“There wasn’t much but I wanted a penalty against Nashville” UPD Tim Peel early retirement PART 2

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Would you say hockey is the hardest most subjective sport to ref?

Baseball ... its balls and strikes as the only subjective decision and umps can be inconsistent with their zone but the subjective decision making is really limited to that one aspect of the game.

Basketball .. I could see this being a lot like hockey. Lots of moving players, touch fouls very subjective, continuous team play sport and while fouls can result in 2 FTs, Id say 2 min penalty is a bigger impact on the game outcome than 2 FTs.

Football .. its a fast game, lots of allowed contact and they could call a hold on every snap honestly. But its not a continuous flow game, its a fast crazy 3-5 seconds of play then whistle and 30 seconds to reset. Also refs are in a better position bc theres more of them and they are each responsible for very specific aspects of game. But a big PI call or bogus roughing the passer to extend a drive and that would have a huge impact on the final outcome of the game.

I'd say it's either Baseball or Hockey as the toughest. Baseball there are so many close calls in any game. Hockey is incredibly fast.

Football you have like 10 officials on the field and they replay just about every close call. Basketball I don't see being very difficult really.

 

[barilko05]

I've also been suggesting this. We have more than enough resources/technology in modern day to get this done, it's such an easy and simple fix.

But selling hockey is a lot harder than selling basketball to American markets imo. Basketball is a faster paced game, more scoring/action happening throughout the game. Hockey has always been the least popular of the 4 major sports in NA. It's hard to attract viewers if games aren't close. That's just how I see it, trying to put myself in the shoes of the leagues leaders and it's the only rational thing I can come up with. They will always do whatever is necessary to grow the game and generate revenue.

I tend to disagree with the notion that Basketball's faster pace is the reason for its popularity. The NFL has always had huge ratings, and its pretty slow, in terms of play. Hurry up, wait, hurry up, wait. Change from D to O...yawn. But its still compelling to the masses, isn't it? In BB, there is more scoring, to be sure, but the pace is invariably dragged down, especially in the last two minutes, by the interminable timeouts. WAY too many IMO. Hockey's biggest problem has always been the way it has been presented on TV in the US. In Canada, we are conditioned to watch the PLAYERS, not the puck. And camera operators, here and in the US, are reasonably well trained at anticipating the play, rather than just following the puck carrier. For newbie fans of another sport trying to understand the game, its hard to adjust to that way of thinking, especially with a small object like a puck. Its much easier to follow a big basketball on its way up the court, or a football that is invariably only going in one direction at any given time. I don't think hockey can ever overcome the inherent disadvantage of the puck size. It doesn't mean they can't try different things to increase popularity, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the game's integrity (*COUGH game management*)

 

[Soundwave]

They maybe need to have tiered penalties. Refs let a lot of things go because they're afraid of giving out a 2 minute penalty for every infraction because a 2 minute PP can be the difference in a game.

In basketball a ref is not as worried about calling things because 2 free throws are rarely going to decide a game and they even have fouls to give (which you have to accumulate in order for further fouls to result in free throws).

Maybe they can have something like a "fouls to give" concept in the NBA.

Have a crew upstairs constantly watching the game, reviewing things on replay, and teams accumulate a certain number of "things that are infractions but are uncalled by the on ice ref". Say by the end of the game if you have too many of these infractions it results in an auto penalty or maybe the opposing team gets the option of making a 2 min PP a 3 min PP.

Something like that could take some of the load off the refs and deter things like "we're to constantly hang off other team's star player and force the refs to make calls, they can't call them all" type of strategy.

 

[TKB]

go look up moneypuck on Twitter which has the statistical information on likelihood of getting the next penalty.

btw in the future if you’re gonna be condescending, know what you’re talking about

Okay so what are these numbers supposed to be? Lets start with the basics. Tie game penalties even, home team has a 46% chance of taking the next penalty. What is the percentage supposed to be?

 

[generalshepherd141]

The hilarious thing about last seasons desperate attempt at fan engagement actually ruined it. They invited fully rested teams that would not have made it otherwise. They ended up beating covid and injury depleted teams and you had the worst final possible with a flukey dallas stars run. Their stanley cup finals ratings were some of the lowest in their history. Despite everyone being at home.

You're insulting them by implying they didn't earn their way to the Final. They beat a physical Calgary team, a fast Avs team, and a dominant Vegas team to get there. And then they won 2 games in the Final against the best team in hockey.

It's not like the Stars were swept out of the building. I mean c'mon. They were probably overachieving, sure, but a lot of teams have done this in the long history of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. I personally loved seeing their run.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

You're insulting them by implying they didn't earn their way to the Final. They beat a physical Calgary team, a fast Avs team, and a dominant Vegas team to get there. And then they won 2 games in the Final against the best team in hockey.

