Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Let's Talk About the Refereeing


  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

#201 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 18 April 2011 - 08:48 AM

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.

#202 Opie

Opie

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,419 posts
  • Location:The only Henniker on Earth!

Posted 18 April 2011 - 09:12 AM

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, 18 April 2011 - 09:13 AM.

"The more I know about people - the better I like my dog." - Mark Twain

"A wise man once told me, ‘Don’t argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can’t tell who is who'." Jay Z, Takeover

"When I was looking for a captain, I wanted a guy with the Red Wings crest tattooed on his chest," said former Detroit coach Jacques Demers, who named Yzerman captain in 1986. "Steve Yzerman was that guy."

“Told him if he wasn't ultra-competitive he couldn't come here. If he didn't bring it every day he couldn't come here, because he was going to hate it if he didn't, dislike the coach and dislike playing here.
“It's real straightforward. If you don't do it right, you're not happy here." Babcock

#203 SouthernWingsFan

SouthernWingsFan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 24,609 posts
  • Location:Mandeville, Louisiana (Greater New Orleans area)

Posted 18 April 2011 - 10:26 AM

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, 18 April 2011 - 10:28 AM.


#204 Hockeytown_Ryan

Hockeytown_Ryan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Location:Saint Clair Shores, MI

Posted 18 April 2011 - 11:15 AM

"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:

#205 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    Part 3: Return of the Hammer Hands

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,167 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 18 April 2011 - 12:48 PM

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

Free darkmanx!

 

"I play hockey, but I am not very good.  Can someone please tell me what it would take to sign with the Wings ? I can use a million or two."  ~ arag


#206 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,600 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 18 April 2011 - 12:48 PM

I'm still very dumbfounded on why Helm's perfect check was called boarding.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#207 DirtyD

DirtyD

    One fast move or I'm gone

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Location:London, ON

Posted 19 April 2011 - 01:00 AM

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.

Posted Image


#208 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 19 April 2011 - 09:43 AM

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.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)


#209 RedLightGoesOn

RedLightGoesOn

    Playoff Ice...if you know what I mean

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 19 April 2011 - 10:55 AM

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.
40 for life.

#210 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,600 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:45 AM

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

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#211 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 December 2011 - 08:38 AM

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, 22 December 2011 - 08:49 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#212 Jenny

Jenny

    Geeky Goalie Girl

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • Location:Toledo, OH

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:21 AM

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.

detroit-skyline.jpg

My priorities: 1-Hockey. 2-Sleep. 3-Food. 4-Everything Else.

No, Ozzie is NOT the Breakfast Wizard!" -- my husband


#213 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:30 AM

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
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#214 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:06 AM

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, 22 December 2011 - 11:11 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#215 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:16 AM

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.
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#216 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:30 AM

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, 22 December 2011 - 11:31 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#217 hooon

hooon

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,212 posts
  • Location:Denver

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:32 PM

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, 22 December 2011 - 12:35 PM.

Posted Image

#218 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 December 2011 - 01:23 PM

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.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#219 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 01:30 PM

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.
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#220 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:38 PM

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, 22 December 2011 - 09:52 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users