route but if somebody here makes a claim that refs are calling things to help ratings or to keep certain teams in games or the playoffs, I'm not going to get on them about it and it wouldn't shock me if it were actually true (though we'll never really know if that is the case or not).

EDIT: And I'd be one of the first people on here to get on people's cases saying the the refs didn't help the Wings or whichever teams lose, but we've seen officiating overall in general just get worse and worse over the past few seasons, that I don't get surprised or discouraged at people for suggestions, as wild as they might be sometimes, of stuff perhaps going on behind the scenes. I don't think that is the case, I just think overall they and the rules are incompetent so I understand where the wild suggestions come from.

Edited by SouthernWingsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rut" or not, he gets slammed into the boards face first sideways. The rule states that the player checking should hold up on the check. As for Helm, agreed. In any case, we`ve all said our piece and know where we stand. Time for a beer. Can`t wait for tomorrows game and hopefully our good fortune continues and the Wings win. :beerbuddy:

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit goes up 4-0 and the refs start making up penalties and only give Franzen a penalty when the Yotes player retaliated...and it was a pretty tame cross-check to begin with by Franzen. i still don't know what Bertuzzi got a penalty for, and neither do the color guys.

officiating this year again = epic fail

commadore183 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a guy who hasn't posted here in upwards of a year, I gotta say...

I'm loving the staying power that this thread seems to have had.

Just goes to show you that some things never really change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's officiating was much better. Yes, some calls were missed but there will always be missed calls. What was different was that the refs were calling the game rather than the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's officiating was much better. Yes, some calls were missed but there will always be missed calls. What was different was that the refs were calling the game rather than the score.

My thoughts exactly. Also no 5 on 3 for the opposing team.

commadore183 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love seeing how the goalie interference call is so inconsistent.

Once again, its easy for us to make the right calls because we have the benefit of instant replay. As the down low ref, I could see how he perceived that the Vancouver player was pushed into Howard. Every situation is different, and all are based on perception which is why those people with DVRs and an HDTV can be a referee critic.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then wave off the goal for incidental contact with the goaltender, if you don't call the interference penalty because you can't tell whether the Canuck was pushed or not. Jimmy was physically unable to make the save because there was an opposing player on top of him. We've seen goals disallowed for that any number of times, whether there's a penalty called on the play or not.

hooon and Red Wings Addict like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then wave off the goal for incidental contact with the goaltender, if you don't call the interference penalty because you can't tell whether the Canuck was pushed or not. Jimmy was physically unable to make the save because there was an opposing player on top of him. We've seen goals disallowed for that any number of times, whether there's a penalty called on the play or not.

I literally just said the same thing in the GDT. Whether people believe Zetterberg's 'push' was enough to warrant not calling a penalts Hanssen didn't make an effort to stop either and Howard was left unable to make the save. To me, that's incidental contact

Jenny likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I literally just said the same thing in the GDT. Whether people believe Zetterberg's 'push' was enough to warrant not calling a penalts Hanssen didn't make an effort to stop either and Howard was left unable to make the save. To me, that's incidental contact

Just watching the video as it happened in real time, I don't think that Hanssen could stop as Zetterberg does look like he pushed him into Howard. When I watch the instant replay, I can see that there wasn't much of a push and maybe it should have been interference. Since the ref is operating without instant replay, I can see how he made the call he did.

From the NHL rulebook....

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The goal should count IF he believed that Z pushed him.

Now, if it was seen that Z didn't touch him and he ran right into Howard and they scored after that, then you are right. In that situation, Howard would have been unable to make the save and it should have been waived off. Really, this is a matter of perception.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the NHL rulebook....

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The goal should count IF he believed that Z pushed him.

Now, if it was seen that Z didn't touch him and he ran right into Howard and they scored after that, then you are right. In that situation, Howard would have been unable to make the save and it should have been waived off. Really, this is a matter of perception.

The way I explained it is outlined in the rule you quoted. I noted that Zetterberg gave Hanssen a bit of a push. You think the push was enough to warrant a penalty and I don't. But the point is that the rule clearly indicates that the attacking player (Hanssen) needs to make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. I think Hanssen did not make a reasonable effort and you apparently do.

So that's all fine and good. We have different opinions on those two points. But in my mind incidental contact (where the play is blown dead but no penalty to either player is given) is built into the rulebook for such a situation as this one. The ref did not think Zetterberg's push was enough to warrant a penalty. However, Howard was left unable to make an attempt at stopping the puck.

The only way that the ref allows this play to go on is that he also believes that Hanssen was forced into Howard and that he also made a reasonable attempt at avoiding the contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I explained it is outlined in the rule you quoted. I noted that Zetterberg gave Hanssen a bit of a push. You think the push was enough to warrant a penalty and I don't. But the point is that the rule clearly indicates that the attacking player (Hanssen) needs to make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. I think Hanssen did not make a reasonable effort and you apparently do.

So that's all fine and good. We have different opinions on those two points. But in my mind incidental contact (where the play is blown dead but no penalty to either player is given) is built into the rulebook for such a situation as this one. The ref did not think Zetterberg's push was enough to warrant a penalty. However, Howard was left unable to make an attempt at stopping the puck.

The only way that the ref allows this play to go on is that he also believes that Hanssen was forced into Howard and that he also made a reasonable attempt at avoiding the contact.

Yup, I agree. All a matter of perception. If I was in the position the ref was down low and saw that play, I may have called it either way. Hell, when I saw it on my DVR today, I thought there was a push and I would have called it the same way on the ice. When I saw the replay video, I changed my mind. I bet if the ref had the benefit of the replay, he would have changed his call on the ice as well.

Hence the reason why I want every goal reviewed by Toronto.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if that had been Homer on Luongo, does anyone actually believe it would have counted?

