Refs (again)

[tarheelhockey]

Again a lot of what they called was stuff they let go in the first 3 rounds. If you're a Florida fan it's got to be frustrating to see the rough stuff that helped them win in the first 3 rounds be neutralized by changing how they call the game.

Quick question -- were those things actual penalties?

 

[axecrew]

That was 100% gaslighting. You effectively said “what you experienced wasn’t real and in reality you do not deserve to be here” and that’s total BS. No team outside of maybe the covid cups accidentally stumbled up the ladder to the finals by luck, give me a break. That’s as obnoxious as claiming the referees are all against you.

So you HONESTLY think that had they called the same stuff they are calling now, that Florida beats Boston being down 3-1? The way they got back in the series is exactly by doing what they are being called for now. So No not gaslighting but instead telling a very inconvenient truth that some are choosing to ignore.

 

[HanSolo]

What? When did I said the league should let it be a Wild West on head hits? Did you mean NOT let it be a Wild West on head hits?

Dude, I’m merely trying to find the logic behind equally unintentional high stick calls that get called 100% of the time yet we don’t with head hits.

Example, Barbashev goes to poke check, stick bounces off something and hits Gudas in the face even though Gudas was being an idiot looking down right onto the path of the stick or something. Barbashev automatic 2 minutes. Barbashev obviously had zero intentions of hitting Gudas in the face and clearly had way less control in doing so than body checking him in the face like yesterday yet the high stick gets called and the hit doesn’t….

I misread the intent of your post. I see what you're saying but I think there's a finer line between controlling a stick in the pace of play than being more restrictive on head hits. One doesn't really affect much, but removing any and all context to afford a zero tolerance policy on hits that make head contact would severely cut down on hitting as a whole. Like I said, that can be a necessary sacrifice but in a situation like this it was hit or be hit and Barbashev has no control over Gudas continuing to approach low.

 

[stealth1]

Quick question -- were those things actual penalties?

Yes they were. That's not the point though. The point is they weren't calling them penalties but now they decided to call them. I don't care if they call them or not. What bothers me is the change in how the games called. If it's a penalty call it from game 1 of the playoffs. Don't decide til the finals to change it. That's my problem. There is no consistency.

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

every year it is all on refs. what is about being calm and sticking to the game plan?

Look the officiating is always garbage in the NHL

How about we admit it

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes they were. That's not the point though. The point is they weren't calling them penalties but now they decided to call them. I don't care if they call them or not. What bothers me is the change in how the games called. If it's a penalty call it from game 1 of the playoffs. Don't decide til the finals to change it. That's my problem. There is no consistency.

I just don't think you can really expect consistency across dozens of games with different ref crews, knowing all the teams are out there continuously breaking the rules at every step to try and get an edge, including a bunch of embellishment. Hockey isn't a game where you can call every single little thing, or where you can just stand there and allow the teams to murder each other, so as a fan you have to expect the calls to be "breaks" for or against your team.

With that as a given, I don't think teams have much room to complain if they're out there committing a bunch of uncalled penalties. None of the teams that go far in the playoffs are squeaky clean. So to the extent that they make it part of their identity to depend on the refs to let them get away with it, they're exposing a weakness that might bite them at an inopportune moment.

 

[4thline]

I’ve seen a billion high stick calls where I just said to myself, well wtf was he suppose to do there? How could have controlled his stick any better there? Yet we penalize it….

The thing that you're missing is that those few remaining, seemingly unavoidable high-stick calls are the remnants of every single player you've ever seen play being forced to be in control by having it be an automatic penalty in literally every single game of organized hockey they've ever played.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

So you HONESTLY think that had they called the same stuff they are calling now, that Florida beats Boston being down 3-1? The way they got back in the series is exactly by doing what they are being called for now. So No not gaslighting but instead telling a very inconvenient truth that some are choosing to ignore.

First, you’re giving way too much emphasis on how the refs are calling the game as the primary reason for who wins and loses. Totally ignoring in this current series that Florida has been wildly outplayed. In the Boston series, Florida was not outplayed. Florida also never got some miraculous edge in refereeing - they were routinely in the penalty box at all phases of that series. Save your revisionist nonsense, after it was 3-1 Florida received as many penalty kills in the final 3 games than they did in the first 4 games.

Claiming the way they got back into the series was just not being called for more penalties they were committing is an absurd take. In EVERY SERIES Florida has been called for more penalties due to their style of play and lack of discipline. Vegas has had ONE game with an anomalous amount of power plays, and it wasn’t even a game they looked particularly good in. Game 2 literally had 4 power plays for each team, quit your fake news dude.

Gaslighter.

 

[BlackDogg]

But was Wes MacAwful entertaining or what???

 

[PB37]

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.

Another silly example. A poke check is a jabbing motion to attempt to make a play for the puck. A stick wouldn't come up in the air far enough on a poke check to hit someone's face unless the player is already on the ice. You're responsible for your stick at all times and on a high stick, it's defined by the rulebook as " contact above the shoulders ". Even with that, there's exceptions - what they consider to be a normal wind-up or follow thru of a shooting motion won't get called a high stick because this is unavoidable contact. The player is in the act of a legal hockey play ( shooting the puck ) and the onus is on the opposing player to get out of the way.