It's not like the Stars were swept out of the building. I mean c'mon. They were probably overachieving, sure, but a lot of teams have done this in the long history of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. I personally loved seeing their run.

Do they make those finals under normal circumstances and playoffs?

 

[BagHead]

Question... do you think if Peel wasn't about to retire, he'd still have been "fired"? I don't.

Probably not, but the NHL still was trying to make a statement to their refs to keep their mouths shut. It probably would have been a much softer statement if he was in the middle of his career instead of at the end of it.

 

[jcs0218]

They can't fire Peel. Or else the referees union will file a grievance, and then all of the league's dirty laundry will come out in that grievance (including evidence that shows the NHL instructs their referees to manage games in a certain way).

The NHL doesn't want that coming out because that is the type of scandal that will make the league look fixed and rigged to the public.

 

[Score8]

Add Rooney to that list

 

[Il Stugotz]

Biggest change from this will be refs covering their mics when talking to each other and to players, like one just did the Leafs game. I guess we know what the memo was to the refs right before they “fired” Peel

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I did not say it was an easy job. I know its extremely difficult to ref and nearly impossible to get to do it in major leagues. However, one ref already got caught making up calls. Don't you think its logical to think that perhaps there are other instances of this that were not caught?

I prefer to deal with facts whenever possible, not extrapolate off an unproven claim(s) - especially when that leads to terrible conclusions. But, let's go through the question you ask and others that logically fall out from it.

Do I think there are other instances of this that were not caught? I'm not naive enough to believe this is the only time a referee has ever used "game management" techniques and admitted it to a fellow official.
How often do you think it [game management] happens? Not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information. I will say I'll bet it happens far less frequently than some here have opined it does.
How many other referees do you think do this? Again, not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information.
Do you think orders for that stuff come from the top echelons of the league? Absolutely not. You find concrete proof otherwise - no, c'mon, we all know this happens doesn't constitute proof of any kind - I'll amend my thought. In the meantime, see what happened with the NBA and Tim Donaghy, especially after he started lobbing accusations trying to throw the league under the bus.

 

[crazy8888]

I prefer to deal with facts whenever possible, not extrapolate off an unproven claim(s) - especially when that leads to terrible conclusions. But, let's go through the question you ask and others that logically fall out from it.

Do I think there are other instances of this that were not caught? I'm not naive enough to believe this is the only time a referee has ever used "game management" techniques and admitted it to a fellow official.
How often do you think it [game management] happens? Not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information. I will say I'll bet it happens far less frequently than some here have opined it does.
How many other referees do you think do this? Again, not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information.
Do you think orders for that stuff come from the top echelons of the league? Absolutely not. You find concrete proof otherwise - no, c'mon, we all know this happens doesn't constitute proof of any kind - I'll amend my thought. In the meantime, see what happened with the NBA and Tim Donaghy, especially after he started lobbing accusations trying to throw the league under the bus.

I was not sure whether to reply to this or leave it be since you are asking the questions and then answering them yourself. Seems to me like you are just fine having this discussion all on your own.
I prefer to deal with facts to. Not a fan of conspiracy theories. I did not say anything that even inclined to the fact that there are orders from the top to influence the games.
I understand what you are saying. I just dont understand why you are replying with all of this to my posts directly or what i said to irritate you.
Are we not to speak of this incident at all? Are we obliged to dedicate a paragraph to the ins and outs of being a ref and how tough of a job it is every time we post about this subject?

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Okay so what are these numbers supposed to be? Lets start with the basics. Tie game penalties even, home team has a 46% chance of taking the next penalty. What is the percentage supposed to be?

It clearly should be 50% for that whole row.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

Biggest change from this will be refs covering their mics when talking to each other and to players, like one just did the Leafs game. I guess we know what the memo was to the refs right before they “fired” Peel

Yes no better way to look like a professional sports league then your refs start covering their mics during conversations.

How can we convince the people we are legit? "I know, lets act more shady"!

Brilliant.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I prefer to deal with facts whenever possible, not extrapolate off an unproven claim(s) - especially when that leads to terrible conclusions. But, let's go through the question you ask and others that logically fall out from it.

Do I think there are other instances of this that were not caught? I'm not naive enough to believe this is the only time a referee has ever used "game management" techniques and admitted it to a fellow official.
How often do you think it [game management] happens? Not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information. I will say I'll bet it happens far less frequently than some here have opined it does.
How many other referees do you think do this? Again, not a clue, and I'm not making a guess without [significantly] more information.
Do you think orders for that stuff come from the top echelons of the league? Absolutely not. You find concrete proof otherwise - no, c'mon, we all know this happens doesn't constitute proof of any kind - I'll amend my thought. In the meantime, see what happened with the NBA and Tim Donaghy, especially after he started lobbing accusations trying to throw the league under the bus.

