Refs video review an Ian Cole interference penalty and change it to a Tyler Myers 5 minute major.

[RandV]

We need a video for the people that didn't see it. But that shit was wild. I didn't know they could even do that.

I'm sure it will be up soon enough, but it was a 4 player collision in the corner where Myers spun around against the boards and clipped Columbus player A with a high elbow, then Cole comes in and gives Columbus player B a shot in the numbers into the boards with what should probably be a 2 minute boarding penalty.

They called the major on Cole and went to the box to review that, and after a long review let Cole go and threw Myers out of the game. One would get the impression that they saw Cole's hit wasn't a major but they caught Myers elbow there, wanted to assess a 5 minute major but didn't want to make it a 3 on 5 so just arbitrarily switched it up.

Because technically there were 2 penalties on the play. What should happen is you call it according to the rules and file it as an example for a future rule change. Making things up as you go is just kind of bush league.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

 

[Bank Shot]

So you think the Canucks didn't commit two infractions on that play?

I mean they were both clear as day.

 

[Three On Zero]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

Except no one in here is complaining, it’s a thread about clarification on an odd sequence of events

 

[Three On Zero]

So you think the Canucks didn't commit two infractions on that play?

I mean they were both clear as day.

Clearly not as even after a lengthy review a single penalty was called.

 

[Bizzare]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

If you don’t think this is thread worthy what is? Refs + the league making up rule(s) mid game should be concerning for everyone.

 

[quat]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

It was a completely botched call for which the officials broke their own rules to correct. That's the topic, not who won the game.

Despite how poor the league manages its officials, they still manage to crawl under that very low bar.

There's more appropriate threads for you to complain about the Canucks in. This one is about the sheer oddity of the penalty.

 

[Connor McConnor]

If you don’t think this is thread worthy what is? Refs + the league making up rule(s) mid game should be concerning for everyone.

We have been witnessing horrific reffing in every single NA sport. We could make a thread almost every day about dumb stuff they are doing. If you lose a game because of it, sure I get it. You won based off special teams against an “auto win” team

 

[notsocommonsense]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

I get that you probably didn’t see the play in question. Considering this is probably the first time a review has tagged a completely different player for a completely different infraction, it seems like a relevant topic for discussion, regardless of your Nucks PTSD from the start of the year.

 

[Three On Zero]

No they were soft calls. But you have mcdavid so u expect everything to be a penalty so ur whiny little boy can feast on the PP

cole was a one handed push and the guy tripped over his own teammates skate.

2nd call was typical myers penalty for being too big

The Myers elbow was definitely a penalty, but it shouldn’t have been reviewable under the spirit of the rule book

 

[Man Bear Pig]

I mean.

I think if they're reviewing it they should get it right. Maybe they didn't follow the letter of the law, but they followed the spirit.

I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it's just better that they get it right, no? The other option is giving the major to the wrong guy, and kicking the wrong guy out of the game, or not giving a penalty for something that clearly should be a penalty... Which I think are both objectively inferior in terms of sportsmanship, competition, and player safety.

It's not even as if they got the wrong player though. It was a separate play and doesn't follow the rulebook whatsoever. The right call? Yeah sure, but it wasn't even based on the contact by Cole. It's an incredibly dumb look for the league.

 

[Bizzare]

We have been witnessing horrific reffing in every single NA sport. We could make a thread almost every day about dumb stuff they are doing. If you lose a game because of it, sure I get it. You won based off special teams against an “auto win” team

Canucks dominated most of the game, Demko didn’t play well. Then the special teams took over.

Your team won based on special teams, and was outplayed 5 on 5 … now back on topic

Win or lose, a league ignoring their rule book blatantly does not happen every day. Bad calls happen, making shit up doesn’t.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

I'm sure this will come up at the next GM meeting. Gotta get that ironed out before the playoffs. Very odd sequence.

Whether the call today was right/wrong isn't the point. You can't be going outside the rulebook come playoff time, too much at stake.

 

[Phrasing]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

Do you even know what the point of the thread is or you see Canucks thread and think hrr drr Canucks fan dumb dumb?

The question is about how the review process went, an actual valid study into an oddity.

