Anyone want to discuss calls/no calls/GI going into the playoffs?

[saven 48]

Hey night I don't wanna quote a long post to point this out but at one point you said the announcers said franzens own stick cut him ? Can you explain how a players stick would be in position to cut his own face ? Having played some hockey in my time I cant think of a single time ( when I wasn't falling from a check or trip aside ) where my stick was in my own face

[Nightfall 871]

Hey night I don't wanna quote a long post to point this out but at one point you said the announcers said franzens own stick cut him ? Can you explain how a players stick would be in position to cut his own face ? Having played some hockey in my time I cant think of a single time ( when I wasn't falling from a check or trip aside ) where my stick was in my own face

I have seen a few hockey plays where a player lifts another players stick. In the act of lifting the stick, the players OWN stick goes right up into his face. You are right though, that has never happened to me but I play goal more than I skate as a forward/defense. Thats why when the Chicago announcers said that, I was shaking my head in the car. The NHL on the Fly game recap confirmed what I thought and that was a high stick.

[Firehawk 305]

I can understand the debate amongst whether there IS or is NOT a conspiracy. Where it really breaks down for me is when you can clearly see a ref staring right at a blatent penalty and it isn't called. The league goes out of their way to say "the refs are doing the best they can" and "they are trying to call it objectively and fair". Well, how can you look at a blatent trip and let it go? How can you look right at a blatent hook and let it go?

These are signs the refs are manipulating the game, whether they are doing it to a specific team or to try to 'even up' the penalties is irrelevant. They aren't calling a penalty that they are witnessing, therefore they are manipulating the game. It's really as simple as that.

On another point, I have never seen so many bad calls go against the wings. In the 20 years I've been following the wings I can remember many times complaining about the refs but never like it's been lately, starting with last year's regular season and in the playoffs (5 on 3s galore for SJ in every game).

There is corruption in every other major company in the world, in the stock markets, in city councils, in political venues, etc. Why would the NHL be any different?

[Firehawk 305]

I have seen a few hockey plays where a player lifts another players stick. In the act of lifting the stick, the players OWN stick goes right up into his face. You are right though, that has never happened to me but I play goal more than I skate as a forward/defense. Thats why when the Chicago announcers said that, I was shaking my head in the car. The NHL on the Fly game recap confirmed what I thought and that was a high stick.

A lift of a stick, fine, the CHI player's stick was also up in the air, right along with Franzen, right by his face. That's more than lifting a stick.

But ok. I can live with this non-call actually. To me it was obvious to call a penalty here because as you say, "things happen so fast", that it should have been a call. How can it happen that fast and a ref could see that it was Franzen's stick? Both franzen's and the chi player's stick were both next to each other at Franzen's face. If the ref was not staring at it fine, but if he was and didn't make that call, I don't know how he could have judged that one.

Goalies are supposedly untouchable. Howard gets injured on a clear contact play and they ALLOW the goal and no call there. Gonna have to explain that one to me. And I won't buy that the ref didn't see that. The play is going on at the net, the ref behind the goal line is going to be looking right at that play. It's just laughable.

And one other point. This is the NHL. The game is very fast. Again, these are no excuse for the refs to miss blatent calls. If the referees are NHL REFEREES then they should also be accustomed to the speed of play, just like NHL players become accustomed to the speed.

And one further thing I'd like to see changed: When refs call 2 players, one for a trip, and one for a dive, this seems like an oxymoron to me. How can you call a penalty on a player committing a tripping penalty when the other guy dove? So, stop calling the tripper and call the diver only. The only way you get players to stop trying to embarass themselves, the league, and the refs is to call the dive and embarass the player.

I agree with a poster above, that said the standard should be 100% correct. This is unachievable just like they'll never make your furnace 100% efficient. But I don't think 80-85% right isn't achievable. Right now it seems like 50% of the time. And I do agree that refs seem to let a lot go in games and then decide they're going to call some ridiculous hook that had no bearing on a play. Players in the NHL are strong. When you lay your stick on them horizontally that is not going to slow a player down. You can tell a hook from a tap of a stick.

[eva unit zero 271]

And one further thing I'd like to see changed: When refs call 2 players, one for a trip, and one for a dive, this seems like an oxymoron to me. How can you call a penalty on a player committing a tripping penalty when the other guy dove? So, stop calling the tripper and call the diver only. The only way you get players to stop trying to embarass themselves, the league, and the refs is to call the dive and embarass the player.

