Gutless nhl referees

[Guest DrEvil]

I can't stand it when the referees put away their whistles in the third period of a hockey game because they want the players to "decide the game."  Anything short of first degree murder, and sometimes they allow that, will  go by without a penalty called.  All because the refs don't want that press of "how could he make that call that gave them the game winning power play goal."  I understand leniancy, rules are bended throughout the game and a minor infraction that has no major effect on the play can be let go.  But a flagrant penalty that puts someone in the clear to score the game winning goal, well newsflash assholes, you just decided the game by NOT making a call.

 

Imagine other sports taking this approach of no rules at the end of games.  Michael Jordan's picturesque three pointer to win the championship taken away by a tackle and subsequent easy lay up.  The time run out touchdown pass falls imcomplete because the receiver gets tackled in the endzone before the ball leaves the qb's hand.  A runner being allowed a false start and winning the olympic sprint.

 

No, not gonna happen.  Other sports realize that breaking the rules does affect the outcome.  These calls ARE made because they DON'T want the officials to decide the game.

[Guest redbaron51]

Umm...i'm not sure what game you were watching, but that Tucker hit was rather clean.

 

But they should have stopped the play since he was hurt.

[Guest]

Guess what the Refs didnt call it, not because of hesitation, or it being clean, its because it was Tucker. That Hosses reputation eventually caught up with him, and the Leafs deserved it.  Im sick of watching that Canadian version of Ulf Samuellson, boy who cried wolf to me, and it couldnt have happened at a better time.  LETS GO RED WINGS.

[Guest DrEvil]

A hit from behind sending a player headfirst into the boards? Aki Berg got five and a game for a similar hit that had about 1/10th the force and velocity.

 

And they should not have stopped the play because he was hurt.  That was the only thing they got right.  These funny little rules of the injured player's team must have possession before play is stopped, how nice of the refs to actually remember that one.

 

And where did I mention the Tucker injustice?  That's what got me pissed but what I was complaining about is the 200 lb opposite colour sweaters that offensive players have to wear in the third period.

[Guest redbaron51]

Actually it was a clean hit. Tucker hit the boards on his shoulders, not head first. It was a check.

 

But you leaf fans, you can never admit a loss, always blame on something.

 

BTW Tucker deserved it.

[Guest DrEvil]

The fact that you're stuck on the Tucker hit when I haven't even mentioned it shows that you know it was a brutal call.

[Guest gthureson]

NHL refs are screwed no matter what.

 

If they call it by the book throughout the entire game, they are lambasted for 'destroying the flow of the game' and 'not letting the players decide it for themselves'.

 

If they call a game the way they see it, and one team gets 15 penalties, and the other team 2, then they are 'being biased', and should have 'evened things up a bit'.  Because its not ever possible that one team can be taking runs and liberties while the other team doesn't.

 

If they call a penalty shot in the third period, then they are the worst refs in the league.  Even if that is what the rule book says.   If they call a penalty in the last five minutes or in overtime, they are deciding the game.   If they don't make the call in the last five minutes or in overtime, they are deciding the game.

 

Example:  I still here Leafs fans bitch and moan about the 1993 Conference Finals.   They will cry, "Gretzky should have been gone!  That was a high stick on Gilmour."

 

What they forget is that in the game before, Gilmour headbutted McSorley after the whistle behind the net, and got nothing.   Look in your rule book.  Thats a match penalty and five games.   The precedent for that suspension was even set a few years earlier.  

 

Fans only ever want the game called by the book when there is something that goes against their team.  That is the only time.  If its their team, its a 'marginal' call.  Or 'borderline'.  Or even 'cheap and biased'.

 

Alfredsson should have got interference at the most.  Tucker went down awkward and hard with his shoulder.   But when Tucker submarined Peca, wasn't the argument, "Well, Peca shouldn't have tried to get out of the way.  Its his fault."

