Refs (again)

[Icarium]

Oh, no, Florida's usual strategy of taking a few penalties early and relying on the refs to stop calling stuff because "you can't call them all" isn't working. Play the world's smallest violin. Paul Maurice screaming at the refs after blatant penalties is pretty funny but you know he is doing it because the refs are dumb enough to gift his team a make-up call later.

In any event, VGK is better 5 on 5 than on special teams, so the refs swallowing the whistles probably won't help FLA them either.

IMO, the endless scrums after the whistles are embarrassing, good on the refs for stopping at least some of that childish nonsense. I wish they would send someone to the box every time there were "extracurriculars" but I guess it's too much to ask from the NHL to actually consistently enforce its own rules.

 

[Phil Kessels Hot Dog]

Again, you’re allowed to protect yourself but if you get nothing but head and face when you protect yourself why do we put zero onus on this player? Because the other one “lead with their head”? That’s a lame reasoning and no, it’s not in a different universe than high sticking because you’re allowed to take shots and clear pucks and use your stick….how else can a player play hockey if they can’t swing their stick???? Yet if I take a shot and I accidentally hit someone with my stick on my follow through the onus is 100% on me. Why? That’s what I want you to explain.

If I’m allowed to protect myself from a hit but I get nothing but face the onus is in the other player according to you. But if I take a shot and accidentally hit someone in the face on my follow through you don’t put any onus on the other dude for putting his face on the path of my stick?????……..

High sticking on a follow-through isn't a penalty either.

60.1 High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80. A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent abov

 

[PB37]

Again, you’re allowed to protect yourself but if you get nothing but head and face when you protect yourself why do we put zero onus on this player? Because the other one “lead with their head”? That’s a lame reasoning and no, it’s not in a different universe than high sticking because you’re allowed to take shots and clear pucks and use your stick….how else can a player play hockey if they can’t swing their stick???? Yet if I take a shot and I accidentally hit someone with my stick on my follow through the onus is 100% on me. Why? That’s what I want you to explain.

If I’m allowed to protect myself from a hit but I get nothing but face the onus is in the other player according to you. But if I take a shot and accidentally hit someone in the face on my follow through you don’t put any onus on the other dude for putting his face on the path of my stick?????……..

If you're " swinging your stick like a mad man " violently to where its at head level as per your example, you're using your stick in a dangerous, uncontrolled manner. That is 100 percent the fault of the stick swinger.

I think it's just time for you to accept you're wrong here. Gudas put himself in a vulnerable position on a play where contact was going to be made. Even if Barbashev didn't brace himself and reverse hit him, Gudas still would have hit his own head into Barbashev's body and the result would have been the same except that Barbashev would have felt more of the collusion.

 

[Panteras]

High sticking on a follow-through isn't a penalty either.

I actually did not know that, and just comes to show I guess, at least from the amount of hockey that I watch, I’ve never seen it used for a non call. A follow up doesn’t necessarily have to be from a shot, it could be from a myriad of hockey plays such as swing your stick for a poke check and the stick bounces upwards etc. Point is, from my experience watching the sport, 99.9% of high stick calls are from players unintentionally doing so after normal hockey plays.

 

[Panteras]

If you're " swinging your stick like a mad man " violently to where its at head level as per your example, you're using your stick in a dangerous, uncontrolled manner. That is 100 percent the fault of the stick swinger.

I think it's just time for you to accept you're wrong here. Gudas put himself in a vulnerable position on a play where contact was going to be made. Even if Barbashev didn't brace himself and reverse hit him, Gudas still would have hit his own head into Barbashev's body and the result would have been the same except that Barbashev would have felt more of the collusion.

Nah dude, it’s time for you to accept that 99.9% of high stick calls aren’t players swinging their sticks like mad men, which is what you’re making it out to be. That’s my point. They’re also simple hockey plays that unfortunately lead to the stick hitting someone’s face. How is someone clearing the puck and accidentally hitting someone in the face with his stick in this play using your stick in a dangerous and uncontrolled manner? And this is an automatic penalty.

Here I’ll put it in plain English and clear as day examples so you see how stupid this is.

Example one
I go for a poke check (normal everyday hockey play), but my stick bounces off the ice, or the boards, or the other guy’s stick, whatever, and now goes up and makes contact with the guy’s mouth. Boom, automatic 2 minutes for me 100% onus on me even though the guy had his head down looking at both sticks so perfectly lined up to get wacked in the face. You have a problem with this apparently this was a dangerous uncontrolled stick play where I was swinging like a mad man so totally deserved punishment.

Example two
I go for a hit I clobber the guy’s face as principle point of contact. No penalty, 100% onus on the other guy. You have no problem with this, other guy should’ve done better.