And Nightfall, I don't care how fast the game is moving, that play was about as obvious as any. Any human being with eyes in his head can see it. I didn't need the benefit of DVR or slow motion to be able to tell that the player interfered with Howard quite clearly.

Just yet another example of the laughable consistency in the officiating.

Edit: agree on the Toronto thing. As long as they take away any "intent" garbage and actually put the decision in the hands of an impartial official who gets to see the play from many angles. Then again, that would assume the NHL uses logic and reason when determining their rules...

Edited by hooon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Nightfall, I don't care how fast the game is moving, that play was about as obvious as any. Any human being with eyes in his head can see it. I didn't need the benefit of DVR or slow motion to be able to tell that the player interfered with Howard quite clearly.

I would love to have you watch a few of the "you make the call" videos that I have had to watch in some of the seminars that I have attended. You get no instant replay. You then have 1 minute to write your answer down and its onto the next video. Usually about 20 of them are shown. I can tell you with 40+ refs doing this exercise, there is concensus on the right call only 60-70% of the time.

Not suprisingly, you side with your home team in every situation I have seen you comment on and its always easy to decide in hindsight. To say there was a failure on the part of the ref because he didn't see what you saw as a homer fan isn't the fault of the ref. The ref perceived the play on the ice and the system failed because the instant replay clearly shows there was no push. Its a fault of the system not correcting the ref, which is why we need instant replay on every goal.

The human factor really does make sports exciting or infuriating to watch. In this case, its infuriating to Wings fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I agree. All a matter of perception. If I was in the position the ref was down low and saw that play, I may have called it either way. Hell, when I saw it on my DVR today, I thought there was a push and I would have called it the same way on the ice. When I saw the replay video, I changed my mind. I bet if the ref had the benefit of the replay, he would have changed his call on the ice as well.

Hence the reason why I want every goal reviewed by Toronto.

I would love to have you watch a few of the "you make the call" videos that I have had to watch in some of the seminars that I have attended. You get no instant replay. You then have 1 minute to write your answer down and its onto the next video. Usually about 20 of them are shown. I can tell you with 40+ refs doing this exercise, there is concensus on the right call only 60-70% of the time.

Not suprisingly, you side with your home team in every situation I have seen you comment on and its always easy to decide in hindsight. To say there was a failure on the part of the ref because he didn't see what you saw as a homer fan isn't the fault of the ref. The ref perceived the play on the ice and the system failed because the instant replay clearly shows there was no push. Its a fault of the system not correcting the ref, which is why we need instant replay on every goal.

The human factor really does make sports exciting or infuriating to watch. In this case, its infuriating to Wings fans.

Potential bias aside, there's a valid point in there. even if the ref believed Zetterberg pushed Hanssen I would have a tough time believing he felt that Zetterberg just crushed Hanssen into Howard. If the push was viewed as minimal but still enough not warrant a goalie interference call then he should also be looking at Hanssen making a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. Maybe he saw something that I don't and he believe a reasonable effort was made. Regardless of all that, when a player goes into a goalie that hard and takes him completely out of the play (unless it was because a defender absolutely crushed him into the goalie) that's gotta be incidental contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potential bias aside, there's a valid point in there. even if the ref believed Zetterberg pushed Hanssen I would have a tough time believing he felt that Zetterberg just crushed Hanssen into Howard. If the push was viewed as minimal but still enough not warrant a goalie interference call then he should also be looking at Hanssen making a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. Maybe he saw something that I don't and he believe a reasonable effort was made. Regardless of all that, when a player goes into a goalie that hard and takes him completely out of the play (unless it was because a defender absolutely crushed him into the goalie) that's gotta be incidental contact.

In this case though, the ref did believe that he was pushed into the goalie. If Z didn't touch him at all or wasn't around him and the player ran right into Howard, then you are right. The player didn't try to avoid contact. It is on the onus on the player with the puck to avoid contact with the goalie.

You use words like "crushed", but it doesn't take much to push a player into the opposing goalie as a defender. As a skater, a push in the back is enough to drive someone with that much speed into the goalie. The best advice I have given to my defenders is in that situation, don't push them into me. If they drive into me on their own, the ref will get the call right. If their hand in on the offensive players back or shoulder, then it could be viewed as a push.

Obviously, as I said before and I will say it again, its all perception. When I saw the play without instant replay, I thought it was a push in the back into the goalie which would result in no goalie interference call. The ref on the ice thought the same thing. You and other wings fans here think the opposite. Really not much else to talk about other than how unfairly the Wings were treated in this situation. Just like on the Vancouver boards where the call was 100% correct and the ref made the right one.

If you think about it, this call didn't decide the game. What decided the game was the first period when the Wings didn't look real good.

Analysis from Kerry Frasier.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=383366

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read Frasers Article on 'why edlers goal on howard should not have counted.'

He follows up the article with a shameless plug for his book "The Final Call"

Fraser recounts a story about calling goalie interference on Homer...heres some quotes from it, you guys will love this!

as I anticipated, I would have to step up from my position at the blue line and call a penalty on Holmstrom

Fraser has already premeditated giving Holmstrom a penalty during this game.

Mickey Redmond, a former 50-goal scorer for Detroit and long-time colour commentator on Wings television broadcasts, didn't agree (imagine that), but it was a phenomenal call.

A phenomenal call? please.

we officials only have a fraction of a millisecond to see and make a judgment on. This was one of those times, and from 65 feet away.

Fraser made the call from 65 feet away! Interesting. What about the ref down low? Why didn't he make the call?

A wide grin broke out across Holmstrom's face, as he smiled and said, "That's why you're the best!" and then stepped into the penalty box.

Do I really believe Homer said this with a grin on his face as he happily entered the box? Not unless he was being sarcastic. Does anyone have video of this call? Id love to see what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0