"Blame the refs" vs. "Blame the team"...which camp are you in?

[eco's bones]

Sometimes I think that posters here don't want to **** on bad officiating because they know that posters for other teams are going to **** all over them and they're afraid of being categorized as non-objective homers.

NHL officiating could be a hell of a lot better than it is. I'll discard the idea that referees have it in particularly for any team but even so they **** up a lot. The notion that things always even out in the end is asinine. Timing can mean a lot. Timing can mean everything. Getting screwed in game 45 of the regular season is a hell of a lot different than being screwed in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and all the proof I need for that assertion is the Brett Hull goal that won Dallas their only Stanley Cup which by the rules of that time and the way the game was being called all the time should not have counted.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This is really embarrassing and needs to stop. I have not posted on here in many months, but felt the need to say how stupid this post is. We got beat by a better team plain and simple. Could we have won this series? For sure we could have....we lost 3 OT games.

We got 2 Powerplays in overtime's of game 5, I don't see how anyone can complain about the refs, I really don't.

1) Because in games 2 and 5 with competent refs the games are likely not even going into OT, which makes OT PPs completely irrelevant.

2) You fail to see the bigger picture. What kind of league can't find competent refs in the finals? And these finals included the 2 largest US markets.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm certainly in your camp. I'd say this whole thread is an embarrassing soup of whining. Classless.

Did someone actually say there would have been a game 6 if it wasn't for that Zucc penalty?

I'm glad it's possible to "delete" the thread on my screen. Done.

Why is that funny? We lead 2-1, they tied the game in the 3rd on a goal from the resulting PP. I have no idea what you're even talking about in this post.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Or maybe Richter was talking about overcoming the perception of a 54 year "curse" where regardless of how good the Rangers were, something always came up.

Imagine if the internet was widely used in 1994--think about how it felt after games 4 and 5 against the Devils and then after game 6 in the Finals. Nothing was guaranteed then. A team could break the record for most wins in a season and still end up getting swept in the first round.

Yeah but the Rangers were the better team then and the Rangers weren't now. So added adversity from the refs is going to hurt your team badly in this situation. 3 games went into OT. Adversity in that situation against a better team can be fatal and it was.

 

[Swept In Seven]

Both, forth and foremost the team. Resiliency is thrown around a lot, but you have to be able to battle through the bad calls. Also they tried to go in to a shell when they got the lead consistently, and they consistently got burned.

The refs played a huge negative role in the series from a Rangers standpoint. Absolutely horrid, possibly enough to plant a question about the authenticity of the league imo. 2 games were definitively decided by the referees, and that is absolute bush league.

Just a disappointing loss, the kind that stings and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. The kind that makes you hungrier, the kind that builds character, the kind that forces you over the top. This team is not done, they will be back soon, and they will win. They now know what it takes, it is up to the gm to put a competent team together around this core to put them in a position to succeed.

 

[Cake or Death]

Sometimes I think that posters here don't want to **** on bad officiating because they know that posters for other teams are going to **** all over them and they're afraid of being categorized as non-objective homers.

NHL officiating could be a hell of a lot better than it is. I'll discard the idea that referees have it in particularly for any team but even so they **** up a lot. The notion that things always even out in the end is asinine. Timing can mean a lot. Timing can mean everything. Getting screwed in game 45 of the regular season is a hell of a lot different than being screwed in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and all the proof I need for that assertion is the Brett Hull goal that won Dallas their only Stanley Cup which by the rules of that time and the way the game was being called all the time should not have counted.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really care what other fans think. As a hockey player who was taught to shake hands and leave it on the ice, as a fan who has watched teams do that for decades, I just find the excuses embarrassing and seeming to give little credit to our opponents. I am a huge hockey history buff. I recall the famous photo of Jim Henry shaking hands with Maurice Richard. Henry took a shot in the face the prior game that broke his nose and blackened his eyes. He returned and finished the game. Richard in the next game, game 7, suffered a concussion early in the game. He came back in the third period and scored the game series winning goal, bloodied and bandaged. These two warriors shook hands, respectfully, and left it on the ice.

