The Grand Incompetency Of NHL Referees

[elocomotive]

To the bigger matter, I can find no evolutionary reason nor any social group filter that would make the people who become or are referees to have worse vision or judgment than any other group.

I think the problem is structural and pervades most sports. Two key factors from my viewpoint:

(1) Most sports leagues have increased both the number of rules and the subjectivity of rules, making the process of refereeing more difficult.
(2) Most sports leagues refuse to embrace technological advances or limit their usage in ways that make them ineffective. (As a few examples, the idea that an umpire still calls balls and strikes in insane to me. And the "incontrovertible evidence" and limitations on what can and can't be reviewed is misguided.)

 

[Cobiemonster]

I'm just telling you what I see as a non-partisan. His skates hit his pads and his body hits Brodeur's shoulder and I see no attempt by Hartnell to turn his skates/body to avoid the goalie.

I don't think under the rule it matter if the puck WAS going in or not. If the goalie is interfered with BEFORE it goes in, then the goal can be waived off.

You really don't think Scott Hartnell made any attempt to turn/stop? It looked like he clearly was, he even turned his back to the goalie

The point is, did the interference cause the puck to go in? I don't believe so, because as I said, the puck was already making it's way in the net before any of the interference had taken place

 

[Cobiemonster]

To the bigger matter, I can find no evolutionary reason nor any social group filter that would make the people who become or are referees to have worse vision or judgment than any other group.

I think the problem is structural and pervades most sports. Two key factors from my viewpoint:

(1) Most sports leagues have increased both the number of rules and the subjectivity of rules, making the process of refereeing more difficult.
(2) Most sports leagues refuse to embrace technological advances or limit their usage in ways that make them ineffective. (As a few examples, the idea that an umpire still calls balls and strikes in insane to me. And the "incontrovertible evidence" and limitations on what can and can't be reviewed is misguided.)

Agreed on that one, they need to make it simpler and quit trying to put loopholes in it so that they can be bailed out of it - every goal should be reviewable and I know the league doesn't want the games to go any longer than they should(and I tend to agree), but why not review every goal - have a TV in the penalty box so they can look at it and make a quick judgement for goal reviews - different goal reviews have different situations, so just because a rule says a specific thing, shouldn't put the refs in a situation where they are hamstrung and have to make a call just because the rule says so

 

[elocomotive]

You really don't think Scott Hartnell made any attempt to turn/stop? It looked like he clearly was, he even turned his back to the goalie

The point is, did the interference cause the puck to go in? I don't believe so, because as I said, the puck was already making it's way in the net before any of the interference had taken place

Again, that is not the rule.

"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;"

I think Hartnell makes some attempt to stop, but he certainly doesn't change his trajectory at all to go in front of the goalie instead of into him. If the defender is on the other side, I'd agree with you. But he's not. That's just my read on a 2-second clip. I would have probably called it non-penalty interference. I can understand someone thinking it should have been allowed as well. But I certainly don't think it's "grand incompetency."

And getting back to my larger point, this is why the crease rule was a better rule from the perspective of a referree. It was objective. The new one is subjective - which naturally makes the call more difficult. Subjective rules are bad rules from the standpoint of consistency.

 

[elocomotive]

Agreed on that one, they need to make it simpler and quit trying to put loopholes in it so that they can be bailed out of it - every goal should be reviewable and I know the league doesn't want the games to go any longer than they should(and I tend to agree), but why not review every goal - have a TV in the penalty box so they can look at it and make a quick judgement for goal reviews - different goal reviews have different situations, so just because a rule says a specific thing, shouldn't put the refs in a situation where they are hamstrung and have to make a call just because the rule says so

I've always wondered why they can't just have a chip in it. My phone has a gyroscope and a locator chip in it. Why couldn't you put that in a puck to know (even if a puck is inside a glove or under a pad) whether it is over the line or not?

 

[Cobiemonster]

Again, that is not the rule.

"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;"

I think Hartnell makes some attempt to stop, but he certainly doesn't change his trajectory at all to go in front of the goalie instead of into him. If the defender is on the other side, I'd agree with you. But he's not. That's just my read on a 2-second clip. I would have probably called it non-penalty interference. I can understand someone thinking it should have been allowed as well. But I certainly don't think it's "grand incompetency."