Gudas was the one looking to initiate contact and skated headfirst into Barbashev, who has the right to brace and defend himself. This was unavoidable contact to the head, which is also in the rulebook. " Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way ".

 

[PB37]

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.

A poke check is a jabbing motion to attempt to make a play for the puck. A stick wouldn't come up in the air far enough on a poke check to hit someone's face unless the player is already on the ice. You're responsible for your stick at all times and on a high stick, it's defined by the rulebook as " contact above the shoulders ". Even with that, there's exceptions - what they consider to be a normal wind-up or follow thru of a shooting motion won't get called a high stick because this is unavoidable contact. The player is in the act of a legal hockey play ( shooting the puck ) and the onus is on the opposing player to get out of the way.

Gudas was the one looking to initiate contact and skated headfirst into Barbashev, who has the right to brace and defend himself. This was unavoidable contact to the head because of the body position of the one looking to make contact, which is also in the rulebook. " Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way ".

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Huh? No that’s not what I’m saying at all.

All I’m saying is that if we’re to assume that all high sticks are a no no then why aren’t all head contacts? Why chose to penalize most high sticks when they’re clearly like 99.9 % of the time unintentional and also 99.9% of the time situations where it’s like, well, wtf was he suppose to do with his stick there? You can’t tell me that most high stick calls are simply unlucky unfortunate incidents…..yet we agree that hits are things that we have more control over…makes no sense

I think you're missing a key issue. The goal of penalties is to discourage bad behavior, and having your stick above the cross bar is the behavior that the league wants to discourage by calling high sticks the way they do. Other than the few specific exceptions I listed earlier, there's no legitimate reason why your stick should ever be that high. Keep your stick down and there's no chance for high sticking to be called against you.

But for head contact, you can do everything perfectly and there can still be head contact. What exactly can a player do to prevent their opponent from leading with their face while trying to deliver a hit? Or tripping/falling head first into their shoulder/knee? I don't understand what you think would be discouraged by a zero head contact policy that resulted in these plays being penalties. If anything, I think it might actually encourage bad behavior, by giving players an incentive to lead with their face, since that will get their team a power play. Does that really make the game safer?

 

[volcom92886]

Hill not having a single penalty through the first two games is a joke. Game 1 he throws a few punches, a few with his blocker, which is by the rule book a suspendable act. Game 2 he full on slashes Tkachuck and gets away with it.

Zero consistency from the NHL and their refs.

 

[McShogun99]

I like to think that the refs and league are against my team but when you start watching other teams games you realize just how bad and inconsistent the reffing is across the league.

 

[Panteras]

I think you're missing a key issue. The goal of penalties is to discourage bad behavior, and having your stick above the cross bar is the behavior that the league wants to discourage by calling high sticks the way they do. Other than the few specific exceptions I listed earlier, there's no legitimate reason why your stick should ever be that high. Keep your stick down and there's no chance for high sticking to be called against you.

But for head contact, you can do everything perfectly and there can still be head contact. What exactly can a player do to prevent their opponent from leading with their face while trying to deliver a hit? Or tripping/falling head first into their shoulder/knee? I don't understand what you think would be discouraged by a zero head contact policy that resulted in these plays being penalties. If anything, I think it might actually encourage bad behavior, by giving players an incentive to lead with their face, since that will get their team a power play. Does that really make the game safer?

And hitting to the face isn’t bad behavior? That’s not something we’d like to discourage? How can you genuinely choose one over the other? I can just as easily argue there’s no legitimate reason to hit someone in the face other than specific reasons such as a player falling last minute before contact and his face being hit, what can you do there that’s just last minute freak accident.

Again, I can just as easily say you can do everything perfectly fine textbook play and still high stick someone……lol so…how can you possibly argue otherwise, it literally happens like every game.

Well, you tell me if a zero high stick policy has prevented high sticks then… exactly, so why do you accept the rule?? ……see, and that’s my point as well. Why do we penalize one and not the other, either penalize them both or don’t penalize either….

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Ugh. Don’t be the ref-complainer guy.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

And hitting to the face isn’t bad behavior? That’s not something we’d like to discourage? How can you genuinely choose one over the other? I can just as easily argue there’s no legitimate reason to hit someone in the face other than specific reasons such as a player falling last minute before contact and his face being hit, what can you do there that’s just last minute freak accident.

Again, I can just as easily say you can do everything perfectly fine textbook play and still high stick someone……lol so…how can you possibly argue otherwise, it literally happens like every game.

Well, you tell me if a zero high stick policy has prevented high sticks then… exactly, so why do you accept the rule?? ……see, and that’s my point as well. Why do we penalize one and not the other, either penalize them both or don’t penalize either….

