Was Mike Liut bad in the 1981 Canada Cup final?

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Let's say beside the whole ref thing calling the competition 'Canada Cup' didn't help to make the event appear equal or neutral in the eyes of many European supporters.

The ironic thing being of course that they were considerably more fair tournaments than either the World Championships or Olympics during that period.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not claiming he would or did. Point is that it's not much of an argument to say the Soviet selected Koharski considering the options they had.

Let's say beside the whole ref thing calling the competition 'Canada Cup' didn't help to make the event appear equal or neutral in the eyes of many European supporters.

Let's remember one thing, maybe 10-15 years ago the refereeing at the World Juniors was beyond horrible. A "loud" hit was always a penalty. Guess who was always at the wrong end of this? It was Canada. I saw it, we just flat out got the short end of the stick with this type of refereeing. That being said, we won 5 straight in the 1990s, we won 5 straight in the 2000s and aside from the last two years medalled in 14 in a row. The World Championships have been no better.

Give me the best in the world with games like this. I wouldn't ask for anything else. Give me a guy who can handle the pressure of 18,000 fans cheering or booing him.

Here's a nice tidbit. Bob Johnson in the 1987 Canada Cup was livid with the refs after the Canada/US game in the round robin. He was asked by a reporter if it had something to do with the fact that the Americans weren't a superpower and had the respect in this tournament. It was a European ref who he thought did a terrible job. His response was this (from the video Mike, Mario and the Great Gretzky) and I am paraphrasing a bit:

"Well it isn't his fault, you've got 20,000 Canadian fans screaming and you've got a guy whose never dealt with that before. I would have preferred a National League Hockey ref, he would have known how to handle that situation."

This isn't Alan Eagleson saying this, it is Bob Johnson coach of the Americans.

 

[canucksfan]

The 81' CC was the last time the final game was refed by non Canadians. Canada wanted every advantage possible. They had home ice, their rules and refs.

 

[Theokritos]

Let's remember one thing, maybe 10-15 years ago the refereeing at the World Juniors was beyond horrible. A "loud" hit was always a penalty. Guess who was always at the wrong end of this? It was Canada. I saw it, we just flat out got the short end of the stick with this type of refereeing. That being said, we won 5 straight in the 1990s, we won 5 straight in the 2000s and aside from the last two years medalled in 14 in a row. The World Championships have been no better.

Give me the best in the world with games like this. I wouldn't ask for anything else. Give me a guy who can handle the pressure of 18,000 fans cheering or booing him.

Here's a nice tidbit. Bob Johnson in the 1987 Canada Cup was livid with the refs after the Canada/US game in the round robin. He was asked by a reporter if it had something to do with the fact that the Americans weren't a superpower and had the respect in this tournament. It was a European ref who he thought did a terrible job. His response was this (from the video Mike, Mario and the Great Gretzky) and I am paraphrasing a bit:

"Well it isn't his fault, you've got 20,000 Canadian fans screaming and you've got a guy whose never dealt with that before. I would have preferred a National League Hockey ref, he would have known how to handle that situation."

This isn't Alan Eagleson saying this, it is Bob Johnson coach of the Americans.

You're not addressing my point at all. See post #49.

 

[Peter25]

Question to all Canadians:

Before the 1981 CC final the "golden rule" that games must always be officiated by referees from a non-partial country was respected. Every major international sport respects this rule. It would be a major scandal if a soccer World Cup game would be officiated by a referee from a country that plays in the game.

But after the 1981 final this rule was - for whatever reason - not respected anymore. From 1984 the CC finals would always be officiated by Canadian referees that was not the case in 1981 and 1976.

And Rauno Korpi is certainly not the only person who has said that refs were heavily favoring Canada. Finnish hockey announcer Antero Karapalo - who announced the 1987 Canada Cup - made it also clear for a few times that Canada was getting away with murder on the ice while the Soviets were given bogus penalties.

In the 3rd final, when Andrei Khomutov was tripped in a partial breakaway by Ray Bourque, Karapalo said: "It is obvious that the referee is not giving penalties to home team when they do clear infractions, but the Soviets are always penalized on similar plays".

In Jatkoaika hockey board - that is generally very anti-Russian - there was a rather long discussion about the Canada Cup a couple of years ago. A consensus in the discussion was that Canada was being blatantly favored by the referee.

Most of the non-Canadian hockey followers share this opinion.

The Soviets were better than Canada both in 1984 and 1987 and they would have won the finals with unbiased refereeing. This is a fact.