We are an original six franchise. Part of our history is tied into that photo, our own playoff history part of that same tradition. This season, our NYR played their ***** off in the Final. Proud of them. But LA played their ***** off, too. We did not lose to bad calls; we had calls our way, too. LA executed a little better when it mattered. Hats off to them.

Our team battled hard, had an amazing season, and we came up a little short to a great hockey team. There is no shame in that, no need to try to vindicate it, no need to create conspiracy ref threads on the main boards. Be proud of your team's play, but respect your opponent's as well, and leave the nonsense on the ice. That is how an original six team, and its fans, should carry itself, at least in my humble opinion.

 

[nyhockeyfan]

Great post, Cake or Death.

I disagree with the assertion that the call in game 2 lead directly to the loss. But in any event, two calls in a best of seven series should not decide the outcome. I have never been a ref but it looks like a hard and thankless job. I do not blame the refs.

Also, the LA Kings are a damn good hockey team. The Rangers played their hearts out. And I don't buy that some of the team didn't show up for some of the games. I think they played as hard as they could for all the games. So I don't blame the team.

The real problem is that one of the teams had to lose. So I am just blaming the SCF.

 

[Kreider Typical]

Sometimes I think that posters here don't want to **** on bad officiating because they know that posters for other teams are going to **** all over them and they're afraid of being categorized as non-objective homers.

It's bad to be seen as whiners by other posters, but it's also bad to be whiners. We lost. I thought this post-season was the best reffed in a LONG time.

I'm one of those fans that thought 0 penalties in the TBL(#1 PP)/BOS (#16 PP) game 7 ECF was a conspiracy, but I don't see that this season albeit-- I believe refs are told to call game certain way based on the series score (IE down 3 games, call it or the losing team).

If anything I felt like the league wanted us to win(just not as much as some other years)--After St.Louis' mother's unfortunate passing before Mother's Day the story was set. History easily could have made mad stacks off of that.

The problem is, we let LA capitalize on the bad calls against us. They had a few of their own, particularly in game 5 of the SCF.

Regardless-- we were the problem that put us down in the SCF games and the reason for our success prior to that this post-season. I'm not gonna blame the refs for a few bad calls-- mostly borderline ones. They have a tough job and made excellent work of it this year. I couldn't believe how decent they looked out there(I attribute that in part to the excellent negotiating of Vigneault and Richards instead of the disrespectful raging of Tortorella and whining of Cally) Not to mention the Kings played well when down. Best SCF in years imo, and we'll get there again if we keep our heads forward.

Could we have won without the interference call on McDonagh? Maybe... But we also could have won with the the game 5 elimination double OT powerplay that got called in our favor. If you think double OT stick violations that don't involve somebody hit in the face with a stick or on a clean breakaway tripped or something like that get called you're delusional(not aimed at any individual, just anybody that has that thought) Calls went both ways. Montreal had the upper hand early because of embellishment. I thought the Kings series was generally fair... Honestly don't remember anything horrible before that either (don't remember Flyer series at all).

The only thing I REALLY have issue with is the lack of review for certain goals. If a guy interferes don't make the ref make that call on the ice. Let him watch the video first. This is completely unacceptable. It's such an easy fix. Even if they make it like every other possible goal scenario where it has to be conclusive to overturn the call on the ice-- force the issue. Potentially losing a game and momentum for the entire series on a questionable goal is ridiculous-- especially when it' CLEAR AS DAY that the ref making the call admittedly screwed up(referring to his conversations with the players/coach on the ice that game and the clear look of distraught on his face-- actually felt bad for that guy cause that was a really easy mistake to make).