 

And when Roberts started his charge against Jonnson from somewhere in Buffalo and ended it by guiding his head into the boards, wasn't the excuse, "Jonsson turned into it." used?

 

Face it, the Leafs have used up all the free passes with the refs in the NHL.   Pat Quinn has been whining for three years.  There has not been a fair call made against them since he went behind the bench.  That attitude has rubbed off on his players, and now they are all yapping and chirping about EVERY SINGLE CALL that is made.

 

That is the bias that may be against the Leafs, and you can't blame the refs for it.   When every game you have to work involving Toronto is going to lead to the Leafs bitching and moaning about how they can't get a fair shake from the refs, no matter how you call it, I am sure some of them do think to themselves, 'Fuck them.'   And no one is to blame for that except the Leafs organization themselves.   Know who gets call go their way?   Teams that don't rake the refs over the coals after every single game.   They tend to get the benefit of the doubt.

 

The refs aren't machines, they are human beings.  They have their biases, but I don't think its based on 'I want Team A to win.'   Its more 'Team A are a bunch of mouthy assholes.'

 

Fans should decide what they want from the refs.   By the book or using their judgement.  Because you can't have it both ways.

[Guest MaxPower27]

NHL refs are screwed no matter what.

 

If they call it by the book throughout the entire game, they are lambasted for 'destroying the flow of the game' and 'not letting the players decide it for themselves'.

 

If they call a game the way they see it, and one team gets 15 penalties, and the other team 2, then they are 'being biased', and should have 'evened things up a bit'.  Because its not ever possible that one team can be taking runs and liberties while the other team doesn't.

 

If they call a penalty shot in the third period, then they are the worst refs in the league.  Even if that is what the rule book says.   If they call a penalty in the last five minutes or in overtime, they are deciding the game.   If they don't make the call in the last five minutes or in overtime, they are deciding the game.

 

Example:  I still here Leafs fans bitch and moan about the 1993 Conference Finals.   They will cry, "Gretzky should have been gone!  That was a high stick on Gilmour."

 

What they forget is that in the game before, Gilmour headbutted McSorley after the whistle behind the net, and got nothing.   Look in your rule book.  Thats a match penalty and five games.   The precedent for that suspension was even set a few years earlier.  

 

Fans only ever want the game called by the book when there is something that goes against their team.  That is the only time.  If its their team, its a 'marginal' call.  Or 'borderline'.  Or even 'cheap and biased'.

 

Alfredsson should have got interference at the most.  Tucker went down awkward and hard with his shoulder.   But when Tucker submarined Peca, wasn't the argument, "Well, Peca shouldn't have tried to get out of the way.  Its his fault."

 

And when Roberts started his charge against Jonnson from somewhere in Buffalo and ended it by guiding his head into the boards, wasn't the excuse, "Jonsson turned into it." used?

 

Face it, the Leafs have used up all the free passes with the refs in the NHL.   Pat Quinn has been whining for three years.  There has not been a fair call made against them since he went behind the bench.  That attitude has rubbed off on his players, and now they are all yapping and chirping about EVERY SINGLE CALL that is made.

 

That is the bias that may be against the Leafs, and you can't blame the refs for it.   When every game you have to work involving Toronto is going to lead to the Leafs bitching and moaning about how they can't get a fair shake from the refs, no matter how you call it, I am sure some of them do think to themselves, 'Fuck them.'   And no one is to blame for that except the Leafs organization themselves.   Know who gets call go their way?   Teams that don't rake the refs over the coals after every single game.   They tend to get the benefit of the doubt.

 

The refs aren't machines, they are human beings.  They have their biases, but I don't think its based on 'I want Team A to win.'   Its more 'Team A are a bunch of mouthy assholes.'

 

Fans should decide what they want from the refs.   By the book or using their judgement.  Because you can't have it both ways.

OH MY BROTHER...TESTIFY!!!!

 

You not only hit the nail on the head, you knocked it through the wall.