And it is also doubtless that the Soviet team from about 1978 to 1984 is the best hockey team ever in the world.

 

[Peter25]

The 81' CC was the last time the final game was refed by non Canadians. Canada wanted every advantage possible. They had home ice, their rules and refs.

True. I have nothing against the fact that the games were played in a small rink and with NHL rules, but when they started to use Canadian refs who were clearly biased they crossed the line.

 

[Big Phil]

You're not addressing my point at all. See post #49.

No, I get it. What I am saying is that isn't it proper to choose the best in the world to ref an important game? If the guy is from Taiwan (sorry Rod Langway) but the NHL considers him the best in the business (eg. he works the Stanley Cup final) I'd want him in there.

Question to all Canadians:

Before the 1981 CC final the "golden rule" that games must always be officiated by referees from a non-partial country was respected. Every major international sport respects this rule. It would be a major scandal if a soccer World Cup game would be officiated by a referee from a country that plays in the game.

I don't care what country he comes from, if he is the best the NHL has to offer he is your best bet to do the best job. A Canadian refereed the 2002 Gold medal game, the 2014 game (can't remember who did the 2010 game) and Terry Gregson refereed the final in the 1996 World Cup, as well as Kerry Fraser. Canada lost this one. That being said, we didn't lose because of the referees.

In the 3rd final, when Andrei Khomutov was tripped in a partial breakaway by Ray Bourque, Karapalo said: "It is obvious that the referee is not giving penalties to home team when they do clear infractions, but the Soviets are always penalized on similar plays".

Speaking of Bourque, he got tripped up on the 4th Russian goal which led to a breakaway. No call. 4-2 Soviets. It sucked, but what can you do? A great team finds a way to overcome that. Paul Stewart - an American - refereed Game 2. They were both NHL guys, give me the best in the business.

The Soviets were better than Canada both in 1984 and 1987 and they would have won the finals with unbiased refereeing. This is a fact.

I'm not seeing it. There has to be some sort of fact that proves it other than you just saying it. The Soviets were very, very good and scared the daylights out of us but I wouldn't have called them "better" in those years. You'll have to elaborate.

And it is also doubtless that the Soviet team from about 1978 to 1984 is the best hockey team ever in the world.

That is another thing being debated in the other thread. I always take the 1976 Canadian team with this one. The impact of Orr and Hull, the goaltending of Vachon are all things that the 1981 Canadian team did not have. There is also the factor of chemistry, a year of being together...........I'd really like to see what that team would do.

 

[canucksfan]

You have to have neutrality. If a Russian referee was calling a Canada/Russia game Canadian fans would be squealing like a pig stuck under a gate.

 

[Big Phil]

You have to have neutrality. If a Russian referee was calling a Canada/Russia game Canadian fans would be squealing like a pig stuck under a gate.

If he's a referee in the NHL there would be a reason why he was picked, and I would have no issue with it.

 

[saskganesh]

You know, hockey fans *****ing about referees is never very interesting.

 

[canucksfan]

If he's a referee in the NHL there would be a reason why he was picked, and I would have no issue with it.

Why does he have to be a ref in the NHL?

After the 81' loss why would Canada ensure a Canadian would ref the finals? In 76' and 81' CC there were no complaints of the refs.

 

[Theokritos]

No, I get it. What I am saying is that isn't it proper to choose the best in the world to ref an important game?

See, the pros and cons of using NHL referees have been discussed to death in so many threads and there is not much to gain from reviving the issue as far as I can see. It just goes back and forth. But what we should be able to agree on IMO is that it's not much of an argument that the Soviets "requested" Koharski once you considers the circumstances in 1987. That's all. Cheers.

 

[Big Phil]

Why does he have to be a ref in the NHL?

After the 81' loss why would Canada ensure a Canadian would ref the finals? In 76' and 81' CC there were no complaints of the refs.

I don't know, the refereeing was not an issue in either of those Canada Cups. No one even the most biased Canadian has ever made that complaint about those years.

The reason it is important - I think - for him to be in the NHL is because it is the best league in the world with the best refs in the world. We saw what happened when the NFL used replacement refs a couple of years ago, it wasn't pretty. Not that the best refs in the world don't make mistakes, but if it is an important game shouldn't they be the best in an NHL-sanctioned event?

The penalties called in the 8-1 romping by the Soviets in 1981 was 6-6.

