Unacceptable officiating

On Dec 22, 1:43 am, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
> > life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
> > or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>
> > Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
> > duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
> > more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>
> > Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ...
> > last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
> > officiating.
>
> > May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
> > handy tonight.
>
> > A.J.
>
> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
> the delayed penalty.
>
> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
> incompetent, ya know :)
>
> A.J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
incidental contact.

How has the "Two" Ref system helped? Mostly just the Refs, by reducing
the distance they have to skate.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

On Dec 22, 9:33 am, Mad Ape wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > A.J. Bassett wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> >>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
> >>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
> >>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>
> >>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
> >>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
> >>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>
> >>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ...
> >>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
> >>> officiating.
>
> >>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
> >>> handy tonight.
>
> >>> A.J.
>
> >> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
> >> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
> >> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
> >> the delayed penalty.
>
> >> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
> >> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
> >> incompetent, ya know :)
>
> >> A.J.
> > I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
> > challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. If
> > you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>
> IMO giving a penalty is too harsh. I say they lose their timeout if the
> have one left. No time out left...no challenge.
>
> BUT....
>
> Aren't all questionable goals viewed by command central in Torrana?
> Wasn't the disallowed goal from last night reviewed? If so I don't see
> how this idea has any merit. Please explain further.

The problem is the disallowed goal on the (we believe) phantom touch
by a 'Caines player is not reviewable, at least under the current
system.

What I'm suggesting is a variation on what's utilized by the NFL -
whereas a coach could challenge a call (missed or wrong) made by an
official for review. The challenge could be something minor, such as a
missed icing, or more important such as a wrongfully disallowed goal
due to officiating error.

Anyway, to error is human, but surely there's a method for correcting
the obvious, such as what we endured last night.

A.J.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

On Dec 22, 11:11 am, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> On Dec 22, 9:33 am, Mad Ape wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > > A.J. Bassett wrote:
> > >> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> > >>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
> > >>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
> > >>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>
> > >>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
> > >>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
> > >>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>
> > >>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ....
> > >>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
> > >>> officiating.
>
> > >>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
> > >>> handy tonight.
>
> > >>> A.J.
>
> > >> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
> > >> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
> > >> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
> > >> the delayed penalty.
>
> > >> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
> > >> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
> > >> incompetent, ya know :)
>
> > >> A.J.
> > > I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
> > > challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. If
> > > you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>
> > IMO giving a penalty is too harsh. I say they lose their timeout if the
> > have one left. No time out left...no challenge.
>
> > BUT....
>
> > Aren't all questionable goals viewed by command central in Torrana?
> > Wasn't the disallowed goal from last night reviewed? If so I don't see
> > how this idea has any merit. Please explain further.
>
> The problem is the disallowed goal on the (we believe) phantom touch
> by a 'Caines player is not reviewable, at least under the current
> system.
>
> What I'm suggesting is a variation on what's utilized by the NFL -
> whereas a coach could challenge a call (missed or wrong) made by an
> official for review. The challenge could be something minor, such as a
> missed icing, or more important such as a wrongfully disallowed goal
> due to officiating error.
>
> Anyway, to error is human, but surely there's a method for correcting
> the obvious, such as what we endured last night.
>
> A.J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The current set up works best to answer the question "did the puck
cross the goal line" yes or no. When considering factors away from the
net such as stick position, and or body contact directing the puck in,
do they have access to the same number of camera angles covering the
goal line? I doubt they would ever put in place a process to over-ride
a decision such as a ref blowing a play dead. If the whistle is blown
early, and the puck goes in, the defending team could argue, that once
they heard the whistle they stopped making any effort to stop the
puck.

The action will move faster then the ref can position himself to
observe the puck, the only solutions I can think of is to shift
responsibility to the goal judge. They could mandate a set time the
ref needs to wait before calling the puck lost, but that would
increase players crashing the goalie, and more goal mouth fights with
the goalie at the bottom of the pile.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

On Dec 22, 12:00 pm, marty wrote:
> Chuck wrote in
> f529f64d9....RemoveThis@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
> > going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
> > goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
> > declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
> > consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
> > wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
> > incidental contact.
>
> > How has the "Two" Ref system helped? Mostly just the Refs, by reducing
> > the distance they have to skate.
>
> Well, if there were 30 NHL refs before, it also doubled the number of NHL
> refs needed overnight, so it added 30 refs to the NHL that weren't good
> enough to be NHL refs before. It is basically like expansion. The bigger
> the number of refs needed, the greater the disparity between the "good"
> ref and the "bad" ref. Think about the quality of the last ref to make
> the league. Before, in the 1-ref system, he would have had 29 refs ahead
> of him. He would never of made it. Now he's in.
>
> In fact, with expansion itself there was a need for more refs. Then they
> suddenly doubled the need for refs on top of that. It is no suprise the
> quality is lacking. What is surprising is how factured and incosistent it
> is getting. In the same game we'll see them let go high sticks and elbows
> and a lot of interference, then blow down a play for a 2/10th of a second
> "hook" that didn't even slow down a player. And I'm not exagerrating
> either. I just described something that frequently happens! If refs want
> to be crooked, it would be quite easy now, because this bizarre type of
> officiating is simple excused as being a part of the new NHL, and to
> suggest it has to be fixed is countered by saying that means a return to
> cluth-and-grab hockey, as if the only two alternatives are bizarre,
> erractic, baffling calls or clutch-and-grab, no offense hockey.