 

[krutovsdonut]

there were two potential penalties but both were two minutes and the refs had missed the myer's call. as a canuck fan i am happy they solved the problem the way they did instead of calling two penalties but it was made up nonsense to call either a major.

 

[Dust]

I'm not sure how to embed the video, but here's a link to the play in question. Was very strange.

 

[Bank Shot]

I'm sure this will come up at the next GM meeting. Gotta get that ironed out before the playoffs. Very odd sequence.

Whether the call today was right/wrong isn't the point. You can't be going outside the rulebook come playoff time, too much at stake.

What the refs did is not necessarily outside the rulebook though.

They were allowed to make a choice from 3 decisions on the Cole major. They rescinded it.

That does not mean that they aren't allowed to call any other penalties. Linesman are allowed to report penalties to the refs after the play and the ref can call them as if he saw them.

32.4 Reporting to Referee – The Linesman shall give to the Referees his interpretation of any incident that may have taken place during the game.

The Linesman may stop play and report what he witnessed to the Referees when:

(i) There are too many men on the ice (Rule 74)
(ii) Articles are thrown on the ice from the players’ bench or penalty bench (Rule 75)
(iii) When team personnel interfere with a game official (Rule 39)
(iv) When a player who has lost or broken his stick receives one illegally (Rule 10)

The Linesman must report upon completion of play, any circumstances pertaining to:

(v) Major penalties (Rule 20)
(vi) Match penalties (Rule 21)
(vii) Misconduct penalties (Rule 22)
(viii) Game Misconduct penalties (Rule 23)
(ix) Abuse of Officials (Rule 39)
(x) Physical Abuse of Officials (Rule 40)
(xi) Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Rule 75)

Should a Linesman witness a foul (above) committed by an attacking player (undetected by the Referees) prior to the attacking team scoring a goal, the Linesman shall report what he witnessed to the Referees, the goal shall be disallowed and the appropriate penalty assessed.

The Linesman must stop play immediately and report to the Referees when:

(xii) When it is apparent that an injury has resulted from a high-stick that has gone undetected by the Referees and requires the assessment of a double-minor penalty. (Rule 60)

So there is a lot more latitude for refs to make the right call outside the rule being quoted.
Fans are only talking about the rule the announcers are talking about, but there are plenty of other avenues for refs to make the call they want to make to get it right.

Refs can also change penalty calls on their own discretion up until the next start of play.

The Canucks announcers didn't seem to understand how much latitude NHL refs have in making calls, and of course the fans jumped all over it.

 

[God]

I don't think this has ever happened and some clarity would be nice from the officials.

I also don't think the Myers penalty is a major. That play happens in a ton of games and is usually only a minor, but there's blood...I don't know if that can be called as a double minor, but it would seem fitting given the parallels with a high stick that does / does not draw blood. And it seemed like they took back the call on Cole, which I think isn't the right play given that they called him for a borderline call (which is still boarding - the replay shows that).

Very strange sequence of events. I'm sure we'll hear about it tomorrow. Can't wait to see the logical loops they jump through to justify what happened. At some point, an apology would be nice... the refs do it in the NBA.

 

[quat]

We have been witnessing horrific reffing in every single NA sport. We could make a thread almost every day about dumb stuff they are doing. If you lose a game because of it, sure I get it. You won based off special teams against an “auto win” team

You're trying far too hard and no, this call was unusual even in the context of generally poor officiating.

Your team is on a 16 and 0 run and you're here bashing Canucks because they shouldn't complain about a call that's almost never happened before, apparently because they scored 3 pp goals in a comeback game? Thats some bitter posting.

 

[Groo]

Still the greasy team

 

[WTG]

Linesmen talk to the referee right before calling a major. The linesmen probably called the Myers penalty. The ref never calls a major on Ian Cole, rather that there is a review of a major on the play. Nobody broke any rules.

The reason the league said "they had to make the correct call" is probably because they were covering for the officials before they had a chance to speak to them about the call.

The Myers penalty was an elbow causing an injury, so it is an automatic 5 minute major. Ian Cole's penalty IDK what happened to that. Maybe the linesmen discussed and got the wrong guy on the play.