A trip and a dive can be called on the same play, and can be committed on the same play. Tripping is typically called on plays where one player intentionally uses his stick or leg to cause the other to fall. Diving is a penalty for embellishment with the intent to draw a penalty. A player can be tripped and then also dive. Just because the league's officials generally refuse to call diving penalties don't make it a rare occurence. It's like saying that Gordie Howe wasn't a top offensive player because he never scored 50 goals, and only posted 100 points once?

[wings1110 184]

Hitting a guy into the boards from five feet out would, in most cases, constitute boarding. It has to do with hitting a player into the boards while he is in a particularly vulnerable situation.

To take on the persona of many people here who I have argued against in the "clean hit penalized" threads:

Keep your head up! If you get wasted into the boards or in open ice because you had your head down, it's your fault and there shouldn't be a penalty!

Now, back as myself:

That mindset didn't help Kris Draper or Ace Bailey very much, did it?

boarding has so much grey area, as to what constitutes a boarding call.

IMO boarding is a stupid, and shouldnt be a penalty, know where you are on the ice (as far as how close to the boards you are), and know where your opponent is by keeping your head up, if your standing 3 feet away from the boards with your head down and you get creamed into the boards, thats you fault, the opposing player cant control where you are on the ice, and he should be allowed to hit you, for playing stupid ass hockey.

dont wanna get boarded? well i have quite the solution for you! dont get in that situation! if you have you head up you should see the guy coming at you and you can get yourself in a position that wont get you killed!

boarding is rediculous i understand if your boarded from behind, but thats called checking from behind, when someone is checks someone from behind into the boards they often get a boarding penalty, which is the wrong call!

Dont wanna get hit in the head while your skating around with ur head down? to bad you pansy it is and should continue to be part of hockey! if its a north south hit, and your elbows are down, and you dont jump into his head its clean.

most of the time the player getting hurt is at fault for the injury, unless its knee on knee, an obvious elbow, a check from behind, etc. common folks its hockey.

sorry i got off subject but these concussion hysteria calls/suspensions are rediculous, in many cases, such as bert getting kicked out.

intent to blow should be rid of, until the sound of the whistle goes, the play should be on. make the sound of the whistle reviewable, and that fixes that problem.

ps kris draper was hit by a blindside hit.

[Legendary D In 03 50]

I lost faith that the league was on the up-and-up after the Malkin instigator non-suspension in the '09 Finals. It's a strange coincidence that my dad correctly predicted both Pittsburgh's and Chicago's Stanley Cups at the beginning of those respective seasons based on the attention that the NHL and media were giving those teams.

Word,

LDi03

[Nightfall 871]

I lost faith that the league was on the up-and-up after the Malkin instigator non-suspension in the '09 Finals. It's a strange coincidence that my dad correctly predicted both Pittsburgh's and Chicago's Stanley Cups at the beginning of those respective seasons based on the attention that the NHL and media were giving those teams.

Word,

LDi03

So many people want the league to apply "common sense" and "intent" into reffing. Then, when I see posts like this, I realize that some people here only want that kind of latitude if it involves only the team they root for. Everyone else, the letter of the law will suffice.

[Firehawk 305]

A trip and a dive can be called on the same play, and can be committed on the same play. Tripping is typically called on plays where one player intentionally uses his stick or leg to cause the other to fall. Diving is a penalty for embellishment with the intent to draw a penalty. A player can be tripped and then also dive. Just because the league's officials generally refuse to call diving penalties don't make it a rare occurence. It's like saying that Gordie Howe wasn't a top offensive player because he never scored 50 goals, and only posted 100 points once?

If you get tripped and whale your arms around but you were still tripped, that's one thing. Someone touching you on the back and you fall down like you got shot is another thing. I would still rather they just call a dive. If refs start calling that, they'll get it out of the game.

But according to some referee sympathists, the game is too fast for them to make the call. So, I digress.

[eva unit zero 271]

boarding has so much grey area, as to what constitutes a boarding call.

IMO boarding is a stupid, and shouldnt be a penalty, know where you are on the ice (as far as how close to the boards you are), and know where your opponent is by keeping your head up, if your standing 3 feet away from the boards with your head down and you get creamed into the boards, thats you fault, the opposing player cant control where you are on the ice, and he should be allowed to hit you, for playing stupid ass hockey.

dont wanna get boarded? well i have quite the solution for you! dont get in that situation! if you have you head up you should see the guy coming at you and you can get yourself in a position that wont get you killed!

boarding is rediculous i understand if your boarded from behind, but thats called checking from behind, when someone is checks someone from behind into the boards they often get a boarding penalty, which is the wrong call!

