| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 14:26:04
I'm watching the Canucks/Sharks game right now and appalled at the officiating...
Canucks are up 2-1 but the phantom penalties that the refs are calling are and then not calling is unbelievable. There is no consistency at all. HORRID calls being made (might as well be watching ballet) and then the whistles are put in their pockets for some unknown reason.
I'm very frustrated about the direction that my beloved game is going ... |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Snapdragon McFisticuffs |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:48:03
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
He was at the hash marks...play the puck...he did not so he got two, and deserved it...
Come on Pucknuts. be objective. 999/1000 times that wouldnt have been called. The ref said he called it because there were no Sharks around and Luongo should have played it with his stick, and not b/c of where it was.
That's my point. It hardly EVER gets called but that doesn't mean that when it happens that it shouldn't be called. It's grounds for a call everytime, and who knows, maybe the 1/1000 times it's called, it's Kerry Fraser. It all depends on the ref. That was my whole point. And by the way, just because your Canuck-hating friends said it shouldn't have been called doesn't mean it wasn't a good call lol. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:30:11
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Canucks are up 2-1 but the phantom penalties that the refs are calling are and then not calling is unbelievable. There is no consistency at all. HORRID calls being made (might as well be watching ballet) and then the whistles are put in their pockets for some unknown reason.
Didn't you say in another thread that phantom calls weren't existent? Or was that only when applied to Gretzky?
I believe you have me confused with someone else Willus.
You may be right. My apologies TC. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:12:54
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
He was at the hash marks...play the puck...he did not so he got two, and deserved it...
Come on Pucknuts. be objective. 999/1000 times that wouldnt have been called. The ref said he called it because there were no Sharks around and Luongo should have played it with his stick, and not b/c of where it was.
I'll shut up on this thread... it's too obvious to me to debate any more and everyone can make the logical conclusion... or not.  |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:10:09
quote:
Originally posted by Snapdragon McFisticuffs
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by Snapdragon McFisticuffs
but the fact is that anytime that's done a penalty is warranted.
This isnt true. This is a subjective call. IF the referee deems a player is unnecessarily freezing the puck and preventing the normal continuation of play, THEN he is supposed to make this call. This was not anywhere near the case in the game today.
And it's not only Canucks fans who are questioning it, national broadcasters were confused as well.
Sorry, warranted wasn't the right word. I meant that when a goalie does that, he'll have to accept that he is susceptible to being called for delay of game. It's not automatic, but you're placing your fate in the whistle in the referee.
You are putting you fate in the whistle of the referee whenever the goalie freezes the puck. In his crease. In his glove after a save. anytime. You just never see a delay of game called unless under extreme circumstances. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:06:54
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Canucks are up 2-1 but the phantom penalties that the refs are calling are and then not calling is unbelievable. There is no consistency at all. HORRID calls being made (might as well be watching ballet) and then the whistles are put in their pockets for some unknown reason.
Didn't you say in another thread that phantom calls weren't existent? Or was that only when applied to Gretzky?
I believe you have me confused with someone else Willus. |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:21:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4414
Download the NHL Rulebook on their website (the PDF File). I will retype what it says (it won't let me copy-paste):
Rule 67.3: A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play.
So it's not a concrete rule, but it is up to the discretion of the ref, and Fraser deemed that he stopped play unnecessarily. It's a risky call that will get called one night and won't the next, but it's still penalty-worthy either way.
How was the stop unnecessarily? Ther were 3 sharks skating right towards him. Even my 2 friends who absolutly hate the Canucks said it shouldnt have been a penalty
CANUCKS RULE!!!
Get The Towels Out Guys PLAYOFFS!!! |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:16:23
He was at the hash marks...play the puck...he did not so he got two, and deserved it...
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way...
|
| Snapdragon McFisticuffs |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:13:42
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by Snapdragon McFisticuffs
but the fact is that anytime that's done a penalty is warranted.
This isnt true. This is a subjective call. IF the referee deems a player is unnecessarily freezing the puck and preventing the normal continuation of play, THEN he is supposed to make this call. This was not anywhere near the case in the game today.
And it's not only Canucks fans who are questioning it, national broadcasters were confused as well.
Sorry, warranted wasn't the right word. I meant that when a goalie does that, he'll have to accept that he is susceptible to being called for delay of game. It's not automatic, but you're placing your fate in the whistle in the referee.
One last thing, you should be used to inconsistency by now. Ever since the start of the new NHL, reffing has been inconsistent on a whole new level. Reffing has been inconsistent since the dawn of their job, but with the new standards of play, refs have been calling based on their beliefs of the system as opposed to how it should ALWAYS be called. I call it "Consistent Inconsistency". |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:00:16
quote:
Canucks are up 2-1 but the phantom penalties that the refs are calling are and then not calling is unbelievable. There is no consistency at all. HORRID calls being made (might as well be watching ballet) and then the whistles are put in their pockets for some unknown reason.
Didn't you say in another thread that phantom calls weren't existent? Or was that only when applied to Gretzky? |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 18:48:06
quote:
Originally posted by Snapdragon McFisticuffs
but the fact is that anytime that's done a penalty is warranted.
