| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 04/18/2010 : 23:52:47
Is it just me or are the refs making sure there were no sweeps in the first round? The league makes a lot more money from a 7 game series than they do from a four game sweep, and since money seems to have replaced any integrity the sport had, i can't help but wonder. Feedback? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 17:47:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here is a quick question.
If all the horrible calls are happening towards the Canucks and the refs are so inept, where are the horrible calls that go in the favor of the Canucks??
It is all but IMPOSSIBLE for there to be zero calls in favor of Vancouver in the series.
C'mon FANS, take a look at reality.
It's not even just Canucks fans (if that's what you meant by "FANS"?) who are saying the reffing has been below average. Yeah, there are good and bad calls going both ways but judging by the fact there are more Canucks fans on here, AND they're trailing in the series, it's clear to me why you hear more complaining from their fans? Like is said though, even non fans of the 'Nucks are chiming in (Slozo) and can clearly see the reffing's been poor. Are there more calls going the Hawks way, maybe? Probably? Who cares really, it's been bad all around. If you're going back to the thread topic, then it's not really fair to talk about this series alone.
Beans, i'll be beyond honest in saying that i "lost it" when the slash on Daniel Sedin's ankle went uncalled. That was clearly obvious and should have been a penalty. However, with the win, it didn't eat away at me like it would have had we lost! Same goes for the Hawks fans. The series was going their way for the 3 games prior to last night and there was no need for them to nit pick the bad calls. That combined with what i said earlier about there being less Hawks fans on here pretty much sums it up. |
| Guest4780 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 13:45:06
@ beans, i did give an example when i said henrik tripped byflige-whatever right after daniel was slashed. My point was they were missing calls for both teams, and not "letting them play" missing them, just straight out missing penalties that should be called. |
| Guest2223 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 13:03:46
one question for you beans..( since you seem to favor the ref`s choices in your comments )
Do you think the refs are doing a good job ??
if you do i think you are at odds with the rest of the world :) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 12:56:02
Here is a quick question.
If all the horrible calls are happening towards the Canucks and the refs are so inept, where are the horrible calls that go in the favor of the Canucks??
It is all but IMPOSSIBLE for there to be zero calls in favor of Vancouver in the series.
C'mon FANS, take a look at reality. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 12:48:07
The high stick on O'Brien was discussed in another thread and the refs in fact did see it AND called it correctly. Because it was a follow through of a shot, it is NOT a penalty!
The "Edler" one you refer to i believe was actually Burrows and you're correct, Duncan Keith simply stumbled on his own. The only thing i can think of is the fact Burrows stick was close to him and the ref was on the opposite side and must have thought that he got a piece of him somehow? Pretty bad call in a very important game for sure. Same goes for the chop on Daniel Sedin. I don't mind the ref's turning a blind eye to some small infractions but when you see a guy like O'Brien (game 4) get a holding penalty for simply having his arm on a guy and then a blatant slash that could easily break a guys foot go uncalled, it's crazy! |
| Guest4780 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 12:20:48
What the hell was the refs excuse for horrible display last night in Chicago? Three examples of the top of my head would be Edler's? tripping penalty in the first, the chicago player tripped himself and was not even touched by the canuck player. The two-handed chop on D sedins ankle was unbelievable and then henrik blatantly trips Byfclown right after daniel got chopped, no call either. the only good call (or non call) was on the high stick O'Brien took, and i think they both straight up missed it like most of the other calls in the game. I can guarantee neither of those 2 refs will be reffing in the next round. |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/07/2010 : 01:16:00
Ahhhh, freddyboy.
I have watched the highlites, (as I always do), even though I watched the game. Just to review key things, I may have missed during the live game.
And indeed, that was a penalty. PK Subban was hauled down, and then held by the legs. He had no where to go, could not get in to the play, causing him to fall behind. And as a D-man, that is likely what cost them that goal. Only one D-man back, the other was being pulled to the ice surface. Terrible non-call. Had Montreal lost this game, to me, that may have been key.