The penalties called in the semi-final Can/Rus game in 1984 was 6-5 for the Russians

In 1987 the three final games looked like this:

8-6 in favour of the Russians
6-6
5-4 in favour of the Russians

I've always wondered, exactly where was this Canadian advantage? Paul Stewart called much of the same game Koharski did.

It is important to note, Canada outshot the Soviets in 1984 41-23 in that game and while the Russians outshot Canada 43-33 in Game 1 of the 1987 final Canada came back and outshot them 61-50 and then blatantly 46-23 in Game 3.

Is it just possible from Soviet apologists to admit that they just simply weren't good enough to beat Canada? The scoreboard showed it. The shot total seemed to show it. There wasn't an advantage in penalties one way or the other.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Question to all Canadians:

Before the 1981 CC final the "golden rule" that games must always be officiated by referees from a non-partial country was respected. Every major international sport respects this rule. It would be a major scandal if a soccer World Cup game would be officiated by a referee from a country that plays in the game.

But after the 1981 final this rule was - for whatever reason - not respected anymore. From 1984 the CC finals would always be officiated by Canadian referees that was not the case in 1981 and 1976.

And Rauno Korpi is certainly not the only person who has said that refs were heavily favoring Canada. Finnish hockey announcer Antero Karapalo - who announced the 1987 Canada Cup - made it also clear for a few times that Canada was getting away with murder on the ice while the Soviets were given bogus penalties.

In the 3rd final, when Andrei Khomutov was tripped in a partial breakaway by Ray Bourque, Karapalo said: "It is obvious that the referee is not giving penalties to home team when they do clear infractions, but the Soviets are always penalized on similar plays".

In Jatkoaika hockey board - that is generally very anti-Russian - there was a rather long discussion about the Canada Cup a couple of years ago. A consensus in the discussion was that Canada was being blatantly favored by the referee.

Most of the non-Canadian hockey followers share this opinion.

The Soviets were better than Canada both in 1984 and 1987 and they would have won the finals with unbiased refereeing. This is a fact.

And it is also doubtless that the Soviet team from about 1978 to 1984 is the best hockey team ever in the world.

That is, as a matter of fact, an opinion. Not one shared by many, I suspect.

 

[canucksfan]

I don't know, the refereeing was not an issue in either of those Canada Cups. No one even the most biased Canadian has ever made that complaint about those years.

Exactly. Canada wanted another advantage IMO. They need to sell the tourney and in order to do that Canada has to win.

The reason it is important - I think - for him to be in the NHL is because it is the best league in the world with the best refs in the world. We saw what happened when the NFL used replacement refs a couple of years ago, it wasn't pretty. Not that the best refs in the world don't make mistakes, but if it is an important game shouldn't they be the best in an NHL-sanctioned event?

There were no issues with refs in 76' and 81'. If the refs were bad I can see them switching. Makes sense to me. Doesn't make sense to switch when they were fine. The NFL replacement refs sucked. The refs in 76' and 81' did not suck.

The penalties called in the 8-1 romping by the Soviets in 1981 was 6-6.

The penalties called in the semi-final Can/Rus game in 1984 was 6-5 for the Russians

In 1987 the three final games looked like this:

8-6 in favour of the Russians
6-6
5-4 in favour of the Russians

I've always wondered, exactly where was this Canadian advantage? Paul Stewart called much of the same game Koharski did.

Can't look at the total amount of penalties.

It is important to note, Canada outshot the Soviets in 1984 41-23 in that game and while the Russians outshot Canada 43-33 in Game 1 of the 1987 final Canada came back and outshot them 61-50 and then blatantly 46-23 in Game 3.

Canada often outshot the Soviets I believe. Soviets looked for quality shots where Canada shot from everywhere.

Is it just possible from Soviet apologists to admit that they just simply weren't good enough to beat Canada? The scoreboard showed it. The shot total seemed to show it. There wasn't an advantage in penalties one way or the other.

When a three game series is decided by one goal, the teams are very equal. Series could have gone either way. This is why I would have liked a neutral ref. Canada already had home ice and the small ice as an advantage and they also had to have the refs. Taints the win IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

Exactly. Canada wanted another advantage IMO. They need to sell the tourney and in order to do that Canada has to win.

With that line-up they needed help? Come on.

There were no issues with refs in 76' and 81'. If the refs were bad I can see them switching. Makes sense to me. Doesn't make sense to switch when they were fine. The NFL replacement refs sucked. The refs in 76' and 81' did not suck.