[Guest treble charged]

I would have called it a boarding call more than an interference call, but oh well.  Also, with the argument being made that the call wasn't made only because it was against Tucker, I have one thing to say about that: If you're not calling a penalty because of who was hit, tripped, slashed, etc., then you should not be refereeing in any league.

[Guest MaxPower27]

I would have called it a boarding call more than an interference call, but oh well.  Also, with the argument being made that the call wasn't made only because it was against Tucker, I have one thing to say about that: If you're not calling a penalty because of who was hit, tripped, slashed, etc., then you should not be refereeing in any league.

Of course, treble charged is a Leaf's fan...

[Guest treble charged]

Of course, treble charged is a Leaf's fan...

 

What do you mean by that?

[Guest redbaron51]

Leaf fans have to make excuses when they lose. Its common sense.

 

Still it was a penalty.

[Guest starvenger]

Why is it that noone ever mentions that no team blocks more shots in the playoffs than the Leafs?  Just curious...

 

Leaf fans have to make excuses when they lose. Its common sense.

But of course.  BTW all the calls against the Leafs were "marginal", "borderline", "cheap" and "biased"...

 

Still it was a penalty.

That's really the argument here.  The loss was a direct result of the non-call on Alfreddson, who scored on the same play.  If the penalty's called, they go to overtime, where the only comment you'd get from either team would be "we scored, they didn't" or  "they scored, we didn't".

[Guest redbaron51]

I still thought a penalty should have been called since I've reffereed for four years and counting.

[Guest DrTom]

"Anything short of first degree murder, and sometimes they allow that, will  go by without a penalty called.  All because the refs don't want that press of "how could he make that call that gave them the game winning power play goal.""

 

Come on now, they've gotten much better about calling manslaughter this year.  Seriously, though, your point is valid.  No other sport becomes so permissive late in the game.  The only example I can think of is in baseball, where the home-plate umpire will often expand his strike zone later in a long game, just to get the damn thing over with.  The problem is the NHL is trying to make things fair for both teams.  While that's a desireable goal, not every team plays fairly on the ice, and some are worse than others and deserve to have calls go against them.  This isn't exactly a new problem (remember Doug Gilmour getting blatantly speared right in front of a linesman... what, ten years ago?); I remember hearing howls about it back in the late 80's.  Now that the playoffs are on TV every night, though, the problems gets a lot more press.  Just add this to the list of issues the NHL needs to fix.

 

"Imagine other sports taking this approach of no rules at the end of games.  Michael Jordan's picturesque three pointer to win the championship taken away by a tackle and subsequent easy lay up.  The time run out touchdown pass falls imcomplete because the receiver gets tackled in the endzone before the ball leaves the qb's hand."

 

Those are very extreme and unlikely examples.  The facts are that such contact is never allowed in basketball, and only allowed at certain times in football.  In hockey, it's almost always legal to hit someone.  The sport, by nature, is faster and more violent than the NBA or the NFL.  

 

"Other sports realize that breaking the rules does affect the outcome.  These calls ARE made because they DON'T want the officials to decide the game."

 

I think the NHL realizes it, too.  They just don't want to do anything about it.  A lot of their refs have been calling games this way for years and years, and I think Gary Bettman is too spineless to step in and order them to change.  Remember, he was David Stern's boy, so he's concerned about image and marketability, not the purity of the product with respect to the rules.  Clutching and grabbing in the NHL is the equivalent of traveling in the NBA: it happens on almost every play, and it might get called twice a game.

[Guest hockeytown9321]

The NHL needs to go back to one ref.  With two refs, one wants to let the teams play, the other doesn't.  There is no consisitency.

[Guest DrTom]

"The NHL needs to go back to one ref.  With two refs, one wants to let the teams play, the other doesn't.  There is no consisitency."