Other scenarios that could potentially warrant video review: penalty shots, 4:00 high sticks, 5:00 majors, and delay of game:puck out of play. But that's for another year. Priority right now is video review for goals and shortly after intent to injure (5:00) plays.

TL;DR
I don't fault the refs. Bad calls both ways, we didn't capitalize at the right time. Biggest issue by far is video review.

 

[Fletch]

late to the game in this thread, and haven't read any posts, but you can't blame the refs. You can point to calls that were difference makes, for sure, but at the same time the team's response to those calls weren't very good either and that's part of the game. Further, over a series, it tends to smooth out a bit and affect the overall outcome as much. The Rangers got some phantom calls, albeit not many, and did not take advantage as the King did (such as they did in game five with the trip that led to the tying goal, which some may have thought was the back-breaker). The Rangers lost this game. Could not score that OT goal. Could not score that late goal. Could not clamp down with the lead. The Kings were the better team. The Rangers had a heck of a season.

 

[Gardner McKay]

The truth, as it almost always does, lies in the middle.

Was the refereeing porous? Yes. Is it a legitimate excuse? No. We had plenty of chances to close out game 1, 2, and 5, but we simply weren't able to finish on our chances.

Spot on BB. We had power plays in each overtime that could have given us those games. We didn't convert and had 1 or 2 PPG in the series with 20+ chances. That is absolutely abysmal.

I think AV has done an outstanding job. My only knock on him was his failure to adjust the power play after it clearly wasn't working with Richards & Girardi being on the points. What do you have to lose by letting Stralman or Moore get some point time? Hell, even Marc Staal on the point would have been better than either of those two.

 

[Fletch]

Spot on BB. We had power plays in each overtime that could have given us those games. We didn't convert and had 1 or 2 PPG in the series with 20+ chances. That is absolutely abysmal.

I think AV has done an outstanding job. My only knock on him was his failure to adjust the power play after it clearly wasn't working with Richards & Girardi being on the points. What do you have to lose by letting Stralman or Moore get some point time? Hell, even Marc Staal on the point would have been better than either of those two.

.

I'm not going to say the PP worked, because it didn't and Richards was a large part as to why it didn't work, but you ask what AV had to lose, and in his mind, what he had to lose was a game, and a series. People will say, well, they're losing anyway, but as coach, you're not saying, I might as well do this because we're losing anyway. Sometimes you go with what got you there. By game 5 it looked as though it was turning around and the problem on the PP (Richards) was no longer the problem. Easy to sit here and throw out solutions. I'm sure AV was aware that he wasn't getting great play from the point, and was aware that the PP was not winning the series for him; he may've also believed that the solution wasn't right there on his bench.

 

[Gardner McKay]

.

I'm not going to say the PP worked, because it didn't and Richards was a large part as to why it didn't work, but you ask what AV had to lose, and in his mind, what he had to lose was a game, and a series. People will say, well, they're losing anyway, but as coach, you're not saying, I might as well do this because we're losing anyway. Sometimes you go with what got you there. By game 5 it looked as though it was turning around and the problem on the PP (Richards) was no longer the problem. Easy to sit here and throw out solutions. I'm sure AV was aware that he wasn't getting great play from the point, and was aware that the PP was not winning the series for him; he may've also believed that the solution wasn't right there on his bench.

Im sure AV was aware. I think he was afraid to break out of his comfort zone on the PP. By this token, coaches shouldn't make in game adjustments such as changing up lines, D-pairings, etc.

AV changed his lines during the game and during the series. If he was willing to do that, I fail to see why he also couldn't take the same chance on the PP. When line combinations become ineffective, you change them. When defense pairings aren't getting the job done or are getting beat, you switch them up and adjust. When you power play isn't scoring, you adjust. It is no different than anything else a coach would normally adjust.