Look, I get it, Barbashev hitting Gudas in the face was unintentional, but so are 99.9% of high sticks…that’s my point. So why do we penalize one and not the other and why do we switch the onus on them?

It make ZERO sense…..lol

 

[PB37]

Nah dude, it’s time for you to accept that 99.9% of high stick calls aren’t players swinging their sticks like mad men, which is what you’re making it out to be. That’s my point. They’re also simple hockey plays that unfortunately lead to the stick hitting someone’s face. How is someone clearing the puck and accidentally hitting someone in the face with his stick in this play using your stick in a dangerous and uncontrolled manner? And this is an automatic penalty.

Here I’ll put it in plain English and clear as day examples so you see how stupid this is.

Example one
I go for a poke check (normal everyday hockey play), but my stick bounces off the ice, or the boards, or the other guy’s stick, whatever, and now goes up and makes contact with the guy’s mouth. Boom, automatic 2 minutes for me 100% onus on me even though the guy had his head down looking at both sticks so perfectly lined up to get wacked in the face. You have a problem with this apparently this was a dangerous uncontrolled stick play where I was swinging like a mad man so totally deserved punishment.

Example two
I go for a hit I clobber the guy’s face as principle point of contact. No penalty, 100% onus on the other guy. You have no problem with this, other guy should’ve done better.

Look, I get it, Barbashev hitting Gudas in the face was unintentional, but so are 99.9% of high sticks…that’s my point. So why do we penalize one and not the other and why do we switch the onus on them?

It make ZERO sense…..lol

Swinging your stick like a mad man was your example, not mine.

It's already been explained to you how these are two totally different examples and why Barbashev's hit is considerded legal head contact. You just refuse to see it.

 

[Panteras]

Swinging your stick like a mad man was your example, not mine.

It's already been explained to you how these are two totally different examples and why Barbashev's hit is considerded legal head contact. You just refuse to see it.

And I’ve explained how 99.9% of high sticks aren’t swinging mad men though lol which you refuse to acknowledge because it crumbles your entire regiment.

The issue here is why Barbashev’s head contact is considered legal and an unintentional high stick isn’t.

Can you admit my poke check example was unintentional? Because I have at least admitted that Barbashev’s heat contact on Gudas was unintentional. So then why do I get a penalty for high sticking? That’s what you’re yet to explain.

 

[Neil Racki]

I think the officiating has been average. They havent changed the trajectory of a game yet. Panthers are taking some dumb penalties. 10 min misconduct are standard when a game is getting out of hand and a player or 3 want to continue pressing after the whistle just to continue the getting out of hand.

Most embarrasing was all the non fighting in the 3rd.

Play would be stopped for 5 plus minutes for nothing more than prolonged hug fests.

Find a f***ing wiling dance partner and go .. or stop pretending like you want to go.

Tkachuk and co need to regroup. Losing on the ice then acting like angry mites out there aint a good look.

 

[stealth1]

I honestly think that people who complain about the reffing in hockey don’t understand how the rules work. Very few complaints on here are made with actual merit, for the most part the reffing has been pretty good

It's been awful in these finals. I know **** well how it works. The problem I see is a lot of these things that Florida got away with in the first three rounds has now been called. I'm not a fan of either team but the inconsistency is very frustrating to watch as a neutral fan.

Tkachuk probably got about 20 warnings from the refs not to continually start shit. In these playoffs hes been the epitome of "extra curricular activities after play" that most of us viewers are getting sick of seeing and getting away with.
I'm sure at this point, the Refs just had enough as well.

As a neutral fan watching these finals the extra curricular stuff is what makes the game more interesting. You want to see the hatred between two teams.

 

[4thline]

The issue here is why Barbashev’s head contact is considered legal and an unintentional high stick isn’t.

Because having a torso and skating forward are pretty necessary components of the game. Having an uncontrolled stick at face height isn't.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I honestly think that people who complain about the reffing in hockey don’t understand how the rules work. Very few complaints on here are made with actual merit, for the most part the reffing has been pretty good

Some folks enjoy griping about the officiating more than enjoying the game itself. No matter what happens, they gripe about the officiating. They do it every game, you know the ones.

Then we have the conspiracy whackjobs: It's all fixed, Bettman is dictating the outcome, etc. -- why do those idiots even watch in the first place?

 

[Panteras]

Because having a torso and skating forward are pretty necessary components of the game. Having an uncontrolled stick at face height isn't.

What? What you’re saying makes zero sense. A stick isn’t a necessary component of the game? It’s uncontrolled unintentionally though…..just like Gudas could’ve stumbled or something which made his face lead forwards. Just like Eichel if Tkachuk would’ve hit him right in the face. We agree if that we’re the case it should not have been a penalty to Tkachuk because it would’ve been unintentional. But what if Tkachuk high sticks Eichel in a similarly completely unfortunate unintentional manner? Why do we choose to give a penalty to the high stick head contact even though it was clearly unintentional, but not to a clearly unintentional and similarly dangerous cross check to the face? This is what I don’t understand and as hard as y’all try continue to fail to explain.