Another missed call, was a Crosby trip. Sid kind of slew foot/tripped a Canadien player. No call on the play, and caused an opportunity for the Pens to score. Luckily for the Habs, they did not.
I also witnessed other non-calls during the game, including slashes/chops by the Pens... where it caused a Habs stick to break during play, another where a Hab lost his stick from his hands due to a chop. All non-calls.
The Habs got a way with a few. But as I mentioned earlier, the Pens were getting away with far too much during this game. Had Montreal lost, I'd be upset with the reffing even more so.
And I'm rooting for the Pens to win, just to spite my family of Habs fans. LOL.
But, yeah. It was awful. I am all for letting players play, without 100 Penalties. But, sometimes, you have to make the call on something so blatant and obvious.
Irvine/prez. |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 23:00:27
@freddyboy :
Sadly, I actually missed the Talbot goal (first goal of the game, I believe).
I was in bed until 8:15 PM, taking a nap. As I had worked until 1AM last night, then went back in at 11AM this morning. So, I needed a nap before game time. lol.
Anyhoo, sadly I missed it. So I cannot comment on it, until I see a replay either online, or via SportsNET/TSN/TheScore.
Irvine/prez. |
| freddyboy |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 21:49:39
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
I have missed a lot of playoff hockey this year (all of the past games since last Sunday) due to working nights.
But, I was off this evening and watched the Pens/Habs game. And I must say, the Reffing was different.
The Refs allowed a lot to play on, including a few blatant and obvious penalties. Quite a few slashes where let go for the Pens, including a few that broke some Hab players sticks... and were very obvious.
The Habs were allowed to play on too, for the most part. But I did notice that the Habs were called / watched more, than the Pens it seemed.
I'm certainly not saying that games are fixed, for US-based teams to win. Or for Crosby to move on. Or anything like that.
But I would like to see some consistency for EACH game, of each series. Not different reffing, each game. Where you don't know what will be called, what will be allowed. Etc...
The NHL needs to have a more global approach. Where all games are reffed similar, a little less referee's discretion.
Irvine/prez.
do you think that Talbot's goal should not be good and the guy who tripped Subban should have a penalty?
it's my opinion, of course i might be a bit biased since i'm an Habs fan, but i admit that there's missed call on both side of the track
joe is a god, if u dont agree....i dont care |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 18:44:53
I have missed a lot of playoff hockey this year (all of the past games since last Sunday) due to working nights.
But, I was off this evening and watched the Pens/Habs game. And I must say, the Reffing was different.
The Refs allowed a lot to play on, including a few blatant and obvious penalties. Quite a few slashes where let go for the Pens, including a few that broke some Hab players sticks... and were very obvious.
The Habs were allowed to play on too, for the most part. But I did notice that the Habs were called / watched more, than the Pens it seemed.
I'm certainly not saying that games are fixed, for US-based teams to win. Or for Crosby to move on. Or anything like that.
But I would like to see some consistency for EACH game, of each series. Not different reffing, each game. Where you don't know what will be called, what will be allowed. Etc...
The NHL needs to have a more global approach. Where all games are reffed similar, a little less referee's discretion.
Irvine/prez. |
| Guest4271 |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 05:32:35
Habs fans quit complaining about the timing of the games( not enough time between game 7 and the first game vs pens). If your that good beat Washington sooner like in 4 or 5 games.
I wouldn't worry though if you make it by Pittsburgh, Boston will beat you in 4. Rask way better than Halak. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 21:34:00
It prob shouldn't have, but it wouldn't have mattered in a 4-2 game. There were some other calls missed (Byfuglien's slash to Henrik's stick should have been interference if nothing else, Luongo was run over earlier with no call when the game was closer) but it went both ways (Bieksa got away with a blatant hold, Edler got away with interference and there were others). IMO, the differences in this game were a very hot goalie and a bad PP. Niemi played lights out all night! The Canucks outchanced the Hawks in the first in a big way and found themselves down 2-0! Add in the 0'fer on the PP and the Canucks were done! I think the Caps proved to everyone already that it's difficult to win playoff series with a terribly lacking power play!
