The NHL reffing affecting the game

[Barrie 900]

Ok my first post in about a year...

I think the NHL officiating is horrible, the worst in pro sports. I find it hard to take hockey serious sometimes because the refs have too much effect on momentum and the outcome of the game. Sometimes they have more of an effect then the players do, which I think is a problem. Then there's making calls based on the score. I seriously think something needs to be done, a different system needs to be put in place, or they even need to rethink if 2 minutes for some minor calls like a little hook or hold is too much time. I don't understand why the League allows the refs to have this big of an effect on the game, unless they use it as a way to keep teams close in the standings for their parity. I wouldn't be surprised one day if I heard the League controls who wins and loses with their officiating.

Also, I think one of the reasons why there's so many shootout games is because of the refs allowing teams to get back into games with their calls. Most games you can bet on who'll get the next penalty based on the score, despite what's actually going on.

Compared to other sports, I think MLB is fine, all they do is call "strike", "ball", "out", "safe", "fair", or "foul". There's isn't too much umps can do on their own to effect the outcome. It's pretty much one way or the other, and 99.9999% of the time they're right. The players effect the outcome.

Football, they only have 5, 10, or 15 yard penalties, or pass intereference. Similar to Baseball, I think 99.9999% of the time they're right, and the players effect the outcome. Moving up 5 or 10 yards doesn't make a huge difference when the field is 100 yards. It's not like giving a team 2 minutes to fire shots at the net for a slight little hook or hold.

Basketball, I have no opinion because I don't watch.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Ok my first post in about a year...

I think the NHL officiating is horrible, the worst in pro sports. I find it hard to take hockey serious sometimes because the refs have too much effect on momentum and the outcome of the game. Sometimes they have more of an effect then the players do, which I think is a problem. Then there's making calls based on the score. I seriously think something needs to be done, a different system needs to be put in place, or they even need to rethink if 2 minutes for some minor calls like a little hook or hold is too much time. I don't understand why the League allows the refs to have this big of an effect on the game, unless they use it as a way to keep teams close in the standings for their parity. I wouldn't be surprised one day if I heard the League controls who wins and loses with their officiating.

Also, I think one of the reasons why there's so many shootout games is because of the refs allowing teams to get back into games with their calls. Most games you can bet on who'll get the next penalty based on the score, despite what's actually going on.

Compared to other sports, I think MLB is fine, all they do is call "strike", "ball", "out", "safe", "fair", or "foul". There's isn't too much umps can do on their own to effect the outcome. It's pretty much one way or the other, and 99.9999% of the time they're right. The players effect the outcome.

Football, they only have 5, 10, or 15 yard penalties, or pass intereference. Similar to Baseball, I think 99.9999% of the time they're right, and the players effect the outcome. Moving up 5 or 10 yards doesn't make a huge difference when the field is 100 yards. It's not like giving a team 2 minutes to fire shots at the net for a slight little hook or hold.

Basketball, I have no opinion because I don't watch.

I don't think you watch baseball and football, either.

Baseball is horrible. I'll give the umps a break on close ball and strike calls, but if they're pissed at a player, they can call a pitch a good 6" in or out of the zone wrong, and they blow calls at bases all the time. The field umpires have relatively simple jobs. Put your eyes on the base, decide if the ball or the runner got their first. Watch the baseline, decide which side the ball lands on. They blow it on a regular basis.

Football is just as bad. There have been some absolutely horrific calls made over the last few years to the point where the NFL has apologized to teams. There are a ton of officials on the field, each with a specific job, and most of them still can't get it right.

Hockey you have 2 refs watching 10 players who spend most of the time moving instead of standing around like baseball and football, having to make more decisions. I think that if you could go through and evaluate 10,000 random plays from the 4 major sports, hockey would have at least as high, if not higher, percentage of correct calls as the others.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

Ok my first post in about a year...

I think the NHL officiating is horrible, the worst in pro sports. I find it hard to take hockey serious sometimes because the refs have too much effect on momentum and the outcome of the game. Sometimes they have more of an effect then the players do, which I think is a problem. Then there's making calls based on the score. I seriously think something needs to be done, a different system needs to be put in place, or they even need to rethink if 2 minutes for some minor calls like a little hook or hold is too much time. I don't understand why the League allows the refs to have this big of an effect on the game, unless they use it as a way to keep teams close in the standings for their parity. I wouldn't be surprised one day if I heard the League controls who wins and loses with their officiating.

Also, I think one of the reasons why there's so many shootout games is because of the refs allowing teams to get back into games with their calls. Most games you can bet on who'll get the next penalty based on the score, despite what's actually going on.