Donaghy said the league was giving suggestions to refs to affect the outcome of games. The NBA also purposefully leaked the Donaghy story to the NY Post since the FBI was going to have him wear a wire to implicate other corrupt refs. The NBA knew they had other refs fixing games, so they effectively killed the plan so they wouldn't be uncovered

 

[Leafs1991]

They never said hes fired, they said he wont ref anymore games. You can get demoted and still do desk duty as punishment and it does not count as being fired. The NHL covered their bases here.

I haven't fully looked into this but why can't they just fire him?

 

[BlackTipReefer]

I wish they reffed games like they do in international hockey. The calls aren't always correct, but at least I can't guess who gets the next penalty with almost 100% certainty.

 

[generalshepherd141]

Do they make those finals under normal circumstances and playoffs?

I believe so, but we'll never know.
The only series that could've been affected by that was Stars-Avs, and even then, in Game 7 the Avs were forced to roll with a career backup/AHLer in goal, so it's pretty likely the Stars would still have found a way to win in Denver instead of Edmonton.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

The hilarious thing about last seasons desperate attempt at fan engagement actually ruined it. They invited fully rested teams that would not have made it otherwise. They ended up beating covid and injury depleted teams and you had the worst final possible with a flukey dallas stars run. Their stanley cup finals ratings were some of the lowest in their history. Despite everyone being at home.

A team going to the finals the following a season where they took the eventual Stanley Cup champs to game 7 double OT doesn't equate to a flukey run, if anything it would be almost expected.

 

[Woncka]

I love how everyones gonna twist this story into how their teams have been cheated by bad calls for the last decade or two lmao

People who didnt realize refs operate with emotions and a sense of the games flow, you must be new to sports

 

[Woncka]

The NHL has to realise, if refs are "Managing" games, they are literally a half a step away from "fixing" games.

Except thats not at all how reffing a sport works

Im guessing youve never once laced up skates to ref an ice hockey game.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I haven't fully looked into this but why can't they just fire him?

Because then he'll fight it.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I tend to disagree with the notion that Basketball's faster pace is the reason for its popularity. The NFL has always had huge ratings, and its pretty slow, in terms of play. Hurry up, wait, hurry up, wait. Change from D to O...yawn. But its still compelling to the masses, isn't it? In BB, there is more scoring, to be sure, but the pace is invariably dragged down, especially in the last two minutes, by the interminable timeouts. WAY too many IMO. Hockey's biggest problem has always been the way it has been presented on TV in the US. In Canada, we are conditioned to watch the PLAYERS, not the puck. And camera operators, here and in the US, are reasonably well trained at anticipating the play, rather than just following the puck carrier. For newbie fans of another sport trying to understand the game, its hard to adjust to that way of thinking, especially with a small object like a puck. Its much easier to follow a big basketball on its way up the court, or a football that is invariably only going in one direction at any given time. I don't think hockey can ever overcome the inherent disadvantage of the puck size. It doesn't mean they can't try different things to increase popularity, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the game's integrity (*COUGH game management*)

That is actually how I feel about Baseball too. Hurry up, get to the base! Out. An hour later, we have a batter. 5 minutes go by, swing, strike! Adjust. Wait. 5 minutes, go by, and a ball! At least with football every play is a big impact play and after 3 plays, significant yards that lead to your team scoring valuable points will have been gained or a big defensive play that sees a turnover in possession happens. In baseball, 10 minutes can go by and you will have had one insignificant out occur, if lucky.

 

[TKB]

It clearly should be 50% for that whole row.

I disagree. Starting with the first scenario, the home team has last change advantage and the potential to create mis-matches. I don't know exactly what the number should be, (and there are other more vague home team advantages that could play into it as well) but I would expect in that scenario the number to be less than 50%.

I am a bit surprised that the math guys have apparently not taken such factors into consideration.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Managing a game to keep the players safe is fine. I think just about all posters are on board with that. Give out misconducts to settle a game that's getting out of hand under control. Eject players for serious infractions. That's all very reasonable management. The refs being consistent with what standard they'd like to hold a particular game to is another example of broadly condoned game management.

What raises a lot of eyebrows is systemically calling penalties based upon the score of the game, and the recent distribution of penalties. The hot mic was a confirmation that Peel wanted to make a call against a specific team, regardless of how marginal it was for reasons that were beyond the stated rules.

Making officiating decisions to keep a game close is a much more contentious form of game management. One that I feel is point shaving, and seriously jeopardizes the integrity of the NHL.