Series isn't over, but it likely will be in 5 if the Canucks can't win the next one! |
| Guest9361 |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 21:20:58
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0288
I want to say first that I am neither a Caps or Habs fan. But am I the only one that thinks last night goal in the third period should have counted? After watching the replay over and over, I thought there was no interference at all. In fact I think Knuble made every effort to get out of the way. Was there contact with the goalie? Extremely minor (skate kind of flicked against his pads?)
I have seen goals count with much more goalie contact. It was brutal call.
Had that goal counted, the game was definitely going to change.
"Yes there was contact, albeit ever so slight, and therefore the call was correct! Kudo's to the ref for having the stones to make that call at that point in that game in that building, etc......
That call goes unnoticed and uncalled a lot of the time but it doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty. I agree, that could have easily led to a different outcome, but so too could a PP clicking at a better than 1 for 33 rate or whatever it was? It looked scarily similar to Vancouver's PK which finally improved, a little at least, enough to help knock off the Kings. Really, when you think about it, if the Cap's PP could have scored a couple PP goals in games 6 & 7, they're likely getting ready for the Flyers today.
Absolutely agree 100% that this was the right call. Furthermore, there was a goal of Montreal's called off for goaltender interference as well. It was called fairly for both teams. You can say what you want towards the Knuble type call not happening very often. However, this specific game was called as good as it gets and there was no advantage for either team given by the refs.
Simply, the better team on the ice last night won the game. Washington is a better team than Montreal, but they were not last night.
OK, can someone now explain how Chicago's 5th goal against the Canucks in game 3 counted while the Caps goal in game 7 did not. Sorry these on ice decisions are total BS. This was way more interference. |
| Guest4235 |
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 19:51:08
Go habs Go! Go canucks Go!.....Can this finally be the year an ALL-CANADIAN STANLEY CUP FINAL????
oh,,,,my,,,,would the league really want that to happen? can they interfere to prevent it from happening? Is this possible???? I hate the sharks and pens and bruins and flyers, as i am sure our us fans hate our teams and could care less if we get into the finals, but oh boy, wouldn't that be something!
Anyone out there have any comments about this possibliity!!!! Will the refs help this to happen? is this league really rigged or not???
Stay tuned for this and more interesting questions as the playoffs progress!
My or My, BOSTON VS MONTREAL....HMMMM....just like old times all over again, can this be possible? I hope so!!!!!!
Not this time hawks, no way, Louieeee the great in goal!!! the diffrence for sure, and what about Halak! The two best goalies right now, for sure, and that is the no. one reason you win the cup people!!!!!
|
| Guest9423 |
Posted - 05/02/2010 : 20:00:12
ugh Cap locks bud use it wisely
But I agree with somewhat guest said, After watching both pens vs habs game I can honestly say it seems like Pittsburg is getting the royal treatment. Anyone see Crosby throw a fit break and throw his stick. I figured he atleast get called a 2 minute but no he gets away with his. I wonder if any player from Montreal did that what would happen then again he is a superstar and he does make his own rules right Bettman? After watching the sen series I can honestly say refs are not giving Pittsburg games but they sure are giving them alot of breaks to win. |
| Guest4235 |
Posted - 05/02/2010 : 11:55:05
okay, i was wrong and i admit it, the habs deserve to be where they are now against those 'cant stand and hate the pens", but how do you explain the cheap way the habs have been treated with BRUTAL FIRST TWO GAMES OF THIS SERIES, NO TIME OFF TO WAIT AND REST WHILE THE PENS ARE HEALTHY AND WERE WAITING WITH LOTS OF REST, then the habs are forced to play an earlier game sunday! good grief, not fair to say the very least! even the announcers were even saying it wasnt fair to montreal....then matt cooke, the jerk, takes out another player, markov, the habs best d-man and one of the best in the entire league, by far and underrated too. I hope someone takes a good clean hard hit against him soon!!!!