Yes, purposefully hitting to the face is generally bad behavior, which is exactly why there are penalties for purposefully hitting a player in the face (5 minute major for fighting), and for purposeful headshots, which are also generally subject to supplemental review/discipline. All of that is meant to discourage this bad behavior, and the drastic decrease of dirty, predatory head shots as a result of those rules is noticeable, so I'd say it seems to be working decently well.

There's also a massive difference between purposefully hitting someone in the face, and having someone run face first into your shoulder. Both of them have the same result, but I don't see any logic in penalizing the guy whose shoulder was run into, because he's not the one whose behavior caused the head contact. To me, calling a penalty based solely on the resulting head contact actually rewards the dangerous behavior of leading with your face, and punishes the guy who isn't behaving badly.

And, outside of the few exceptions explicitly defined in the rules, there's literally no way to "do everything perfectly fine textbook play" and also have your stick above the crossbar to be able to high stick someone. In fact, as soon as your stick goes above the crossbar, the textbook says it's no longer "perfectly fine". I'd also say without any doubts that the high sticking rules have absolutely prevented countless injuries, even if they haven't eliminated 100% of all high sticking incidents.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Tkachuk got a 10 because after the whistle he keeps running around popping guys in the mouth, giving facewashes and not listening to the refs telling him to cool it.

 

[TOGuy14]

I’m baffled by the reffing so far in the finals. The panthers have had multiple stupid penalty’s in this series that have been rightfully called and so have Vegas. My issue is the noticeable elbows/high hits that haven’t gotten any attention that during the regular season would probably have a thread on here. Plus the extra 10s they randomly are calling. Either call it soft or don’t make these calls at this stage

Someone please make these refs get interviewed by the media for their calls or have someone be accountable for swaying games at this stage of the playoffs.

It’s past ridiculous

I think Panthres fans got used to awful officiating in their favor in the earlier rounds.

Not sure how they weren't given several misconduct penalties in the Leaf series alone.

 

[Nstar to Wild]

I think the reffing has been fine (I don't have a dog in this fight). Vegas is just playing much better. HF is getting out of control with the whining - It's to the point the gameday threads are nothing but whining.

 

[stealth1]

I think Panthres fans got used to awful officiating in their favor in the earlier rounds.

Not sure how they weren't given several misconduct penalties in the Leaf series alone.

I agree with you there but is also a major problem right now. Inconsistency when it comes to calling the game plays a big part. I don't completely buy it's due to awful officiating. I fully believe it's coming from the league. They don't want the dirty play when the league is on the national stage with the finals.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

I think the reffing has been fine (I don't have a dog in this fight). Vegas is just playing much better. HF is getting out of control with the whining - It's to the point the gameday threads are nothing but whining.

As someone with no skin in the game at all in these playoffs, I think the opposite. The reffing has been absolutely horrible through many series' to the point where I think some teams were jobbed (Edmonton, Florida this series) while other times it just seems completely random. It just seems the refs aren't very good or have horrible judgment, and certain teams seem to have a strong wind at their back, whether it's justified or no.

Which is not to say that Florida should be winning this series mind you. They haven't been good enough. They also got the benefit of the doubt in the Toronto series, so who knows. It's probably just incompetence.

 

[Bruce Granville]

Started to watch the game. Obvious right from the get go the officiating favored Vegas.... click.
Stopped watching.
Looks like I didn't miss much.

The NHL's fingers are very deep into gambling these days.

Just like me.
As a neutral fan I was disappointed.
Vegas is the stronger team, Florida lost their hot goalie during the break AND the refs favour Vegas. Sorry, that’s too much and boring.
It should be the highlight of the year, but it’s a waste of time.
The draft will be pretty meh, too.

So the next highlight will be free agency and who will pay most for cap space.

 

[Gary Bets Man]

Yea, for sure, you can say that's from passion and emotion. But usually that's from an illogical standpoint and as a viewer it becomes boring after so many petty plays from the same Panther players. And as I said, I'm sure the refs were sick of it as well. Tkachuk got the 10 min misconducts for a reason. It's similar to the Bunting treatment.

You’re probably right on the reasons, I just like the agitators in the game (when they aren’t playing against my team). For me and many others, it’s part of the fun, especially in playoffs. It’s a personal taste thing I suppose.

That said, if I’m a Vegas fan, then I’m loving him being tossed for 10 and the ref is 100% correct.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I just don't think you can really expect consistency across dozens of games with different ref crews, knowing all the teams are out there continuously breaking the rules at every step to try and get an edge, including a bunch of embellishment. Hockey isn't a game where you can call every single little thing, or where you can just stand there and allow the teams to murder each other, so as a fan you have to expect the calls to be "breaks" for or against your team.

With that as a given, I don't think teams have much room to complain if they're out there committing a bunch of uncalled penalties. None of the teams that go far in the playoffs are squeaky clean. So to the extent that they make it part of their identity to depend on the refs to let them get away with it, they're exposing a weakness that might bite them at an inopportune moment.

Agree, though merely adding that a number of these penalties were just plain stupid by any standard.