 

[Miamipuck]

I always thought without exception the NHL was the best reffed sport on the planet. I don't think this any longer. I think a good portion of the Refs are incompetent schmucks, I wouldn't want some of them to ref my mens league games. The last 2 rounds were some of the worst officiated games I have ever seen in my life, just flat out embarrassing. Those were supposed to be the cream of the crop.

I think the NHL should put the names on their back again and start have some more stringent standards for these guys. They need to be held accountable as they are ****ing terrible.

That said the refs are not the reason the Rangers lost but when you have such small margins of error, they didn't help matters. That's a fact!

Edit: More so then the blown interference call, the blown delay of game call that both directly led to a King's goal or that phantom trip on Zucc, I am still immensely pissed at the non call on Prust's hit that broke Stepan's jaw, that was totally inexcusable and the ref was looking right at it.

 

[Fletch]

Im sure AV was aware. I think he was afraid to break out of his comfort zone on the PP. By this token, coaches shouldn't make in game adjustments such as changing up lines, D-pairings, etc.

AV changed his lines during the game and during the series. If he was willing to do that, I fail to see why he also couldn't take the same chance on the PP. When line combinations become ineffective, you change them. When defense pairings aren't getting the job done or are getting beat, you switch them up and adjust. When you power play isn't scoring, you adjust. It is no different than anything else a coach would normally adjust.

he didn't see a better option, I'm guessing. He didn't change up his lines all too much. He demoted Richards. I think that was to get fresh legs on a top line to see what would happen. Some coaches are loyal to a fault and do not make changes. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. We do not know if AV was right or wrong since we didn't see Richards sit. People will say, why not try it? Well, you do not know how many PP opportunities you will get and the PP goal could be the difference in the game. It's a fine line and sometimes a tough one to mess with. it's unlike putting Moore on a top line. There will be more shifts and ES opportunities. Moore won't be a defensive liability. If he brings down the offense, he can adjust. The PP...get one and it could be your last chance.

 

[Tawnos]

I always thought without exception the NHL was the best reffed sport on the planet. I don't think this any longer. I think a good portion of the Refs are incompetent schmucks, I wouldn't want some of them to ref my mens league games. The last 2 rounds were some of the worst officiated games I have ever seen in my life, just flat out embarrassing. Those were supposed to be the cream of the crop.

I think the NHL should put the names on their back again and start have some more stringent standards for these guys. They need to be held accountable as they are ****ing terrible.

That said the refs are not the reason the Rangers lost but when you have such small margins of error, they didn't help matters. That's a fact!

I think part of the problem is that the current crop of referees is relatively young. That's a combination of doubling the number of referees and some of the great ones from the 90s retiring. No more Gregson, Fraser, Van Hellemond, Faucette, etc. Certain refs, like Wes McCauley are far improved from where they used to be. Over time, I think the quality of the officials will improve.

 

[NYRKindms]

I'm in the camp that I think the rangers got jobbed in Game 2 and Game 5 but the team lacked the finishers to overcome that and it ultimately cost them the Stanley Cup.

I mean even with the bad calls at crucial moments they had several opportunities to end the over time games and the biggest difference was capitalizing on the Kings mistakes. There were many time the Kings turned the puck over and they didn't make them pay for it. While the rangers mistakes ended up in the back of the net.

 

[TruBlue]

How about conditioning? They lost 3 games in OT after getting off to good starts in every one.

If they had no opportunities in OT I wold agree that questioning conditioning would be in order, but they had chances...

 

[TruBlue]

And Montreal Game 6. And nearly every other game in the playoffs where the Rangers took a lead into the 3rd.

I do have an issue with AV not recognizing after games 1 and 2 that the strategy was no longer working, but to quote The West Wing... "some people will tell you that the hardest thing to do in sports is hit a baseball. But I once had a coach tell me that the hardest thing to do in sports is to go into the locker room at half time of the Super Bowl and throw out the strategy that got you there in the first place." (phrasing might be slightly different, but you get the point)

I can forgive him for it.