 

[hangman005]

Some folks enjoy griping about the officiating more than enjoying the game itself. No matter what happens, they gripe about the officiating. They do it every game, you know the ones.

Then we have the conspiracy whackjobs: It's all fixed, Bettman is dictating the outcome, etc. -- why do those idiots even watch in the first place?

Did I call it with the last GDT or did I call it.

 

[stealth1]

Some folks enjoy griping about the officiating more than enjoying the game itself. No matter what happens, they gripe about the officiating. They do it every game, you know the ones.

Then we have the conspiracy whackjobs: It's all fixed, Bettman is dictating the outcome, etc. -- why do those idiots even watch in the first place?

I gripe about it cause it's been very inconsistent throughout these playoffs. For the first 3 rounds a lot the stuff thats been going on in these finals was not called. Now all of a sudden cause it's the big stage, they decided we don't need the extra curricular stuff. Can't show emotions or hatred in this series

 

[PB37]

And I’ve explained how 99.9% of high sticks aren’t swinging mad men though lol which you refuse to acknowledge because it crumbles your entire regiment.

The issue here is why Barbashev’s head contact is considered legal and an unintentional high stick isn’t.

Can you admit my poke check example was unintentional? Because I have at least admitted that Barbashev’s heat contact on Gudas was unintentional. So then why do I get a penalty for high sticking? That’s what you’re yet to explain.

You're making absolutely nonsense examples to somehow paint Gudas not at fault for skating at half his normal height and colliding headfirst into someone else's shoulder.

 

[Panteras]

You're making absolutely nonsense examples to somehow paint Gudas not at fault for skating at half his normal height and colliding headfirst into someone else's shoulder.

So if Gudas skates at half his height and collides into someone else’s poke check you’re saying it won’t be high stick? Get an effing grip. You have no basis for an argument.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I think the reffing has been poor but Florida hasn't been good enough 100% and you just tip your cap to vegas. Florida deserves to be down 2. I'm not going to be a Leafs/Bruins/Canes fan and use the refs as a cope for my team shitting the bed. Play better.

Like the refs have been bad both sides but are Vegas fans complaining?

Blaming the refs is loser talk.

It’s weird how somehow this defines Leafs/Bruins/Canes fans, but not the Panthers fans who are all complaining about it unison.

Paul Maurice outright claimed that the refereeing was “against” the Panthers in the first two series.

I don’t disagree with the notion that the ref bitching is obnoxious. But it’s an interesting response to claim in the midst of legions of Panthers fans complaining that you’re not going to be “one of those not Panther fans” in complaining.

How much more bitching are Panther fans allotted before they too gain a reputation?

So if Gudas skates at half his height and collides into someone else’s poke check you’re saying it won’t be high stick? Get an effing grip. You have no basis for an argument.

If the stick was on the ice attempting to poke the puck? No it wouldn’t be a high stick. You see this play out when high sticks aren’t called when guys are on their knees after falling over and catch a stick.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I gripe about it cause it's been very inconsistent throughout these playoffs. For the first 3 rounds a lot the stuff thats been going on in these finals was not called. Now all of a sudden cause it's the big stage, they decided we don't need the extra curricular stuff. Can't show emotions or hatred in this series

Do you honestly think a guy like Tkachuk isn’t fully aware of what’s going to happen when he starts inciting scrums? He saw what happened in game 1. He knows what will happen in game 2 if he starts up again but it’s a “punishment” he and his team don’t mind taking given the circumstances.

If Florida gets outplayed again and loses in game 3, the exact same thing will happen again. And the same fans will come back here bitching about “consistency” and how this wasn’t called before.

 

[4thline]

What? What you’re saying makes zero sense. A stick isn’t a necessary component of the game? It’s uncontrolled unintentionally though…..just like Gudas could’ve stumbled or something which made his face lead forwards.

You're responsible for your stick.

Player gets called for an unintentional high stick. They're penalized for not having control of their stick, which systematically reinforces the notion that you're responsible for your stick at all times, leading to less reckless stick use, overall safer game.

How do you re-write that paragraph for the Barbashev incident? What would you actually be penalizing?