I REALLY HOPE THE HABS WIN THIS SERIES, WHO ELSE IS SICK AND TIRED OF CROSBY AND CO BEING IN THE CUP FINALS!!! GO MONTREAL, LETS BRING THAT CUP BACK ON CANADIAN SOIL!!! THEY UPSET THESE PENS(NEED THE REF'S HELP FOR SURE) AND SORRY BOSTON FANS, YOU DONT STAND A CHANCE.
MY PREDICTIONS FOR THIS ROUND:
VANCOUVER OVER CHICAGO IN SIX
MONTREAL OVER PENS IN SEVEN
BOSTON OVER PHILLY IN FIVE
SAN JOSE OVER DETRIOT IN FIVE
I WOULD DEARLY LOVE TO SEE THE NUCKS GET BACK TO THE FINALS, BUT TO BEAT SHARKS WILL TAKE SOME MIRACLES, FOR SURE(NEED REFS HELP FOR SURE)......
can these playoffs still be rigged??????somehow??????? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/01/2010 : 00:30:10
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
So, just because we often not see it called, or it goes unnoticed. Does not diminish the fact it's an infraction. It was noticed, it was called... this time. And it was the correct call. Sadly for the Caps, it was a very crucial time and goal.
Irvine/prez.
Irv.....absolutely bang on post! The whole thing was brilliant even if i only quoted what i thought was the best and most significant part! |
| irvine |
Posted - 04/30/2010 : 16:32:39
Let me begin with that, I, fully agree with the call on the ice. No goal.
Yes, we often see more contact within the crease, on a goaltender that goes uncalled. This time, although very light contact, it's still against NHL rules.
So, just because we often not see it called, or it goes unnoticed. Does not diminish the fact it's an infraction. It was noticed, it was called... this time. And it was the correct call. Sadly for the Caps, it was a very crucial time and goal.
I believe someone said that, these things need to be more set in stone. And I agree. We need to see this call made more, in my opinion. If it's an infraction, call it every time it happens. Not just here and there.
It needs to be more set in stone, not left up to the refs discretion. Any contact on a goaltender, while in the crease should automatically be a penalty (if intentional) or blown dead (if accidential). Or automatic no goal, if the puck enters the net just following the contact. (Same as blown dead, but goal does not count).
This way, the refs still use discrection... but it's automatic blown dead play. Maybe it will keep screens outside of the crease, and not so in tight.
Irvine/prez. |
| Guest7407 |
Posted - 04/30/2010 : 05:57:42
Great comments and debates by all. At the very least, the calls are subjective to the refs point of view, and none of us have their unique perspective.
However, the 2nd round opener was, IMHO, very influenced by the linesmen! Yes, the linesmen. Have you seen so many players kicked out of the circle for no apparent reason? There were some justified rejections at the face-off, true. But I don't think that the SJS had more than 60% of the face-offs taken by their designated player! BTW, I'm not a Sharks fan. Worse yet, the replacement player came in to the puck drop and did nothing different and that was OK somehow. hmmm
It was shameful to see the officials influence a game like that. Face-offs are as crucial as it gets, and to have undo influence by the refs at that time is unnacceptable.
I love to watch hockey. However, I just started to watch it again this year, after two years off, because the officiating was well done during the regular season. What I am seeing during these playoffs reminds me of why I stopped watching before: the game should ALWAYS be decided by the players, not the refs!
It's gotta be someone else's turn on the soapbox now. Cheers! |
| Guest9361 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 19:52:44
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9668
As a rabid habs fan, I loved last nights game. That said, the Knuble call was incredibly 'weak', given the circumstances and severity of the interference. I was amazed the ref had the balls to make that call. Way worse in every series has been let go, especially in a 1-0 game in the third period of a game 7.
The Montreal goal that was called back cannot be said to be similar, since 1) it was flagrant and 2) the whistle went first anyways. If I were a caps fan I'd probably be griping about that call, except that's not the reason they lost a 3-1 series lead. MTL had their number, despite the vast shot differential. Wash had crappy point shots that had no chance, whereas Montreal's few shots generated a lot more good scoring chances.
Finally, a level headed Habs fans. Good on you to say what is realistic I have many Habs friends who are ridiculously convinced that it was flagrant interference.