This isnt true. This is a subjective call. IF the referee deems a player is unnecessarily freezing the puck and preventing the normal continuation of play, THEN he is supposed to make this call. This was not anywhere near the case in the game today.
And it's not only Canucks fans who are questioning it, national broadcasters were confused as well.
In any case, it was still a horrible call, but horrible calls are made all the time. There just seemed to be a lot of them in the game today (as well as horrible non-calls). It's was brutally inconsistent. |
| Snapdragon McFisticuffs |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 18:42:39
Everyone's agreeing because they're all Canucks fans and Luongo praisers. I can see where they're coming from about being upset because it's inconsistently called, but the fact is that anytime that's done a penalty is warranted. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 18:40:02
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4414
Download the NHL Rulebook on their website (the PDF File). I will retype what it says (it won't let me copy-paste):
Rule 67.3: A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play.
So it's not a concrete rule, but it is up to the discretion of the ref, and Fraser deemed that he stopped play unnecessarily. It's a risky call that will get called one night and won't the next, but it's still penalty-worthy either way.
This is no different that what I said. The referee can always call a delay of game penalty on a goalie/player if the situation is warranted. If a player freezes the puck on the boards with noone around or if the goalie covers up for a whistle with noone around either. That's always been the case. The new 'proposed' rule is that a Goalie is not allowed to cover up EVER outside the crease - and i'm hoping for this one to be put into the rulebook.
Still. No matter how you look at it, it was a pretty crappy crappy call (there WERE Sharks around him). Seems most people who watched the game (media included) seem to agree...
The call is only normally made if the goalie covers up, the referee tells him to play it because noone is around him, and he continue to cover up. Even then it's not always called... |
| Guest4414 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 17:49:43
Download the NHL Rulebook on their website (the PDF File). I will retype what it says (it won't let me copy-paste):
Rule 67.3: A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play.
So it's not a concrete rule, but it is up to the discretion of the ref, and Fraser deemed that he stopped play unnecessarily. It's a risky call that will get called one night and won't the next, but it's still penalty-worthy either way. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 17:37:48
Unfortunately you are wrong guest. Goalies ARE allowed to cover up the puck outside the crease.
This was one of those things that was debated at the last GM conference, as they were talking about making it a rule to disallow this.
I am a complete proponent of this 'proposed' new rule and would love to have it put in place so Goalies couldnt cover up the puck ouside their crease. I'd vote for it in a second! But, alas, until the rule does get put in place, that was just a subjective bone-head call today. |
| 1 Crosby fan |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 17:23:58
The reason y i edited it is because of what you said
Winners never Quit and Quitters never win
|
| Guest4414 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 17:21:01
Ok well way to edit your post after I replied to it. |
| Guest4414 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 17:01:32
THAT'S RIDICULOUS TO SAY. C'mon man. If you think the refs care what players are on you have no idea what's going on in hockey. That's such an uneducated, absurd thing to say.
I just saw Don Cherry saying "Well what's Luongo supposed to do?". It's simple, DON'T COVER THE PUCK! Goalies aren't supposed to come out that far to stop the play. If they come out there, they are like skaters and are expected to play the puck. Sure there were 3 Sharks around, but too bad. If you're suppsed to play it, it doesn't matter what kind of pressure the other team has, when you're out that far, you're delaying the game by covering the puck. |
| 1 Crosby fan |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:54:23
See they were in San Jose that's y and it was Kerry Fraser i bet if that was in GM place that never would have happened but hey i don't care Canucks won |
| Guest4414 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:49:09
BTW, good thing Luongo got that penalty. Goalies are not allowed to cover the puck way the hell out there, simple as that. Maybe it should be more universally enforced, which is why you guys think it was "appalling", but it was such an obvious penalty. Man. |
| Guest4414 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:47:22
Man the whining continues...
SUCK IT UP, Jesus Christ. Vancouver was skating around with their sticks flying all over the place, no wonder they got those penalties. San Jose knows how to sell a penalty too. There was no diving, but they made sure the obstruction was noticed. Vancouver got away with as much as SJ did so instead of criticizing the refs because your team isn't getting the calls, look at the big picture. Vancouver almost lost because they couldn't handle Joe Thornton and well, most teams can't. Stop blaming the refs, that's the p**** thing to do. |
| 1 Crosby fan |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:31:50
He should have had one, bet you the Sharks were mad
Winners never Quit and Quitters never win
|
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:12:28
Kerry Fraser should have just worn a Sharks jersey for this game. The crap that the Sharks got away with was pathetic. How many hooks, slashes, elbows and trips were not called against the Sharks? Yet Fraser calls a delay of game when there were 3 Sharks within a meter of the puck when Luongo covered it. What a joke!
He must have been pissed when the Canucks won that one, because it was pretty obvious that he was rooting for San Jose. |
| Guest4024 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 15:14:04
tell me about it
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 14:37:39
I REALLY hope this is not a sign of things to come for the playoffs....
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 14:34:50
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4024
wtf............luongo gets a delay of game penalty?
he was just saving the defenses ass
What a friggin' joke! |
| Guest4024 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 14:34:09
wtf............luongo gets a delay of game penalty?
he was just saving the defenses ass |