And getting back to my larger point, this is why the crease rule was a better rule from the perspective of a referree. It was objective. The new one is subjective - which naturally makes the call more difficult. Subjective rules are bad rules from the standpoint of consistency.

I know it's not the rule, but it shouldn't be in the rule book - the NHL isn't proactive with these things, they wait until stupid crap happens for them to even consider changing it - they like making rules on the fly - it's stupid

And when you get hit by a guy like Anton Volchenkov, Scott Hartnell's force was going towards the goalie, so it would have been difficult for him to stop, so considering all that he did a pretty good job of making every effort to try and stop

If by reading the rule there, I actually think by positioning, if anything, he prevented the goalie from moving more than the contact itself - the contact looked very little actually

 

[TiLoBrown]

This is STILL going?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I know it's not the rule, but it shouldn't be in the rule book - the NHL isn't proactive with these things, they wait until stupid crap happens for them to even consider changing it - they like making rules on the fly - it's stupid

And when you get hit by a guy like Anton Volchenkov, Scott Hartnell's force was going towards the goalie, so it would have been difficult for him to stop, so considering all that he did a pretty good job of making every effort to try and stop

If by reading the rule there, I actually think by positioning, if anything, he prevented the goalie from moving more than the contact itself - the contact looked very little actually

If you'd rather, they could go back to the old rule and Hartnell gets a penalty on the play.

The incidental contact disallowed goal was created for exactly this type of situation. Hartnell makes a half-hearted attempt to minimize the contact and the contact directly leads to the puck going into the net. I don't buy the argument that the puck is going in anyhow, because a) it's moving very slowly, so there's no guarantee Brodeur can't recover and b) Brodeur has no opportunity to recover because he's having to brace for and absorb the impact from Hartnell.

IMO, this was a perfect example of the incidental contact rule where they don't waive off the goal but don't hand out a penalty.

I will agree that the NHL refs are generally incompetent and you could find plenty of examples of it, but this isn't one.

 

[forty_three]

This is STILL going?

At the GM Meetings, in the discussion about increased video review, the Flyers brought up an offsides from 1981.

Yes. That's what I am saying. Yes. It is STILL going. And will. Forever.

This should have ended it:

"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;"

 

[dash]

Pretty sure Snider still thinks Nystrom was offside on the Isles Stanley Cup GWG in 1980...

 

[forty_three]

Pretty sure Snider still thinks Nystrom was offside on the Isles Stanley Cup GWG in 1980...

He was. And I thought it was 81.

But it's the same argument whenever I hear a Buffalo fan whine about Brett Hull's skate. One game winning goal out of 4 game winning goals needed. 10 seconds on the clock vs 4 hours of game time. You didn't lose because a bad call. You lost because you put yourself in a place where a bad call could have that kind of impact. The Islanders had still won 3 to that point. They had still scored just as many as you in that game.

I've seen thousands of blown offsides calls that don't matter. And to hold onto it for longer than most of your current players have been alive? That's just childish and shows a dependency on excuses over action. And maybe is why the organization hasn't won again since. Instead of bitching about the call, why not bitch about your goalie quitting on the play despite not hearing a whistle?

 

[dash]

Close at the line, but it looks just on-side to me. About 1:30 in.

 

[forty_three]

Close at the line, but it looks just on-side to me. About 1:30 in.

Maybe it was a different play, but there was one where they were relatively clearly a foot or so offside. They showed it closeup on NHL network the other day, but I can't seem to find the video. So if it's not on an OT winner than the whining is even more out of place.



That video is awesome. I love how bad Peeters was at faceoff alignment. Why every team didn't just shoot off the draw is beyond me.

 

[Comeds]

After a certain amout of time people need to let bad calls go, that I agree with. It does no good to hold on to things you cannot change but I never really understood the argument that a team should have played better so the bad call couldnt have hurt them. The Flyers-Devils game ended 2-1 did it not? Sure ideally the Flyers could have scored a few power play goals and no one would be talking about this. They were still in the game though and if a bad call* negated the tying goal I understand the anger and frustration. Its not going to help, and things like this are never going to go away but I do understand it.