 

Well, they went to two refs because they didn't feel there were enough penalties being called.  Even though linesman have some power to call a penalty, they never use it.  I'd actually like to see three refs and a linesman, but none of it will matter unless the NHL grows a set and bloody well TELLS the goddamn referees how it wants the games called, and that if they don't like it, there's the door.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

There are referees in every sport that think they are bigger than the gamme though. They have their own way of calling games, as if they matter. I think all leagues should have a standard that referees should be held to, instead of players having to get used to different referees. I hate referees with egos.

[Guest gthureson]

Here is the problems with 2 refs:

 

1) Alot of rookies.   The NHL has had a fairly high turnover of refs in the last eight years to begin with.  The mainstays from the late 70s through early 90s retired.  The young guys from 1989 or so are now the veteran refs.  And they likely tapped out alot of the NHL quality refs replacing guys like Andy van Hellemond and Dave Newell, and the others who had league wide respect.

 

But they found enough quality guys.   Then, you ask the league to double that number, because you want two refs at every game.  That will lead to you having young guys who haven't been reff'ing at a high level for that long, and guys who just should not be ref'ing at that level.   Its not like being a hockey player, a young guy (say 22-25), no matter what kind of ref he is, will get no respect from the players.  He is no older than they are.   He was never a player, and we all know that is the only basis of respect in pro sports.   (Look at coaches...no matter how good they are...if a team stumbles, the players will tell the media 'He was never a player..I don't know how well he can understand the game...")

 

And young refs can get intimidated by the stars and the crowds.  If you are 25 year old ref, in your first season, and you see Brendan Shanahan go in for a hit and slip a BUTT end in there (not unrealistic, Shanny can be pretty ruthless) in a tight game in Detroit....whether you like it or not, you will be uneasy about making the call.   You've got 19000 fans who will get on your case, you will have Shanny in your face, Stevie Y, class guy and respected player will question your call to you....doesn't Stevie know more about hockey than you?

 

Thats why refs started in the league when they were pushing 30 or just over it.  They got past all of that, and just made the calls they thought should be made.   Doubling the ref pool means there are guys who will not be that great until they have a few years in, and some may never be good.

 

2) The system is young, and there is no set manner for the two refs to call the game.   Does one ref make cover one side of the red line, the second the other.   And when play crosses, the other guy is watching for behind the play nonsense?  Do they both follow the play?   Does the young guy defer to the veteran, and only make calls he thinks the vet missed?   Do they both go their own way, calling whatever they see?   Likely all of these methods are used, depending on the refs.   And different refs will call things differently.  Want to know what is happening when it seems like one team is getting screwed?  Likely, the refs have split the ice into halves, and one ref wants a tight game with no clutch and grab, and the other wants the 'players to play and get a good flow going'.   So one ref is calling it tight in one end, and the other is letting stuff go in the other.

 

They have to come up with a set method, and make sure their guys are all on the same page of their workbooks.

 

3) The Linesman can only call major penalties.  Thats it.   Their main job is to handle faceoffs, watch for the offsides, two-line passes, gloved passes, and such.  They can go over to a ref if he misses something, but they can only call a major if the ref misses it.   They know their job, and they stick to it.

 

My suggestion?

 

If you are going to go with 2 refs, get rid of video replay for starters.  You have two refs and a goal judge.   The refs on the ice should have the final say over what happens on the ice.  Right there, you will give a bit more respect to them.  If you must keep video replay, have the monitor down at the goal judges bench, and let the refs watch it and make the call.

 

Get the 30 team captains, the GMs, and the refs into a meeting in the off-season.   Tell them, don't ask them, tell them....'This is how games will be called, from game 1 through game 82, and then through the playoffs.   From period 1 through period 3, and then in overtime.'   Let them know what you want from all of them (refs), and have the players and GMs there to hear it.

 

Then there is no excuse about players having to get used to the rules.   They knew them.   They just have to play inside of them.