There could have been some complaints, I am not sure.

Can't look at the total amount of penalties.

But it is pretty hard to cry conspiracy when you aren't getting the advantage in power plays right?

Canada often outshot the Soviets I believe. Soviets looked for quality shots where Canada shot from everywhere.

Including 1972. We outshot the Soviets in every game but one that series. Last time I checked you don't score if you don't shoot.

 

[canucksfan]

With that line-up they needed help? Come on.

Canada wanted very advantage possible IMO. They didn't want to lose another CC. 81' was a big time embarrassment.

There could have been some complaints, I am not sure.

No complaints. Refs were fine in 76' and 81.

But it is pretty hard to cry conspiracy when you aren't getting the advantage in power plays right?

It wasn't as bad as some Soviet fans state. Refs missed some on the Soviet side as well. However, I still maintain that Canada had a slight advantage with the refs. When the series was decided by one goal it makes a difference.

Including 1972. We outshot the Soviets in every game but one that series. Last time I checked you don't score if you don't shoot.

That's Canada's mentality. Soviets didn't shoot from everywhere. They waited for a quality chance. In 81 Canada outshot the Soviets despite being outplayed.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

When you are on top as Canada has been in hockey there will always be people trying to knock you down by denying or belittling your accomplishments. I get it and I know that realistically that is never going to stop. Now that Canada has not only won but dominated both home and away, on big ice and small, with NHL rules, with IIHF rules, etc, etc, etc, the only thing these people have left is to attack where the officials were from.

Personally I am most interested in the refs qualifications. Given that small ice hockey has the added dimension of physicality I can't imagine someone who does not have a lot of experience in officiating small ice hockey being asked to do so in such a high caliber tournament as the CCup. As such I don't see any issue with using professional refs from the NHL, regardless of where they are from.

[MOD]

 

[Sentinel]

Including 1972. We outshot the Soviets in every game but one that series. Last time I checked you don't score if you don't shoot.

AAMOF that's exactly the way Soviets operated. They would shoot the puck 12 times and have 6 goals. Tarasov taught that a player should only shoot from the surest of positions.

Koharsky gave Canada unfair advantage. With that lineup, at home, on small ice, they still had to resolve to little shenanigans. Only goes to show you how good USSR was. Canada was Gretzky away from losing it decisively. Even if they replaced him with someone like Yzerman.

 

[blogofmike]

Game 3 is here if anyone wants to point out some calls hat were amiss on either side, go ahead.

This link helpfully starts with a blatant penalty on Coffey. I mean the force that must be required to make Khomutov do a triple axel is CLEARLY grounds for a penalty call...

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Koharsky gave Canada unfair advantage. With that lineup, at home, on small ice, they still had to resolve to little shenanigans.

Believe of us what you will.

 

[Big Phil]

Canada wanted very advantage possible IMO. They didn't want to lose another CC. 81' was a big time embarrassment.

You don't see a difference on paper with the 1981 and 1984 team? How about the fact that Glen Sather was coaching and he put his team out there and exploited the speed of the Oilers to counter with the Soviets. So Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Anderson had no bearing on Canada being better in 1984 than 1981? Or how about more stable goaltending? Canada had Pete Peeters who gets underrated for the job he did. You've got a team that is flooded with members of the two Cup finalists the previous spring and you don't think this helped them? Gretzky in his prime does the trick don't you think?

It wasn't as bad as some Soviet fans state. Refs missed some on the Soviet side as well. However, I still maintain that Canada had a slight advantage with the refs. When the series was decided by one goal it makes a difference.

If the game is called the way it is supposed to be called, then I suppose you could say Canada had an advantage. But only because they played more physical and the NHL refs didn't jump the second they heard a "loud" hit. Come on, you've seen the World Juniors, the World Championships, you've never seen lousy officiating? Phantom calls? Would you rather have that? Or have a ref that calls the game the way it was meant to be played?

AAMOF that's exactly the way Soviets operated. They would shoot the puck 12 times and have 6 goals. Tarasov taught that a player should only shoot from the surest of positions.

Koharsky gave Canada unfair advantage. With that lineup, at home, on small ice, they still had to resolve to little shenanigans. Only goes to show you how good USSR was. Canada was Gretzky away from losing it decisively. Even if they replaced him with someone like Yzerman.