Now game 2 was a different animal altogether. I don't know why the goalie intereference calls were not made there. Can't figure these refs out. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 12:52:28
Anyone see the elbow / forearm that Gionta "ate" in the third period (can't remember who from)? That easily could have been called a penalty but the ref's were letting them play! |
| Guest9668 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 10:33:19
As a rabid habs fan, I loved last nights game. That said, the Knuble call was incredibly 'weak', given the circumstances and severity of the interference. I was amazed the ref had the balls to make that call. Way worse in every series has been let go, especially in a 1-0 game in the third period of a game 7.
The Montreal goal that was called back cannot be said to be similar, since 1) it was flagrant and 2) the whistle went first anyways. If I were a caps fan I'd probably be griping about that call, except that's not the reason they lost a 3-1 series lead. MTL had their number, despite the vast shot differential. Wash had crappy point shots that had no chance, whereas Montreal's few shots generated a lot more good scoring chances. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 08:41:38
Yeah, I am actually of the mind that the goalie interference call against the Caps was pretty weak, actually - and this is just going by the goals that have stood in these playoffs and regular season.
But that's the problem with the way the game is reffed now, open to too much interpretation, and one game's standards often widely vary from another game's standards. It is all so arbitrary, and dependent on the referee's mood it seems . . . at any rate, I don't think anyone is saying it is the reason the Caps lost this series - but I certainly don't pretend to think that this game was that well called either.
The contact with the goalie was fairly incidental, and it was a very strict interpretation of the goalie interference rule in my mind - and probably the wrong call to make IMHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 08:40:04
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0288
I want to say first that I am neither a Caps or Habs fan. But am I the only one that thinks last night goal in the third period should have counted? After watching the replay over and over, I thought there was no interference at all. In fact I think Knuble made every effort to get out of the way. Was there contact with the goalie? Extremely minor (skate kind of flicked against his pads?)
I have seen goals count with much more goalie contact. It was brutal call.
Had that goal counted, the game was definitely going to change.
"Yes there was contact, albeit ever so slight, and therefore the call was correct! Kudo's to the ref for having the stones to make that call at that point in that game in that building, etc......
That call goes unnoticed and uncalled a lot of the time but it doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty. I agree, that could have easily led to a different outcome, but so too could a PP clicking at a better than 1 for 33 rate or whatever it was? It looked scarily similar to Vancouver's PK which finally improved, a little at least, enough to help knock off the Kings. Really, when you think about it, if the Cap's PP could have scored a couple PP goals in games 6 & 7, they're likely getting ready for the Flyers today.
Absolutely agree 100% that this was the right call. Furthermore, there was a goal of Montreal's called off for goaltender interference as well. It was called fairly for both teams. You can say what you want towards the Knuble type call not happening very often. However, this specific game was called as good as it gets and there was no advantage for either team given by the refs.
Simply, the better team on the ice last night won the game. Washington is a better team than Montreal, but they were not last night. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 07:49:35
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0288
I want to say first that I am neither a Caps or Habs fan. But am I the only one that thinks last night goal in the third period should have counted? After watching the replay over and over, I thought there was no interference at all. In fact I think Knuble made every effort to get out of the way. Was there contact with the goalie? Extremely minor (skate kind of flicked against his pads?)
I have seen goals count with much more goalie contact. It was brutal call.
Had that goal counted, the game was definitely going to change.
"Yes there was contact, albeit ever so slight, and therefore the call was correct! Kudo's to the ref for having the stones to make that call at that point in that game in that building, etc......
That call goes unnoticed and uncalled a lot of the time but it doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty. I agree, that could have easily led to a different outcome, but so too could a PP clicking at a better than 1 for 33 rate or whatever it was? It looked scarily similar to Vancouver's PK which finally improved, a little at least, enough to help knock off the Kings. Really, when you think about it, if the Cap's PP could have scored a couple PP goals in games 6 & 7, they're likely getting ready for the Flyers today. |
| Guest0288 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 06:34:20
I want to say first that I am neither a Caps or Habs fan. But am I the only one that thinks last night goal in the third period should have counted? After watching the replay over and over, I thought there was no interference at all. In fact I think Knuble made every effort to get out of the way. Was there contact with the goalie? Extremely minor (skate kind of flicked against his pads?)