And I hate the Sabres and like to make fun of them, but teams have come back from deficits in the playoffs and finals and I understand being upset about the series ending goal being scored on a absolute garbage call like that. They were waving off goals with any part of anyone's body in the crease that year and somehow they miss that. It was a joke. However its been something like 40 years now so it just makes me laugh and a little sad when I hear about it.

* I could care less about these teams and dont even feel like watching the play to decide what I think of it.

Mistakes are always going to happen so if they could call things consistently from start to finish and no matter the player I would be happy. As far as I can tell a goal in the 1st is worth the same as a goal in the 3rd so if a ticky tack penalty gets called in the first and possibly leads to a goal, then it should be called in the 3rd. Or dont call either. And whether the Flyers non goal was a good call or a bad call, I have doubts that the same thing would have been called if it was Braden Holtby in net.

 

[wings-pens2166]

Close at the line, but it looks just on-side to me. About 1:30 in.

that's so damned close I can't tell one way or the other...though I guess with today's technology you'd be able to break it down to determine yay or nay under video-review

 

[dash]

Of course, then there are just horribly blown calls...

[youtube]PT6q-lDiDA0[/youtube]

 

[forty_three]

that's so damned close I can't tell one way or the other...though I guess with today's technology you'd be able to break it down to determine yay or nay under video-review

I just have a hard time understanding how video review would work in offisdes calls. Video review, by nature, requires a stoppage. So do you stop a play to review whether it should have continued on? What if you determine it wasn't offside? You can't just throw the puck on the wing and restart the play. You have to have a faceoff.

And if they are using it on goals only, that's not going to be great either. A goal is scored and they review and see it was offside a minute and a half prior. So what? What does the offside have to do with anything.

Offside just should not ever be reviewable. It's a judgement call and it has to remain that way. If they are concerned with how close it gets, change the rule that when carried in - no part of any player can be in ahead of the puck. That's where most of the blown offside calls come from, the guy not carrying the puck timing it so well. Too well.

Of course, then there are the just horribly blown calls...

[youtube]PT6q-lDiDA0[/youtube]

I'm gonna go whimper softly in a corner now.

 

[DevilishWon]

horseshit ^^

typical....

Just out of morbid curiosity are you referring to:

his opinion that it was a good call

or the fact the flyers didn't capitalize on the 6 PPs they were given and thus didn't deserve to win?

 

[wings-pens2166]

I just have a hard time understanding how video review would work in offisdes calls. Video review, by nature, requires a stoppage. So do you stop a play to review whether it should have continued on? What if you determine it wasn't offside? You can't just throw the puck on the wing and restart the play. You have to have a faceoff.

And if they are using it on goals only, that's not going to be great either. A goal is scored and they review and see it was offside a minute and a half prior. So what? What does the offside have to do with anything.

Offside just should not ever be reviewable. It's a judgement call and it has to remain that way. If they are concerned with how close it gets, change the rule that when carried in - no part of any player can be in ahead of the puck. That's where most of the blown offside calls come from, the guy not carrying the puck timing it so well. Too well.



I'm gonna go whimper softly in a corner now.

I don't want ceaseless reviews bogging the game down, so I have no problem with offsides not being a reviewable play, but I disagree that it's a judgement call. It is not subjective...either you are onsides or you are offsides. And yes, I think the only way it would work, if at all, would be on goals scored. If it were determined to be offsides, no goal.

Again, though, I don't believe they should review offsides.

 

[forty_three]

I don't want ceaseless reviews bogging the game down, so I have no problem with offsides not being a reviewable play, but I disagree that it's a judgement call. It is not subjective...either you are onsides or you are offsides. And yes, I think the only way it would work, if at all, would be on goals scored. If it were determined to be offsides, no goal.

Again, though, I don't believe they should review offsides.

I chose the wrong word in "judgement". I was trying to say it's an easily missed call and at game speed with 3 sets of forward legs and sometimes 4 sets of defensive legs stacked at the blue line and the linesman on one side, it is easy to see how it can be gotten wrong on the ice. It is not a critical call, so I don't think it ever needs to be reviewable.

The big worry I have with reviewing offsides on goal calls is how far back to you go? Teams can be offside and get set up and have 30 or more seconds in the O zone to set up before scoring. Offside would have had zero to do with the goal.