The zero tolerance brought in to counter "clutch and grab" hockey is
fustrating to watch. Stick contact, without any impact on the puck
carrier gets called all the time. Behind the play cheap shots, contact
etc.. stuff the 2nd referee is supposed to catch doesn`t seem to
subjected to the same zero tolerance
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

A.J. Bassett wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>>
>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>>
>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ...
>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
>> officiating.
>>
>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
>> handy tonight.
>>
>> A.J.
>
>
> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
> the delayed penalty.
>
> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
> incompetent, ya know :)
>
> A.J.
I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal.
If you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

On Dec 22, 8:11 am, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> On Dec 22, 9:33 am, Mad Ape wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > > A.J. Bassett wrote:
> > >> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
> > >>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
> > >>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
> > >>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>
> > >>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
> > >>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
> > >>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>
> > >>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ....
> > >>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
> > >>> officiating.
>
> > >>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
> > >>> handy tonight.
>
> > >>> A.J.
>
> > >> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
> > >> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
> > >> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
> > >> the delayed penalty.
>
> > >> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
> > >> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
> > >> incompetent, ya know :)
>
> > >> A.J.
> > > I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
> > > challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. If
> > > you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>
> > IMO giving a penalty is too harsh. I say they lose their timeout if the
> > have one left. No time out left...no challenge.
>
> > BUT....
>
> > Aren't all questionable goals viewed by command central in Torrana?
> > Wasn't the disallowed goal from last night reviewed? If so I don't see
> > how this idea has any merit. Please explain further.
>
> The problem is the disallowed goal on the (we believe) phantom touch
> by a 'Caines player is not reviewable, at least under the current
> system.
>
> What I'm suggesting is a variation on what's utilized by the NFL -
> whereas a coach could challenge a call (missed or wrong) made by an
> official for review. The challenge could be something minor, such as a
> missed icing, or more important such as a wrongfully disallowed goal
> due to officiating error.
>
> Anyway, to error is human, but surely there's a method for correcting
> the obvious, such as what we endured last night.

I'm generally a replay proponent. I like the NFL's system, I think
MLB is wise to allow it for home run calls, and I think the system the
NHL currently uses is ok (though I find some of the results bizarre).
So although I'm a "traditionalist" on some things (shootouts!), I have
no general objection to the concept of replay.

The "advantage" the NFL has is that the play stops regularly. Even if
the clock doesn't stop, the action does as the ball is re-set and the
teams huddle and then line up.

The NHL doesn't have that. There are fewer stoppages, and since the
quick face-off rule was implemented, they don't last as long. In
fact, I would say that one of the virtues of hockey is the quick flow
of action. That really narrows the number of situations where replay
is a workable idea, in my opinion. It's already a little ridiculous
that the officials can rule that a goal was actually scored five
minutes ago and wipe out those five minutes of game time, but
fortunately that's a rare occurence, and goals are important enough to
"get it right."

And I would really resist broadening the scope of replay beyond
goals. You'd essentially be granting an extra time out or two (or
however many replays you allow); certainly you'd undermine the purpose
of the no-line-change-on-icing rule if a coach could get his players a
couple of minutes rest by challenging the icing. And most penalties
involve some measure of judgment that wouldn't be appropriate for
replay in my opinion; there's a good reason why the NFL doesn't allow
pass interference, holding, etc. to be reviewable. I suppose you
could review the "automatic" penalties like delay of game (did the
puck hit the glass first?) or injury-causing high sticking (was it an
opposing player's stick or someone else's), but I'm not sure that
fixing the occasional screw-up in those areas is worth the slow down
in the game. And those calls aren't really the ones that are
bothering most fans, anyway -- it's all those little judgment calls
that would be very bothersome to review.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

Chuck wrote in
f529f64d9bf5 DeleteThis @n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

>
> I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
> going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
> goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
> declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
> consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
> wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
> incidental contact.
>
> How has the "Two" Ref system helped? Mostly just the Refs, by reducing
> the distance they have to skate.

Well, if there were 30 NHL refs before, it also doubled the number of NHL
refs needed overnight, so it added 30 refs to the NHL that weren't good
enough to be NHL refs before. It is basically like expansion. The bigger
the number of refs needed, the greater the disparity between the "good"
ref and the "bad" ref. Think about the quality of the last ref to make
the league. Before, in the 1-ref system, he would have had 29 refs ahead
of him. He would never of made it. Now he's in.

