Refs video review an Ian Cole interference penalty and change it to a Tyler Myers 5 minute major.
- Thread starter SopelFanThe3rd
- Start date
Artorius Horus T
sincerety
for an NHL ref, cross-check to the lower back is an interference penalty..
or a slash to the hands is a hooking penalty... or giving hooking penalties
when there's not even a hooking motion...
While I agree with you that the refs didn't say a number, having Cole in the box sort of gives it away that they were calling it on Cole.
What they should do for the next year's rulebook is to add that wording in. However, they shouldn't be making up rules as they go along. It's happened a few times where refs have made decisions that the league has had to justify afterwards.
nucks88
Registered User
lol....I think people are more confused than complaining....and more people than just your hated Canucks fans...
As has been pointed out by more eloquent posters than I: you clearly have no reading comprehension ability. Take your PTSD elsewhere.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,260
- 36,787
Refs should have put both players in the box if they weren't sure. Instead, they circumvented the rule book on order to punish the injury, vs the play. As we regularly see.
Honestly the Cole hit was more dangerous, even though it wasn't severe. The Myers elbow was more of an arm flail after the initial hit. He didn't exactly lead with the elbow,, Gallagher style.
Honestly the Cole hit was more dangerous, even though it wasn't severe. The Myers elbow was more of an arm flail after the initial hit. He didn't exactly lead with the elbow,, Gallagher style.
It's funny how sometimes they want to get it right, and other times the call on the ice influences the review.
StickShift
In a pickle 🥒
At this point I’m just hoping for as many blown calls as possible—so that the NHL has no choice but to fix their officiating and clean house in their player safety department.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 16,784
- 16,102
In actuality the elbow was inadvertent and could have just as easily been 2 minutes while the Cole hit was actually pretty soft and looked bad due to the much smaller Danforth going over top of the fallen Kuraly and hitting the dashbord.
Due to the blood and nature of what transpired i think they made the right call. Could have just as easily been 2 minutes for both but as you say due to the way it was originally called they managed it well (using discretion) by switching from a Cole possible major (the on ice call) to a Myers one
Kuraly and Danforth were very much doing their best to instigate with the Canucks defense prior to the incident and Kuraly actually got away with 2 hard cross checks to Zadorov after the whistle a few minutes prior where if the game wasn't close he would have gotten dummied by Zadorov. And of course already calling 3 PPs that ended in the back of the Jackets net they were loathed to call another.
As per usual this is the kind of shenanigans that happen night after night to try and draw PPs and makes for an impossible task of refereeing without controversy.
I think the OP brings forth good discussion on why the NHL should move towards the IIHF model where penalties and goals can be reviewed and made right rather than the game management that exists when they know they messed up or the fact that the game management can completely go sideways due to the speed and discretionary nature of that and then adding more wrong calls on top of the one's that already happened.
I get the desire to keep the game moving forward without stoppages but if we go back in history the game used to have brawls and a lot of after the whistle stuff that would bog down games that don't exist today. For reviews that make the events of the game officiated accurately i would be fully on board. What makes me sick is seeing refs get duped PPs producing goals that shouldn't have happened after getting duped and then game management after trying to even the score and turning the whole thing into a charade
BLNY
Registered User
Thanks for linking. That is certainly weird. Agree with SN crew that I didn't know a review could open things up to other plays/incidents.
I don't think there's any question that Myers was careless and flailing his arms around. The elbow drew blood, and 5 minutes makes sense. That it absolves Cole of the hit from behind is bizarre.
So you’ve watched the link and think it’s completely normal how this review went? Gotcha.
By the way, Van dominated during the major and won, again. Most Nucks posters in here, as well as those from other teams, are talking about how the review seemed to step outside of its own parameters.
The point of the discussion isn't whether the final call was the correct call. What people are questioning is the call that was made is not permitted by the rule book. What people are saying is that the rule book allows video review of a major penalty that was called on the ice. It does not allow video review to be used to assess any penalty that was not initially called on the ice.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 16,784
- 16,102
If you actually took the time to address the people who are trying to create discussion about the process but acknowledge they made a somewhat good call you might be able to have something worthwhile to add to this discussion rather than throwing a blanket over an entire fanbase and showing ignorance
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
That helps vancouver him not being in the lineup
I thought a suspension should negatively affect said team
The spinning elbow to the head is pretty dangerous buddy. He lead with the elbow as it swung 180 degrees across his whole body then made contact directly with a man's face.
I don’t think anyone’s complaining about the outcome. But it was a strange series of events that was confusing in real time and that ultimately isn’t allowed by the rules. The implication that refs can go against the rules, even if it’s to get the right call, has potential to affect games that matter and is certainly something thread worthy.
Yup. This isn't about whether it was a good/bad call for Vancouver, and you could actually argue we caught a break as Cole probably should have been penalized also.
Imagine small market team is playing big market team in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals.
Small market team scores with 5 minutes left to go ahead. Then the league decides to overturn the goal based on something that's unreviewable by the rulebook to 'get the call right' - like a neutral zone trip, or something. Big market team wins Cup.
The rules are there for a reason and if you just start overriding them when you feel like it to 'get a call right' it opens the door to all kinds of potential bias.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 24,742
- 9,412
Doesn't really matter what happened on the ice, what the refs did was illegal under league rules.