Barbashev get's called for unintentional head contract. He's penalized for Gudas deciding to lead into a check with his head, which (if accepted as standard) systematically reinforces the notion that being a dumbass will be rewarded with a powerplay, leading BOTH more reckless contact AND forcing players to put themselves in vulnerable positions trying to avoid the head of someone that's trying to check them. It's ridiculous.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Nah dude, it’s time for you to accept that 99.9% of high stick calls aren’t players swinging their sticks like mad men, which is what you’re making it out to be. That’s my point. They’re also simple hockey plays that unfortunately lead to the stick hitting someone’s face. How is someone clearing the puck and accidentally hitting someone in the face with his stick in this play using your stick in a dangerous and uncontrolled manner? And this is an automatic penalty.

Here I’ll put it in plain English and clear as day examples so you see how stupid this is.

Example one
I go for a poke check (normal everyday hockey play), but my stick bounces off the ice, or the boards, or the other guy’s stick, whatever, and now goes up and makes contact with the guy’s mouth. Boom, automatic 2 minutes for me 100% onus on me even though the guy had his head down looking at both sticks so perfectly lined up to get wacked in the face. You have a problem with this apparently this was a dangerous uncontrolled stick play where I was swinging like a mad man so totally deserved punishment.

Example two
I go for a hit I clobber the guy’s face as principle point of contact. No penalty, 100% onus on the other guy. You have no problem with this, other guy should’ve done better.

Look, I get it, Barbashev hitting Gudas in the face was unintentional, but so are 99.9% of high sticks…that’s my point. So why do we penalize one and not the other and why do we switch the onus on them?

It make ZERO sense…..lol

I think the issue is your entire argument hyper focuses on whoever is getting penalized, be it the guy committing the high stick or the one delivering the hit that makes head contact.

In the case of the stick, there’s no fault for the player getting hit with the stick because a high stick isn’t really something you can prepare for. It just…happens. In a split second.

On the other hand, a body check is something you are always expected to be prepared for given the nature of the game. There are actions players can and do take to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable positions to get hurt from body contact. If Gudas is going for a puck, he is expected to be prepared for getting hit because it’s a legal tactic within the game. You are obviously not expected to be prepared for a stray high stick that is impossible to see coming.

 

[Panteras]

If the stick was on the ice attempting to poke the puck? No it wouldn’t be a high stick. You see this play out when high sticks aren’t called when guys are on their knees after falling over and catch a stick.

No not on the ice. I have an example few posts back like when someone attempts a poke check and his stick unintentionally bounces off the ice or boards or even the opposing player’s stick and then goes up into the players chin that’s an automatic high stick.
I honestly do not recall a single time a player’s stick makes contact with another player’s face and it wasn’t called. The only one recently I can remember of a player getting a stick into someone’s face area and wasn’t called was Ghost against Florida because the refs said it hit his visor instead.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Yeah I don’t remember Bruins fans or even Canes

No not on the ice. I have an example few posts back like when someone attempts a poke check and his stick unintentionally bounces off the ice or boards or even the opposing player’s stick and then goes up into the players chin that’s an automatic high stick.
I honestly do not recall a single time a player’s stick makes contact with another player’s face and it wasn’t called. The only one recently I can remember of a player getting a stick into someone’s face area and wasn’t called was Ghost against Florida because the refs said it hit his visor instead.

Reference my most recent post for what I think is a better explanation of my position.

 

[DuklaNation]

The refs have gotten worse over time, series to series, game to game. Learning from NBA.

 

[stealth1]

Do you honestly think a guy like Tkachuk isn’t fully aware of what’s going to happen when he starts inciting scrums? He saw what happened in game 1. He knows what will happen in game 2 if he starts up again but it’s a “punishment” he and his team don’t mind taking given the circumstances.

If Florida gets outplayed again and loses in game 3, the exact same thing will happen again. And the same fans will come back here bitching about “consistency” and how this wasn’t called before.

I do agree that Florida needs to adapt at the change in the way the game is called The way the game was called made no difference in the outcome but the scrums and extra curricular stuff was part of what made them successful in the first 3 rounds.

My whole gripe is why all of a sudden the League decided that the finals will be called differently. IMO the game should be called the same in game 1 of the season all the way to the end.

 

[Panteras]

You're responsible for your stick.

Player gets called for an unintentional high stick. They're penalized for not having control of their stick, which systematically reinforces the notion that you're responsible for your stick at all times, leading to less reckless stick use, overall safer game.

How do you re-write that paragraph for the Barbashev incident? What would you actually be penalizing?

Barbashev get's called for unintentional head contract. He's penalized for Gudas deciding to lead into a check with his head, which (if accepted as standard) systematically reinforces the notion that being a dumbass will be rewarded with a powerplay, leading BOTH more reckless contact AND forcing players to put themselves in vulnerable positions trying to avoid the head of someone that's trying to check them. It's ridiculous.

And you’re not responsible for your hits and shoulder and elbows? Like literally you have more control of your body than you do of a stick dude…..there your whole premise falls apparat.