I have seen goals count with much more goalie contact. It was brutal call.
Had that goal counted, the game was definitely going to change. |
| strech that twine |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 05:46:26
Sooo Happy 
Washington got that goal tender interference call...what goes around eh..Ovechkin another poor playoffs..Definately no Sidney Crobsy..lol
Ramsay |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 04/28/2010 : 20:48:28
My compliments to the refs for coaching a perfect game. Not a single bad call either which way that i saw. |
| Guest4314 |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 19:59:44
holy crap !! are we watch the NHL or the women USA vs CAN game !!
I"m so fed up with the ref's deciding games!!!!!!!!
if its a penalty call it, if you want to let them play then let them but this f**k'n back and forth is ridicules...one game its a penelty and the next not...
Watching the Detroit game...think i"m going to have a sssttrookkkkee...
What the hell is going to happen if Boston and Phily meet ?
set a record for power plays.....
|
| Guest6534 |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 16:35:07
quote:
Originally posted by baumer
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6534
curiosity got the best of you hey. lols
Not at all that site's been around since I was in high school
so you are a regular visitor then hey guy? i figured you for one of those... |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 14:29:27
I just think everyone likes to b***h and moan about reffing when ill say 90% of the people thst complain have never been in that position.
If you want to know why sometimes a guy can miss a "easy" shot over the glass call when he is right in front of the play go ref and find out.
Things happen so fast out their at levels like AAA Midget that I can only imagine how fast the play is in the NHL. You try to watch a guy finish a check to make sure its clean and the next thing you know the pucks out of play. Just because your right their does not mean you saw how the puck left the ice surface.
Seriously these ref's in the NHL are the best of the best. Humans make Human errors. Deal with it and enjoy the great hockey the Playoffs provide. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 10:27:49
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
"I seem to always be complaining about the reffing . . . am I perfect at my job?"
(rolls eyes)
So if clear and obvious bad calls are being made, and the reffing is well below an acceptable standard, I should refrain from criticism because I may not be perfect? I never said I was shooting for perfection, I don't hold anyone to a higher standard than myself . . . I want competence! Call the obvious crosscheck, dive, or puck shot over the boards by the defender when it happens right in front of you! Call the dive, and don't make a call you obviously couldn't be sure of since it's a phantom slash or contact.
I'll stick to my valid criticisms, and you stick to the NHL defence theory of "hey, no one's perfect - so accept incompetence!"
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
At the same time, do you (or anyone else for that matter) openly post and discuss when a game is officiated perfectly(or near perfectly)?? For example, I think that the Washington/Montreal game last night was about as good as one can hope for. The proper calls were made, I don't recall anything glaringly missed, and the dives were called without the opposing penalty.
Excellent.
Where is the thread or even comment about that??
Has the standard not become, especially in the playoffs, perfection?? Not in Slozo's case as he and I are in the same 'my team missed the playoffs boat"
I don't believe the original comment was intending on saying anything other than bad calls some times happen. When I look at the 6 series that are complete, I believe the better team through the series has won each of them and the refs had really nothing to do with the outcome. |
| ReyR |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 08:05:17
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
"I seem to always be complaining about the reffing . . . am I perfect at my job?"
(rolls eyes)
So if clear and obvious bad calls are being made, and the reffing is well below an acceptable standard, I should refrain from criticism because I may not be perfect? I never said I was shooting for perfection, I don't hold anyone to a higher standard than myself . . . I want competence! Call the obvious crosscheck, dive, or puck shot over the boards by the defender when it happens right in front of you! Call the dive, and don't make a call you obviously couldn't be sure of since it's a phantom slash or contact.
I'll stick to my valid criticisms, and you stick to the NHL defence theory of "hey, no one's perfect - so accept incompetence!"