 

Then back it up with a set list of suspensions.  Take some of the heat of Colin Campbell by having his disciplinary crew and him sit down, review what was suspendable offences the last few years, and come up with a set range of suspensions.

 

Offence A: 1-3 games

Offence B: 5-10 games

Offence C: 10-15 games

Offence D: 15-25 games

 

Sliding it up for repeat offenders and the like.  Let the players know what the list is before the season.   Have them post it in dressing rooms.   If you let them know before the season, you can tell the shove it up their ass if they whine about the suspension they get.

 

Finally, toss out the instigator rule.  The head hunting, the submarine hits, the knee hunting, the stickwork will all drop once guys know they stand a pretty good chance of getting the holy tar beat out of them if they take a cheap shot.

[Guest hockeytown9321]

Could not agree more, gthureson.  But we've seen the NHL make those edicts before about "no tolerance" and within two weeks, everything is back where it started.  They let a lot of things go during the regular season, then tighten everything up again to start the palyoffs, and gradually start letting things go again.  It's that inconsistency that upsets every team.  You have no idea game from game, or even within the game what you can get away with.  

 

I say go back to one ref, and expand the linesmen's power.  If for nothing else, there will be more room for everybody.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen the refs get in the way of pucks and players this year.  It's going to really cost somebody one time.

[Guest gthureson]

Then the league needs to grow a pair of balls, and keep the system going through all the complaints in the early season.

 

Thats what ends up happening.

 

The media, the GMs, the coaches, the fans...they all piss and moan about how there is no flow, too many penalties, games take too long....

 

And so the league tells them to back off a bit.

 

If they just kept calling it, by about game 40, even the slower players would be catching on, or they would be riding pine because they couldn't be trusted out there without taking a penalty.

 

The major complaint is that nobody knows what a penalty is.  Which is why you make sure the media knows you have had this big sit down with everybody.

 

The other complaint is the apparent lack of a set suspension 'under review' system.  Have a set list of suspensions.

 

If this means Joe Thornton gets 20 games when he goes ballistic, like he does once per season, so be it.

 

If Owen Nolan get another 15, or Jagr has to sit 25 because he just lost it one game...then do it.

 

The most important is the instigator rule.  The guys know that the only way you get someone back is through cheap shotting them.   You can't just drop them anymore and clear the air during that game.   So get rid of it.   Yes, there will be an increase in fighting.   But a decrease in cheap shots.

 

Far more guys have gotten injured through cheap shots than ever did by settling the score right then and there.

 

But the most important thing is having the balls to see your system through.

[Guest treble charged]

I think it's funny when baseball players get suspended for 6-8 games for corking their bat, but Kyle McLaren gets only 2 games for nearly decapitating Richard Zednik.

[Guest gthureson]

McLaren clothelined him, yes.

 

However:

 

1) It wasn't away from the play.

2) He didn't charge.

3) It wasn't from behind.

4) He didn't leave his feet.

 

So what was it?

 

Viscious, ruthless...yes....but where did it break the rules?

 

It was Roughing and Intent to Injure (And that could be debatable.  Did he intend to put him on his ass?  Yes.  Did he intend to knock him silly..likely not.  But we'll be on the safe side and give the Intent anyway because it was reckless and dangerous.)   Intent to Injure is a match.  A match is supposed to be 5 games.  

 

Which I think is what they suspended him for.  The remainder of the Montreal series, plus 2 games of round 2 if they advanced.

 

You have to seperate the injury from the play, otherwise you start calling for suspensions on clean hits, simply because the guy got knocked silly.

 

Scott Stevens on Shane Willis last year....ruthless, yes.  Clean, yes.  This year...people would have been calling for a ten game suspension because he decked him hard and it was an ugly thing to look at, Willis laid out like that.

 

Tucker's hit on Peca....legal, yes.  Hip checks are legal.   Was he submarining going for the knees...yes.   But that is an ethical thing, not a rules thing.

 

JMO though.