Officiating gets so much shit on by people who have no f***ing clue what they are talking about, and instead of waiting for clarification, they just spew whatever it is about the refs. It's a disgrace. I think every commentator team needs to have at least one person on air who passed the NHL officiating exam.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

What the refs did is not necessarily outside the rulebook though.

They were allowed to make a choice from 3 decisions on the Cole major. They rescinded it.

That does not mean that they aren't allowed to call any other penalties. Linesman are allowed to report penalties to the refs after the play and the ref can call them as if he saw them.

32.4 Reporting to Referee – The Linesman shall give to the Referees his interpretation of any incident that may have taken place during the game.

The Linesman may stop play and report what he witnessed to the Referees when:

(i) There are too many men on the ice (Rule 74)
(ii) Articles are thrown on the ice from the players’ bench or penalty bench (Rule 75)
(iii) When team personnel interfere with a game official (Rule 39)
(iv) When a player who has lost or broken his stick receives one illegally (Rule 10)

The Linesman must report upon completion of play, any circumstances pertaining to:

(v) Major penalties (Rule 20)
(vi) Match penalties (Rule 21)
(vii) Misconduct penalties (Rule 22)
(viii) Game Misconduct penalties (Rule 23)
(ix) Abuse of Officials (Rule 39)
(x) Physical Abuse of Officials (Rule 40)
(xi) Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Rule 75)

Should a Linesman witness a foul (above) committed by an attacking player (undetected by the Referees) prior to the attacking team scoring a goal, the Linesman shall report what he witnessed to the Referees, the goal shall be disallowed and the appropriate penalty assessed.

The Linesman must stop play immediately and report to the Referees when:

(xii) When it is apparent that an injury has resulted from a high-stick that has gone undetected by the Referees and requires the assessment of a double-minor penalty. (Rule 60)

So there is a lot more latitude for refs to make the right call outside the rule being quoted.
Fans are only talking about the rule the announcers are talking about, but there are plenty of other avenues for refs to make the call they want to make to get it right.

Refs can also change penalty calls on their own discretion up until the next start of play.

The Canucks announcers didn't seem to understand how much latitude NHL refs have in making calls, and of course the fans jumped all over it.

The rule you cited is about linesmans authority & has nothing to do with video review.

The refs didn't miss the play. They called a penalty, they reviewed it, had 3 options with which to proceed (as you said) & went with something different.

When it comes to video review there are parameters in place. Video review as we've seen is a whole other can of worms. So they gotta get this straightened out. If they feel it's the right call (not arguing that) then it's gotta be in the rule book.

And it wasn't just the Canucks announcers (John Shorthouse is one of the best in the league) Elliotte after said the same thing.

 

[Bank Shot]

The rule you cited is about linesmans authority & has nothing to do with video review.

The refs didn't miss the play. They called a penalty, they reviewed it, had 3 options with which to proceed (as you said) & went with something different.

When it comes to video review there are parameters in place. Video review as we've seen is a whole other can of worms. So they gotta get this straightened out. If they feel it's the right call (not arguing that) then it's gotta be in the rule book.

And it wasn't just the Canucks announcers (John Shorthouse is one of the best in the league) Elliotte after said the same thing.

Does it say the refs in the rulebook aren't allowed to call any penalty except the one they are reviewing?

I know it doesn't.

The refs have discretion to make calls on penalties they didn't even see as shown by the linesman rules.

So how did the refs break the rules, and what did they get wrong?

Personally I thought they got the review itself wrong. Cole should have gotten at least 2 minutes. Of course the refs didn't want to call both legit penalties because game management.

 

[coolboarder]

They are changing the rules as they go mid-season. It is not even in the rulebook. If they want to do this, make sure that it is in rulebook and be in effect next season, not in the middle of the season. NHL is a joke nowadays even if it helped the Canucks. They'll be a force for PK as they have discovered how well it worked and is becoming a stingy PK in the playoffs if they keep it up. Columbus didn't have any sniff on a scoring chance on the major penalty. They will definitely use this video to establish a new PK strategy as they gained some experience on so many new PK strategies there in one go. It wasn't one of the run of the mill PK strategy because it was tied game 4-4 and a major penalty to kill.

 

[petterdaddy]

Almost cost the Canucks the game as they missed Myers ability to dump the puck in in OT

Tyler Myers is a notable and respected hockey intellectual ok