Sorry guys. As much as we, and I myself, have complained about inconsistent officiating in the past, y'all need to slow your gears down. These side stories are a waste of time and you are just pissing yourselves off.
Last night showed that the Wings also were fortunate with a few calls as well. It might not happen much to us because we see ridiculous phantom interference calls or whatever, but we get a break every now and then as well (i.e. Bertuzzi's goal which should've been offside). And both those penalties on Detroit were legit in the 3rd period, as much as I didn't like the call on Abdlekader in the heat of the moment either.
And let's get one thing clear that I am one of the first people to blow gaskets at refs for phantom interference or intent to blow the whistle or whatever.
Please stop wasting useless energy and just accept that the officiating and rules for the most part just aren't that good and are inconsistent. Nothing more and nothing less.
Complaining about officiating is just finding excuses. Occassionally, yes, a series or a particular game is poorly officiated, but it doesn't win or lose series typically.
Any time I see a fan complain about officiating, I usually just stop listening to the rest of what they have to say.
It DOES happen, do not get me wrong. And yes, I do believe honestly and genuinely that in the secret referee meetings, there is a little bit of corruption.
But you could find flaws in the officiating in any game, ever.
There are a few types of penalties that we see:
1) The type that can't go unnoticed. It's blatantly obvious, and you just HAVE to call it, regardless of how it actually influences the game. If player A skates over and slaps player B in the face with a stick, you have to call that. Regardless of it's outcome, or timing, everyone says "Yeah.....yeah he did it"
2) The type that are penalties but may or may not be called, largely based on factors of even-ness. For example, if your team has taken 5 penalties and the other team only 2, so long as what you do is not in category 1, it might not be called. Meanwhile, for evening purposes (Because if they weren't even, lets face it, we would ALL complain), they are less lenient on the other team, and might call them on something that seems less than something the other team did.
3) The type of penalty that strikes the conspiracy debate, were a penalty is seemingly called at a critical point, or largely in favor of the team that is down by one goal, or just called to even the penalties out at an inopportune moment. I will admit, in order for me to make this a category (And it's entirely based on my observations), it hints there could be occassionally some crookedness.
4) The type of penalty where you're like, "OK, do these referee's get any training? Because I watched the replay and it was NOTHING like that!!" Unfortunately, unless it goes to video replay, the rule of the league is that it always stands. Not very many penalty calls EVER go to video replay, so yes, the referee could have been wrong, or thought he saw something that you are certain didn't happen, but whatever, these always go both ways.
5) Lots more.
A few truths, that most people ignore:
---If the referee's called every penalty, five on five play would not exist. There is a potential penalty just about every shift. If you really want to get technical. It's kinda like, you can't walk from your house to the store without breaking a law.....not because you are evil, but because there are a billion laws. Same for penalties. Not a billion, but many different interpretations of them, and a lot of them that could be called. For example, they could call "Delay of game" for problems in the face-off, but they never actually do.
---As fans, regardless of what is actually happening on the ice, we expect the penalties to be fair. If one team played dirtier than another, and ended up with 15 penalties, while the other team took 2, there would be an outrage. Everyone on the losing side would cry conspiracy. So basically, to ensure "Fair" they do try to keep them relatively even. So as a referee, you have to appease the fans, while trying to referee the game. It's still a sport, ie a venue of entertainment, so you've got fans, coaches, players, everyone all with different perspectives on what did or did not happen, breathing down your throat to do it the way "They" want, meanwhile, you have a job to do that is not suppose to specifically fit what any of them want.
--On TV, you cannot see or hear what is always happening on the ice. It is one thing to watch the bombing of pearl harbor on TV. It is, entirely another to be sitting on a boat outside Hawaii when it happens.
I could go on with mainly worthless, relatively unimportant factors, but the bottom line IMO is:
Referee's don't win or lose games. The teams do. They MIGHT have an influence, and their mistakes can flip-flop a series. But they're not robots. And they're not all-seeing. And they're not perfect.
Is their corruption in the ranks? I don't know, for sure. My instincts tell me that yes, there is. But I've watched a lot of hockey in the last two decades, and EVEN if there is, it is NEVER EVER an excuse for a team losing.
The problem with blaming the referee's is that people get really commited to the idea that "OH they would have won if not for the cheater referees!!!" And that is simply not true.
Good teams win, despite the referee-ing.
Even if there was a conspiracy, it is only a small portion of it. Blaming the referee's or even really spending a lot of time fired up about them, it's kinda immature in my opinion.
Vancouver got HIGHLY screwed on penalties in their first series, yet they won. I reviewed the penalty logs for that series, and I had to wonder if it was a bunch of trainee's. Yet, they still won.
Edit: Excuse my spelling. I drink a lot
Edited by Joey v3.4, 07 May 2011 - 03:33 PM.
And Boom goes the Dynamite.