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Agreed; if it was only a call here or there then some tolerance can be accepted, but the league/refs have made enough bad calls to warrant a look at the current system, because it's obviously not working. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 04:59:28
"I seem to always be complaining about the reffing . . . am I perfect at my job?"
(rolls eyes)
So if clear and obvious bad calls are being made, and the reffing is well below an acceptable standard, I should refrain from criticism because I may not be perfect? I never said I was shooting for perfection, I don't hold anyone to a higher standard than myself . . . I want competence! Call the obvious crosscheck, dive, or puck shot over the boards by the defender when it happens right in front of you! Call the dive, and don't make a call you obviously couldn't be sure of since it's a phantom slash or contact.
I'll stick to my valid criticisms, and you stick to the NHL defence theory of "hey, no one's perfect - so accept incompetence!"
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 23:57:04
Three diving calls against Montreal in game 6. Okay, the first one was well deserved, Lapierre looked like an idiot. However, the two minute penalty that followed was punishment for the crime, so to speak, however the refs decided he needed a second diving penalty on what should have been a call against washington. I'm not even saying anything about the atrocious diving call made against Gionta in between those two Lapierre calls. Montreal won game 6, beating both Washington and the refs. |
| baumer |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 17:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6534
curiosity got the best of you hey. lols
Not at all that site's been around since I was in high school |
| ReyR |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 15:31:46
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Wow I have to shake my head when I read some of these comments made.
Slozo - you seem to always be complaining about the reffing. I don’t get it. Are you perfect at your job? I’m guessing not, in fact I would say 100% of us are not perfect in anyway shape or form when it comes to our work or life in general. This holds true for the Ref's in the NHL as well.
OK as far for inconsistent goes here is my take on it.
You have two different ref's who are in charge of calling penalties. They may view the game slightly different after all allot of penalties are judgment calls. So in any given game you can have two ref's calling the game in two different mind sets. (im sure the NHL tries to pair up similar style refs and I am sure they talk about what they want to do before they hit the ice but it doesn't always work).
If you want to get rid of this problem we need to go back to one ref. (he will miss more calls but the consistency will be back up). As a player I would prefer consistent calls.
Actually, it would be better to have the refs actually talk to each other and consult one another to come up with a consistent approach.
Or revise the rules to be more clear.
Or more usage of instant reply when necessary.
Or people admitting to their mistakes instead of changing the meaning of the rule so that you don't have to admit you're wrong.
There's many ways to improve the current situation and it is debatable which one is best, but simply removing a ref so that it's consistent won't necessarily help the situation.
If you simply preferred consistency, would only having one ref for ALL games be preferable? |
| ReyR |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 15:25:43
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
In regards to the 'kicking motion' rule, I have a suggested solution.
Any goal occuring from a puck defected off ANY part of a skate is rules no goal.
Cut and dry, black and white. Done and Done.
Fair for everyone and easy to administer.
So should all deflections be ruled a no goal unless it is off a stick? If you rule no goal on any deflection off skate, then you have to apply that same rule to leg/arm/butt, etc. If not, then why is the skate different?
Why not the other way around that any deflection off the skate is a goal? or like Bob McKenzie suggested, as long as the skate is on the ice? |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 13:46:38
Wow I have to shake my head when I read some of these comments made.
Slozo - you seem to always be complaining about the reffing. I don’t get it. Are you perfect at your job? I’m guessing not, in fact I would say 100% of us are not perfect in anyway shape or form when it comes to our work or life in general. This holds true for the Ref's in the NHL as well.
OK as far for inconsistent goes here is my take on it.
You have two different ref's who are in charge of calling penalties. They may view the game slightly different after all allot of penalties are judgment calls. So in any given game you can have two ref's calling the game in two different mind sets. (im sure the NHL tries to pair up similar style refs and I am sure they talk about what they want to do before they hit the ice but it doesn't always work).
If you want to get rid of this problem we need to go back to one ref. (he will miss more calls but the consistency will be back up). As a player I would prefer consistent calls.
|
| Guest6534 |
Posted - 04/26/2010 : 13:08:20
curiosity got the best of you hey. lols |
|
|
