MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,095
- 10,328
Another screw job by the refs, again bailing out San Jose and this time St Louis the team suffering from ref incompetence......make that TOTAL incompetence.
Around Hockey XXI (All Non-Jackets Hockey talk in here)
- Thread starter cbjfaninmo
- Start date
- Status
I'd say 1 of the 4 guys definitely should have seen that. The close ref has a bunch of players there in the way so I cant fault him much for it, but the other ref and both linesman should have seen it. Right in the slot, guys on his knees, and the puck was up by his arm/shoulder area.
However, its (I'm assuming) NON REVIEWABLE.
Even going back to the goal we scored in a WAY LESS obvious situation off the netting, and with the offsides challenges, I find it FASCINATING that they don't have language in the rulebook that can allow them to review uncalled hand passes or high sticks that lead directly to goals. Even though they didn't seem to have much of a talk, or look at the replays, like we've seemingly seen in the past.
Expect some changes to the rulebook over the summer.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,648
- 6,579
Just when you thought that the San Jose Sharks couldn't have gotten another ridiculously bad call in their favor.....................
I think the combination of the two ref system and video review has had a strong negative impact on the quality of refereeing. I'm not opposed to video reviews on certain things, but when refs have the mindset that their call isn't the final call, I think that it leads to indecisiveness. The 2 ref deal also probably gives the refs the mindset that if they miss a call that it's no big deal and the other guy will get it.
The 2 ref system also doesn't allow for a ref to set the tone of the penalty calling in a game. Two guys can't always be on the same page.
I think the combination of the two ref system and video review has had a strong negative impact on the quality of refereeing. I'm not opposed to video reviews on certain things, but when refs have the mindset that their call isn't the final call, I think that it leads to indecisiveness. The 2 ref deal also probably gives the refs the mindset that if they miss a call that it's no big deal and the other guy will get it.
The 2 ref system also doesn't allow for a ref to set the tone of the penalty calling in a game. Two guys can't always be on the same page.
In an age where referees can instantly access multiple camera angles, to not make goals like this one, or even the one where we scored off the netting, is absolutely unforgivable. You have guys in Toronto already on the case for every goal. It wouldn't be even close to being onerous to review every case where a goal might've been scored illegally. It's highly embarrassing when things like this happen, and objectively unfair to the team victimized.
CBJWerenski8
Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
- Jun 13, 2009
- 42,465
- 24,416
MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,095
- 10,328
Yes, my understanding is that it's not reviewable by Toronto, and because none of the refs saw it they are not permitted to then "discover" it thru replay.
MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,095
- 10,328
More than any replay, I hate the offside review. Most of the time the call centers on the slimmest of margins that still leaves people arguing and not even close to the original intent - to prevent egregious missed calls.
While this has no chance of adoption, my preference for offside review is to allow only real time (game speed) reviews. Thus if it's not an obvious offside, move on. No more looking to see whether the skate was lifted, on ice, 1" beyond blue line, etc. Simply prevent the missed offside calls that could have and should have been seen at game speed.
Last edited:
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,648
- 6,579
I really think you have a solution to the offsides Carnaval. Reviews done at game speed is what they should do. I wouldn't be surprised if this is adopted. You will get no credit.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,648
- 6,579
It wouldn't bother me that much if they did that. But the genie is out of the bottle so I would imagine there is less than a 0% chance that this would ever occur
MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,095
- 10,328
CBJWerenski8
Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
- Jun 13, 2009
- 42,465
- 24,416
Jive Pawnbroker
One day next week
Boston is a machine right now; they went through Carolina like a hot knife through butter. It's hard for me to see them losing to either team left in the West.
cslebn
80 forever
- Feb 15, 2012
- 2,734
- 1,309
It's better than losing to a team that doesn't win it. "You can't win without beating the Jackets" would be a kind of praise for us.
It's also better than getting swept by a team that got swept by a team that got swept by a team (Pittsburgh swept by the Islanders, who were swept by Carolina, who were swept by the Bruins). That's embarrassing.
I'm in the camp that we had better depth that we just didn't use. Other than Wennberg, our depth players were fine.
The Bruins fourth line has been a great asset for them, but let's not act like Kuraly, Acciari, and Nordstrom are that good. Maybe Kuraly is, he's big and fast with a decent amount of scoring touch. Acciari though is basically Hannikainen, a great checker with limited skills. And Nordstrom is like the soft (not good) version of Riley Nash.
I don't know if Sedlak was healthy enough to play but he's like a Kuraly with zero scoring touch. You don't score much with him out there but you don't get scored on either, and if he was getting 10 minutes a night I think it would have been such a boost to our scoring lines to have that rest. Hannikainen was given about 5 minutes in one game - in that span he forced two turnovers which created two chances in the blue paint, and was falsely blamed by posters here for a goal against on the only shot against (Krejci was not his man). Texier could have played a lot more too, I saw a couple mistakes, but this thing Torts does where he goes to zero confidence in a player after one mistake is just sad. You have to take your chances with players like that. They might reward you, or they might hurt you, and that's better than choosing to play only three lines, which almost certainly will hurt you.
Edit: I'm not sure about Dubinsky, who seemed to struggle again after Nash went down. I also haven't even mentioned Eric Robinson, who I don't know what happened to. I'd frankly sooner take my chances with Dalpe or Milano in there for ten minutes a night than just roll three lines. That might have even gotten us some goals.
Last edited:
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Watched some hockey yesterday for the first time since the Jackets were eliminated. Blues dominated the Sharks in the time I watched. Looked like games 5-6 of the Bruins series, but even more one-sided - where one team's scheme and pressure was too much for the other, which couldn't figure out how to respond.
I've never cared for the Blues franchise for whatever reason. If it's Bruins-Blues in the Final, I probably won't watch.
I've never cared for the Blues franchise for whatever reason. If it's Bruins-Blues in the Final, I probably won't watch.
Perhaps you meant games 4 and 5 of the Bruins series. In game 6 it took a masterful performance by Tuukka and his magic posts to keep us from piling in the goals.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
It was a dominant performance. Like some of the times I watched the Bruins befuddle the Jackets in whatever games they were.
Sorry to nitpick. I'm just guarding against the inevitable narrative drift towards "and when the Bruins decided to play they rolled over the Jackets because the Bruins are vastly superior and were inevitably going to dominate."
- Status