Well, last time I checked Gretzky was born and raised in Canada. Shouldn't he have counted? 1987 was a team where we missed some guys. Maybe Keenan knew what he was doing and that's why I am sitting in front of a computer. But on defense the likes of Rochefort, Crossman, Patrick and Hartsburg made the team while Stevens, MacInnis did not. Robinson backed out, so did Potvin. Lowe, I can't remember why he wasn't there. Wilson? Not invited I don't think. It was a little bizarre in my opinion. In other words, we caught a bit of a break by picking a team that wasn't as good as it should have been, despite the fact it was great. People talk about Yzerman cut in 1987, how about Denis Savard not on the team?

Anyway, I am getting ahead of myself, but in all honesty who here doesn't say the USSR was a great team? In the 1980s they scared us. They haven't since, which I sort of miss, but yes they were good. We all know this.

 

[Peter25]

Game 3 is here if anyone wants to point out some calls hat were amiss on either side, go ahead.

This link helpfully starts with a blatant penalty on Coffey. I mean the force that must be required to make Khomutov do a triple axel is CLEARLY grounds for a penalty call...

Thank you for the link.

That was the situation I was talking about. It was Coffey, not Bourque, who tripped Khomutov.

In that situation the Finnish announcer made it very clear that the ref is heavily favoring Canada. Antero Karapalo was not a pro-Soviet announcer. I have watched at least two dozen of hockey games where Karapalo was the announcer. The 1987 Canada Cup was the only time when he has accused the referee of being biased towards or against one of the teams playing.

Many of the Canadians are living in denial here. At least some seem to admit that Koharski was not biased, but too many are acting as if that was not the case.

That Khomutov trip was just one example of many. Even the so called "winning goal" of the series came as a result from an uncalled Canadian infraction (Hawerchuk tripping Bykov).

In the second game two Soviet goals were disallowed which both should have stood. Even if we disregard everything else that went on in this series with the refereeing the Soviets would still have won the series had the referee allowed those two Soviet goals. Even the Canadian announcer said that one of the disallowed Soviet goals was a good goal, but did not bother to criticize the ref too much for disallowing it.

 

[Peter25]

I don't care what country he comes from, if he is the best the NHL has to offer he is your best bet to do the best job.

So you would have had no trouble with a Soviet referee officiating every Canada Cup final and semifinal since 1981?

If that is the case, why didn't we see a Soviet referee officiating Soviet games in Canada Cups?

Speaking of Bourque, he got tripped up on the 4th Russian goal which led to a breakaway. No call. 4-2 Soviets.

That one situation is the only one in a three-game series where a possible Soviet penalty was not called. The only one. All the other Soviet infractions resulted into penalties, and many so called bogus penalties were called against the Soviets as well.

For Canada there were dozens, yes dozens, of uncalled infractions during the three game series. And two disallowed Soviet goals in the second game that should have both stood. A few other extremely dirty Canadian cheap shots were also ignored by the refs (Propp's baseball swing at Khomutov's head while Khomutov was celebrating a goal, Hartsburgh cross-check on Krutov's back which resulted to an injury to Krutov, Messier's cross-check to goalie Mylnikov's head while Mylnikov had a puck on his glove etc. etc.).

How the heck can you defend this? No person who watched the actual games can come up with a conclusion that the refereeing was not heavily favoring the home team.

That is another thing being debated in the other thread. I always take the 1976 Canadian team with this one. The impact of Orr and Hull, the goaltending of Vachon are all things that the 1981 Canadian team did not have. There is also the factor of chemistry, a year of being together...........I'd really like to see what that team would do.

The results on the ice do not back up your opinion. Team Canada in 1976 was not dominant on the ice the way the Soviets were in 1978-1984. Team Canada was not steamrolling over its opponents.

Do you think Team Canada of 1976 would have been able to defeat Sweden 13-1 like the Soviets did in the 1981 WHC final on Sweden's home ice?

 

[Peter25]

Here is a compilation of some of the bogus Soviet penalties and uncalled Canadian infractions/dirty plays. Many situations that should have been included are missing from this video, but this is a good start.



Four most recent comments in that video:

the masters of diving The only way they could beat the USSR at that was only diving + their own refs. Pathetic cheaters

Yepp...great games...fantastic hockey...but canada would not have won these series unless thet got help from the judges..common..even though these clips are selective..that was pretty much the story anyway if you look at the whole game non selective.

Koharski cup 87.

i remeber going in chering for canada switching over to our arc enemy ussr since the canadians where playing dirty and had clear advantage from refs. dispite that it where a close as it gets. those rusians where the best.