Another quote that says a prevent defense only prevents you from winning...the Kings thrived on feasting on that 3rd period shell...gaining more and more momentum each shift.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

And Montreal Game 6. And nearly every other game in the playoffs where the Rangers took a lead into the 3rd.

I do have an issue with AV not recognizing after games 1 and 2 that the strategy was no longer working, but to quote The West Wing... "some people will tell you that the hardest thing to do in sports is hit a baseball. But I once had a coach tell me that the hardest thing to do in sports is to go into the locker room at half time of the Super Bowl and throw out the strategy that got you there in the first place." (phrasing might be slightly different, but you get the point)

I can forgive him for it.

What are you talking about dude? Montreal had like 4 shots in that 3rd period and spend the entire period in their zone. THAT'S the strategy we needed to try to emulate against LA, obviously wouldn't have the same success but somewhere between that and getting dominated would be nice.

 

[Thesensation19*]

The refs made some bad calls. Especially that one against Zuccarello. However, there is no promise that we still win with good refs and no calls. The Rangers were not playing that great.

How many times did our defensemen give away the puck in our zone?
How many times did our d-men decide to rocket a 2-line pass rather than make a simpler passes. Most that just gave the puck away.
How many times did we have a bad time clearing the zone?

Even in game 6, Girardi by himself gave LA the puck in our zone 4x that game. McDonagh another 1. Staal 2 more. Carter should have scored 3 different times on turnovers.

Sadly, I really dont think our team was prepared to play a team like LA.
Im proud of the team but they need to improve at roster, and some game play

 

[Tawnos]

What are you talking about dude? Montreal had like 4 shots in that 3rd period and spend the entire period in their zone. THAT'S the strategy we needed to try to emulate against LA, obviously wouldn't have the same success but somewhere between that and getting dominated would be nice.

That's only because Montreal isn't as good of a 3rd period team as LA is. It was the same strategy, but with more success due to a lesser opponent.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

LA was the better team by a smidgen. With size and experience being the determining factors.

 

[haveandare]

That's only because Montreal isn't as good of a 3rd period team as LA is. It was the same strategy, but with more success due to a lesser opponent.

That's what gets me though.

After the third of game 1, why on earth was there no attempt to come up with something else? That period was embarrassing, and it was repeated to an extent in every single game the rest of the series.

Outshot by a bit, okay. Outpossessed by a bit, okay. It's a clamp down strategy, it's not about generating scoring. I can live with that. But outshot, what 20 to 2 or something? Outpossessed completely? That wasn't bad luck, or fatigue, or anything else. It was a strategy that played right into the Kings hands, and they took it every time it was offered.

I'm not going to blame the whole loss on AV, as it was obviously deeper than that, and much of it isn't about who lost it for NYR but who won it for LA, but damn, that strategy was awful, and I'm going to be real pissed if we see it again next year against a high-powered offense. It simply doesn't work against the best of the best.

 

[True Blue]

I disagree with the assertion that the call in game 2 lead directly to the loss. But in any event, two calls in a best of seven series should not decide the outcome. I have never been a ref but it looks like a hard and thankless job. I do not blame the refs.

Was the reffing even? No. Were the refs the reason that the Rangers lost in 5 games? Not even close. The Kings were the reason that the Rangers lost. The Rangers did what they could, but they could not over come their natural deficiencies.

 

[Fletch]

Another quote that says a prevent defense only prevents you from winning...the Kings thrived on feasting on that 3rd period shell...gaining more and more momentum each shift.

While it did appear as though LA was gaining steam and the Rangers were running out of it, in game 5 the Rangers had plenty in the tank and skated well through the end of the game. Problem was, they sat back and LA took the play to them. Not sure if that was by design or just that the skaters on LA were better, but the result of the Rangers often on their heels, get the puck, take a bad angle shot with a rebound that the Rangers forwards couldn't get to, and off the other way.They had better guys with the puck.