Dont wanna get hit in the head while your skating around with ur head down? to bad you pansy it is and should continue to be part of hockey! if its a north south hit, and your elbows are down, and you dont jump into his head its clean.

most of the time the player getting hurt is at fault for the injury, unless its knee on knee, an obvious elbow, a check from behind, etc. common folks its hockey.

sorry i got off subject but these concussion hysteria calls/suspensions are rediculous, in many cases, such as bert getting kicked out.

intent to blow should be rid of, until the sound of the whistle goes, the play should be on. make the sound of the whistle reviewable, and that fixes that problem.

ps kris draper was hit by a blindside hit.

Draper was hit blindside, true. But he was hit into the boards in a violent manner and he was in a vulnerable position. Let's review:

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

[wings1110 184]

Draper was hit blindside, true. But he was hit into the boards in a violent manner and he was in a vulnerable position. Let's review:

It says there is an enormous amount of judgment by the referee, no judgment should be put in the hands of dumbf*** nhl refs.

Edited April 12, 2011 by wings1110

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I expect inconsistency and incompetence.

Sad that officiating just keeps getting worse and worse every season in the general sense for pretty much every team.

That's all.

Edited April 12, 2011 by SouthernWingsFan

[wingslogo19 281]

What I'd like to see is some consistency

[RusDRW 155]

it is pretty strange to me that after watching the last game of the season against Chicago some people still find a way to defend officiating. Blood with stick involved is 100% penalty in each and every NHL game as it is always called by default. Even if Franzen was hit by its own stick it should have been a call because of your ultimate reason - "referees are humans and the game is so fast". Same mistake should have been made when Stuart lost the puck in own zone that directly led to their first goal. Without multiple replays it looked like clear penalty so why didn't they make a call? They didn't have all these replays... That is bulls***.

Last game NHL sent a message that there are "scenarios" behind some games. You'll see a plenty of such s*** in the play-offs. It is for those who still think that everything is fair. If it is still not enough for you then you are their target group. And well, it is not conspiracy nor corruption, it is just business. Wanna see some dramatic actions? The play-offs are ahead, you'll get a plenty of!

[Nightfall 871]

it is pretty strange to me that after watching the last game of the season against Chicago some people still find a way to defend officiating. Blood with stick involved is 100% penalty in each and every NHL game as it is always called by default. Even if Franzen was hit by its own stick it should have been a call because of your ultimate reason - "referees are humans and the game is so fast". Same mistake should have been made when Stuart lost the puck in own zone that directly led to their first goal. Without multiple replays it looked like clear penalty so why didn't they make a call? They didn't have all these replays... That is bulls***.

Last game NHL sent a message that there are "scenarios" behind some games. You'll see a plenty of such s*** in the play-offs. It is for those who still think that everything is fair. If it is still not enough for you then you are their target group. And well, it is not conspiracy nor corruption, it is just business. Wanna see some dramatic actions? The play-offs are ahead, you'll get a plenty of!

So every time blood is drawn, a replay should be used to determine what happened? I can agree with that, at the same time though, how many high sticking incidents have we seen where teammates have hit each other with their own sticks. Without instant replay, if the ref didn't see it, there is no way to call a high stick. I say let instant replay sort it out. Anytime blood is drawn, bring up the play and take the offending player to the box for 4 minutes. I do agree that in many games, I have seen blood drawn and no call was made. So its not just the Wings here.

Oh, and the play when Stuart lost the puck in his own zone, you should watch the replays. There was no penalty on that play. Stuart lost an edge and fell. So, the refs by not calling that made the right call. At the same time though, how many times have we seen a player fall and a tripping call was made, and yet there was no trip?

Seems that more and more people want instant replay to be used to determine penalties. I would like to see more of instant replay being used. The only question is, how can we use it without extending the game 30 more minutes for all the stoppages? Maybe during TV timeouts they review plays with toronto? Just an idea.

It says there is an enormous amount of judgment by the referee, no judgment should be put in the hands of dumbf*** nhl refs.

You are comparing the NHL refs back in 1996 to the NHL refs of today with a different ruleset. Today, that would have been called no doubt. Back then, in the clutch, grab, hold, hitting NHL, it was a different story. Secondly, who are you proposing that you put the judgement in the hands of? I hate to tell you this, but in every professional sport, the refs are handing out judgements all the time. Sometimes they are legit, and other times they are not. This is what makes sports so exciting/thrilling to watch. So, by saying "dumbf*** ref" you are probably against all forms of reffing. Reffing is just part of any professional sport.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Nightfall