In fact, with expansion itself there was a need for more refs. Then they
suddenly doubled the need for refs on top of that. It is no suprise the
quality is lacking. What is surprising is how factured and incosistent it
is getting. In the same game we'll see them let go high sticks and elbows
and a lot of interference, then blow down a play for a 2/10th of a second
"hook" that didn't even slow down a player. And I'm not exagerrating
either. I just described something that frequently happens! If refs want
to be crooked, it would be quite easy now, because this bizarre type of
officiating is simple excused as being a part of the new NHL, and to
suggest it has to be fixed is countered by saying that means a return to
cluth-and-grab hockey, as if the only two alternatives are bizarre,
erractic, baffling calls or clutch-and-grab, no offense hockey.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

Mike wrote:
> A.J. Bassett wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
>>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
>>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
>>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
>>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
>>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>>>
>>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ...
>>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
>>> officiating.
>>>
>>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
>>> handy tonight.
>>>
>>> A.J.
>>
>>
>> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
>> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
>> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
>> the delayed penalty.
>>
>> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
>> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
>> incompetent, ya know :)
>>
>> A.J.
> I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
> challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. If
> you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>

IMO giving a penalty is too harsh. I say they lose their timeout if the
have one left. No time out left...no challenge.

BUT....

Aren't all questionable goals viewed by command central in Torrana?
Wasn't the disallowed goal from last night reviewed? If so I don't see
how this idea has any merit. Please explain further.

The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

>I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
>going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
>goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
>declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
>consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
>wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
>incidental contact.
>
The NHL needs to move out the veteran officials
to give the younger officials a chance to establish
themselves. They insist on dressing the older...
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

"Mike" wrote in message

> A.J. Bassett wrote:
> I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one challenge
> per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. If you're
> wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>
I also think it's a great idea except I would give them one challenge a
period and I see no reason to penalize a team if they are wrong. IMO it's
important to get the calls right, not to worry about the added minute or so
it would add to the playing time. Also, why rely on some headquarters in
Toronto. Why not have some monitors actually in the officiating booth along
with a computer nerd techie so that the ref himself can review the play(s).
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

On Dec 22, 12:22 pm, Chuck wrote:

>
> One question about the 2 Ref system, do they mainatin the same
> relative positions on the ice, or to the teams on the ice?

The positioning routine is fine - one official takes position deep in
the zone of the play, while the other hovers near the blue line - they
basically switch.

The two man-system is also a vast improvement over the one-man system
- largely because the game has become significantly faster over the
past 20 years, making it difficult, if not impossible for an official
to properly cover both ends of the rink simultaneously.

What isn't acceptable are the shoddy games - predominately
inconsistently officiated games this season. If the calls are tight in
the first, then that must be maintained throughout the game. But for
the officials to suddenly change course mid-stream - such as the
miniscule call on Kovalev late in the 3rd period against the Devils -
resulting in an OT loss, drives me (and I'm guessing) the players
crazy with frustration.

Sigh. Happy holidays everyone?

A.J.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

"bloke" wrote in

>>I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
>>going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
>>goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
>>declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
>>consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
>>wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
>>incidental contact.
>>
> The NHL needs to move out the veteran officials
> to give the younger officials a chance to establish
> themselves. They insist on dressing the older...
>
>

It's not automatically young versus old. It's good versus poor. Maybe the
reason we hate old ones more is they are "known" to us, but I think neither
age group has the market cornered on bad reffing. However, old ones can
hang on longer, and young ones who would never have been refs in the NHL
before get a shot.

Marty
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

j.bauch.TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote in


>
> And I would really resist broadening the scope of replay beyond
> goals. You'd essentially be granting an extra time out or two (or
> however many replays you allow); certainly you'd undermine the purpose
> of the no-line-change-on-icing rule if a coach could get his players a
> couple of minutes rest by challenging the icing. And most penalties
> involve some measure of judgment that wouldn't be appropriate for
> replay in my opinion; there's a good reason why the NFL doesn't allow
> pass interference, holding, etc. to be reviewable. I suppose you
> could review the "automatic" penalties like delay of game (did the
> puck hit the glass first?) or injury-causing high sticking (was it an
> opposing player's stick or someone else's), but I'm not sure that
> fixing the occasional screw-up in those areas is worth the slow down
> in the game. And those calls aren't really the ones that are
> bothering most fans, anyway -- it's all those little judgment calls
> that would be very bothersome to review.
>

No way, in my opinion would a challenge for icing be possible, for the very
reason you stated. In fact, if they went to no-touch icing, they could
lessen the amount of rest for the offending team as the the other team
could change up faster for the face-off.
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating