Arizonatah
Registered User
I thought the referees are instructed to let the guys play and make fewer calls in the playoffs so that there's less chance referees influence the outcome of the game?
Around the NHL - Part 1 [MOD: Other Team News Goes Here]
- Thread starter Mosby
- Start date
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,379
- 6,487
That is how traditionalists look at it and imo, how it should be. It's really no different than the old tradition of not calling a penalty, that won't affect outcome, late in a close game.
Reminds me of one time I was reffing a game and while I don't remember what the score was, it wasn't really close or anything. Kid trips another kid with just a few minutes to go, puck nowhere nearby, and I was looking right at it. My decision was to laugh and say "there was no need to call that" when the coach of the kid who got tripped started trying to give me hell, which shut him right up.
Coaches seem to be much more inclined to accept the answer of "I saw that and chose to not call it" as opposed to "sorry, didn't see it."
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,379
- 6,487
A good comeback from an official always settled me down. One of my favorites was “didn’t like that one huh?”
Excuse my lack of knowledge but isn't choosing to ignore the rulebook literally influencing the outcome of the game?
It's situational, and depends on how you define it. I can see both sides of the argument.
Take that example where I chose to ignore a trip in the neutral zone well away from the play. An argument in favor is that since it was nowhere near the puck, it didn't affect the outcome of the play. An argument against it is that it technically broke the rules, and the non-offending team should have been on the power play. I can see either side of it when putting it that way. What I will say is that in a clear cut case like that, of something that's technically a penalty but does not affect the outcome of the play, officials are instructed by the powers that be to ignore it, so we did, players know it, and coaches know it.
Another factor is when a game is called more tightly (or the opposite, such as how the NHL playoffs are normally called). It's affecting the outcome of the game in a way, in that a tightly-called game favors a certain style of play, which one team may be better at, and it goes in the other direction if the game is not called as tightly. So, I can see that side of it. The other side of it that I can see is that a tightly (or not) called game is called the same way for both teams (in theory anyway, we see this sometimes not really work out in practice), meaning that both teams are held to the same standard, therefore the game is theoretically fair. Of course, the main frustration I see from fans and players on this one is that whatever "the standard" is varies from game to game.
Why should games ever be called other than by the rules? Why should Florida be permitted to cross check, interfere with, cause crap after whistle, etc and get the benefit of playing that way while a team like Edmonton designed to play with speed be prevented from playing the way the rules are stated?
If a trip away from play is OK not to call how about a punch? Or body check? See where I'm going?
I most certainly do. I personally don't have an opinion about it one way or the other, however.
I was just saying I see the other side of it as well. I have a tendency to see both sides of an argument then choose to not have my own opinion about it.
Switzerland is that you??I most certainly do. I personally don't have an opinion about it one way or the other, however.
I was just saying I see the other side of it as well. I have a tendency to see both sides of an argument then choose to not have my own opinion about it.
it just doesnt feel right that the Officials get to decide what style of play they support when a rule book is right there to settle that.
Switzerland is that you??
I'd probably have gotten by quite well in Switzerland about 10 years ago, since my German and French used to be pretty good. I've forgotten a lot of it due to disuse though.
Cross checking around the net hasn't been called for years, or if it gets called it's not very often. Edmonton's Corey Perry is one of the biggest shit disturbers after the whistle there is.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,379
- 6,487
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,412
- 1,467
So let's say we are playing the Oilers in the playoffs and the coach tells OB take a run at McDaivd. Cross check him in the throat you are good with it. After all we don't want the refs to interfer. Watch tonight's game and count how many uncalled cross checks you see. That's interfering with the game. This is a game of skill not thugs.
Arizonatah
Registered User
I didn't give an opinion, I asked a question. But since you asked...
I agree with @Summer Rose. I don't really have an opinion either way. I can see justification for both, so I don't really care which is implemented. They both have +/-.
Using McDavid getting cross checked in the throat is just about as extreme of an example you could use. How many players actually get cross checked in the throat in the playoffs every year, the way it is? How many times does it goes uncalled?
3 times in Montreal series a player was cross checked in the face with no penalties. I was shocked watching it
Arizonatah
Registered User
IMO, stuff like that should be called. Allowing the guys to play and not calling anything at all are not the same thing.
Even the "McDavid* getting cross checked in the throat" example is past the limitations for how, according to the USA Hockey officials' guide at least, you can "let things go" because they didn't really affect the play. The guide calls for calling a penalty in the following four situations (obviously more than one can be true):
*-who the player is shouldn't matter in this case.
1) The infraction caused a change of possession (or prevented someone from gaining possession who otherwise would have)
2) The infraction denied a scoring opportunity
3) The infraction had the potential to cause injury
4) The infraction is blatantly obvious
The few paragraphs afterwards clarify that #4 can be ignored for "restraining fouls" (holding, hooking, etc.) on occasion, such as my example upthread of where a kid tripped another kid in the neutral zone, but never for "aggressive fouls" (of which cross checking is one). So, in the case of someone getting cross checked in the throat example, that probably doesn't meet #1 or #2, but definitely #3 and probably #4. Hence you call it no matter what.
Arizonatah
Registered User
That's kind of what I thought. Even letting the guys play shouldn't translate to "free for all"."
Its the frustrating part. A stick breaks, have to call. Player drops stick after getting hit , have to call. Player gets held, interfered with, cross checked in face.....Refs discretion.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,301
- 12,963
Ekblad with the forearm to the head resulted in a 2 game suspension as it should. Was it intentional? Probably not IMO considering his height, but still deserving of the punishment.
Arizonatah
Registered User
If it makes playoff hockey more intense with fewer interruptions, I'm sure the NHL loves it. However, there sure seems to be a fan uproar this season that I don't recall in years past and I'm sure they don't like controversy. Giving referees discretion does muddy the water.
I read a few things on the topic yesterday. Quite a few retired referees have spoken out against the "let them play" format in the past. It certainly makes sense to call playoff games the same way they call regular season games.
Stanley Thermos
Registered User
During the Avalanche vs Stars series there were some brutal cross-checks to the head. Surprisingly, I didn't see any of them from Benn.
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,412
- 1,467
Ok ok agree with you on both points but cross checks to the back ribs arms and shoulders.. at least 30 a game are not called.
Arizonatah
Registered User
Seems like the referees are using poor judgement, which is always going to be a possible outcome when discretion is allowed. Players shouldn't have to worry about getting mugged by another player. That crap needs to be called.
We want intense, not dirty.
I'm all for removing as much subjectivity as possible, myself. This may sound like I'm taking the position of supporting calling the rules strictly, which isn't really what I'm saying, I don't think. While I don't have any specific ideas at the moment, it would call for revamping the playing rules quite a bit to keep things similar to how the game is currently officiated.
But it does remind me that I like how little judgement I had as a linesman. The main one I had was that I could wave off an icing call if I thought a defending player had to the opportunity to play the puck before it crossed the goal line with "ordinary effort." Everything else is pretty much black and white (there are some oddly specific and/or rare scenarios that I won't get into where I had it, however).
That's why I hate proposals like not calling back goals if an offside player "didn't really affect the play" or if possession had already been "established" in the zone. So... more judgement calls to make, on a rule that's already black and white? Hard no. It's either offside or it's not. Deal with it.
That said, I don't feel strongly about the offside challenge existing. They could get rid of it and I wouldn't care, but I don't care that it's in place either.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Getting to the Centre Of It All (7 Viewers)- Latest: me2