Compared to other sports, I think MLB is fine, all they do is call "strike", "ball", "out", "safe", "fair", or "foul". There's isn't too much umps can do on their own to effect the outcome. It's pretty much one way or the other, and 99.9999% of the time they're right. The players effect the outcome.

Football, they only have 5, 10, or 15 yard penalties, or pass intereference. Similar to Baseball, I think 99.9999% of the time they're right, and the players effect the outcome. Moving up 5 or 10 yards doesn't make a huge difference when the field is 100 yards. It's not like giving a team 2 minutes to fire shots at the net for a slight little hook or hold.

Basketball, I have no opinion because I don't watch.

I agree with this. I'm also a hardcore baseball fan and I don't get nearly as pissed off, or as often, as I do with hockey when it comes to calls. Can't speak for football, basketball I however find to be a joke sometimes.

[Guest Playmaker]

I agree with this. I'm also a hardcore baseball fan and I don't get nearly as pissed off, or as often, as I do with hockey when it comes to calls. Can't speak for football, basketball I however find to be a joke sometimes.

Baseball really doesn't have "fouls" or penalties, so that may account for that. While the strike zone is somewhat open to interpretation, the majority of the other calls are pretty much black and white. Safe or out, fair or foul, home run or not.

How does the phantom double play not bother people? How about the Armando Gallaraga perfect game? I think the worst call I've ever seen is in baseball when the first baseman was at least two feet off the bag and the umpire called the runner out.

[wings87 1,290]

My thought has always been that the officiating in the NHL is worse then other sports because Hockey isn't as popular there for it isn't shown on TV as much which leads to less outrage over bad calls (outside the Hockey community that is). And with less bad press regarding the officiating the NHL is not in a hurry to make changes. If the NHL had the popularity of the NFL- where every bad call is magnified, shown endlessly on ESPN, and talked about for days then I bet we would see changes come quick.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

Baseball really doesn't have "fouls" or penalties, so that may account for that. While the strike zone is somewhat open to interpretation, the majority of the other calls are pretty much black and white. Safe or out, fair or foul, home run or not.

How does the phantom double play not bother people? How about the Armando Gallaraga perfect game? I think the worst call I've ever seen is in baseball when the first baseman was at least two feet off the bag and the umpire called the runner out.

It bugs me, especially if it's history being made like with Gallaraga (the game that introduced my fiancé to baseball, score) but for some reason I don't get nearly as mad with blown calls in baseball. I only come close when someone is tossed for no reason (see: Miguel Cabrera). There's just something about hockey's bad calls and how predictable they are that infuriate me.

[SDavis35 140]

So you want a different set of rules. Which will benefit the teams that are more likely to throw cheap shots. IMO, that attitude is stupid. The rules are the rules. If something is a call in the first 2 minutes, it should be a call in the last 2 minutes. Either way the ref's decision affects the game. If he makes the call, it benefits the team that should get a PP. If he lets it go, it gives the team that committed the penalty an advantage where the other team was probably called for a similar penalty and had to kill a PP earlier in the game. As a player I want consistency above all. If you're going to call everything. Fine, I'll know that. If you're going to let things go, fine, I'll adjust my game accordingly. But if you're going to let 6 blatant trips go and then call someone for tripping when a guy falls on his own, that's when I get pissed.

I'm not saying allow cheapshots. I'm saying a small hook that is totally inconsequential to the game is not a call needed. If I had my way with the official rule book, hooks would require to actually affect the play. ie. pulling the stick = hook, or grabbing the jersey=hold. You can't expect the refs to be perfect, but some of the penalties out there don't even affect the play anymore. Dangerous hits and all contact to the head should be penalties. Diving should be a call that no ref is afraid to make.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I'm not saying allow cheapshots. I'm saying a small hook that is totally inconsequential to the game is not a call needed. If I had my way with the official rule book, hooks would require to actually affect the play. ie. pulling the stick = hook, or grabbing the jersey=hold. You can't expect the refs to be perfect, but some of the penalties out there don't even affect the play anymore. Dangerous hits and all contact to the head should be penalties. Diving should be a call that no ref is afraid to make.

Every hook affects the play in someway. I know, I used to hook and hold all the time away from the play. I hook you and slow you down a step, then you're not in position to make a play 3 seconds later, and the puck is cleared or someone has just enough room to make a play that leads to a goal for my team. The bottom line is, if you keep your stick off of other players, you won't get called for that "inconsequential" hook. And again, if they stop calling penalties except for the most egregious ones just because it's overtime, that's going to give the teams that are more prone to hooking and holding and interfering, usually the less talented ones, the advantage over the teams that have more skill.