News Article: Controversy Over Missed McDavid Calls During Oilers vs Jets Series

[McJadeddog]

If I were katz, I would sue the league for damages. Nothing like a discovery to change behaviour.

He likely can't due to the franchising agreement he has with the league. That certainly wouldn't surprise me at any point.

Your larger point though, that Katz should try and do something about this, is one I agree with whole-heartedly. If a lawsuit is allowed, then I'm all for it. Whatever it takes really, because its an embarrassment right now. I find out who won the playoff games the next day when I check scores or see a random news article online. I don't watch playoff games, but DO watch a lot of regular season games, and I'm not alone.

 

[K1984]

I actually don't mind the "ignored" calls. In fact, I believe the best Era of hockey was back in the 90's when half of today's calls wouldn't be considered penalties anyway.

But what really bothers me is the inconsistency in the reffing today. If you're gonna ignore a blatant trip or hook on one end, don't call a flimsy slash on the other 2 minutes later. This happens far too often and is the main reason NHL officiating us considered a joke.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the best way to make ref's reconsider how they want to call a game is by making them available to the media. If players and coaches got to explain their decisions and actions during a game then so should the officials.

This is my feel as well, with the exception of interference as a penalty that should have zero tolerance.

Officials today essentially will only call the black and white ones with any consistency. Puck over glass, slash causing broken stick, too many men, tripping (for the most part). They don't have the aptitude to apply a consistent standard to judgement calls, so we get the incredible inconsistency that you talk about.

In the 90's when the whistles were away - they were away and there was no doubt about it. In the Oiler games this year where it was clear that the officials weren't going to call anything I was still uncertain because I just knew that they were going to call something randomly regardless of how the game had been called to that point. Incredibly frustrating to watch, but I can't imagine it as a player.

 

[AM]

I can only imagine how hard a referee's job is when trying to call the NHL game by the rulebook even.
Let alone having to make that split second decision on how to manage the game before blowing the whistle.
Knowing that before they blow that whistle they have to take into account the player, score.. vibe of the game.
No wonder nobody knows wtf a penalty is anymore.
Like I've said before... you may as well just have a penalty light that goes off randomly throughout the game like a magic 8 ball.. f*** we drew a 5 on 3.. burn! At least it makes somewhat sense then.

Its would actually be a more enjoyable game.

They can have robot refs and a lottery before the game starts to see the percentage of calls each team gets. The robot ref just randomly rolls the dice to see who gets the call.

 

[McGoMcD]

I would personally give the NHL thousands of my own dollars to make this happen.

The game would sell much better. They don't get it but most people hate this. Look at American sports, they are obsessed with getting the calls right. The NFL, NBA, and MLB go to extreme lengths to make the calls as they are in the rule book. They watching hockey and it frustrates them. I personally know a few American friends that don't get hockey at all for that exact reason. THey watch and don't understand what is or isnt' a penalty.

 

[AM]

The game would sell much better. They don't get it but most people hate this. Look at American sports, they are obsessed with getting the calls right. The NFL, NBA, and MLB go to extreme lengths to make the calls as they are in the rule book. They watching hockey and it frustrates them. I personally know a few American friends that don't get hockey at all for that exact reason. THey watch and don't understand what is or isnt' a penalty.

There’s no trick there, nobody knows.

 

[bellagiobob]

I actually don't mind the "ignored" calls. In fact, I believe the best Era of hockey was back in the 90's when half of today's calls wouldn't be considered penalties anyway.

But what really bothers me is the inconsistency in the reffing today. If you're gonna ignore a blatant trip or hook on one end, don't call a flimsy slash on the other 2 minutes later. This happens far too often and is the main reason NHL officiating us considered a joke.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the best way to make ref's reconsider how they want to call a game is by making them available to the media. If players and coaches got to explain their decisions and actions during a game then so should the officials.

What I can’t stand is they will let 10 holds/hooks/tackles/face smashes go uncalled, but then are forced to call a flimsy puck over glass penalty. Makes no sense.

 

[CravenMH]

Even the obvious tripping penalties are situational. If it clearly causes a scoring advantage such as a dman getting tripped for example they usually call it. But otherwise nope.

 

[AM]

What I can’t stand is they will let 10 holds/hooks/tackles/face smashes go uncalled, but then are forced to call a flimsy puck over glass penalty. Makes no sense.

yes it doesn’t make sense, for more ad revenue they should pay a bonus for more stoppages of play

 

[fireantz]

I guess I’m the only one who wouldn’t be upset if the Stanley Cup winning goal came on a power play for interference in triple overtime The rule book matters!

 

[AM]

As usual the wife has a good idea. Don’t pay the refs if they don’t call the game. If either of the teams votes at the end of the game that the game didn’t meet the rule book, they don’t get paid.

 

[McGreat One]

What I can’t stand is they will let 10 holds/hooks/tackles/face smashes go uncalled, but then are forced to call a flimsy puck over glass penalty. Makes no sense.

The puck over the glass one is a tough one. I don't like it either but I also didn't like how players were free to relieve pressure or even force a line change by just intentionally flipping the puck into the stands.

I think the best solution to this would be instead of calling a penalty on the play, they could enforce it the same way they do with icing. Faceoff in the defensive zone and don't allow a line change for the guilty player's team.

 

[bellagiobob]

The puck over the glass one is a tough one. I don't like it either but I also didn't like how players were free to relieve pressure or even force a line change by just intentionally flipping the puck into the stands.

I think the best solution to this would be instead of calling a penalty on the play, they could enforce it the same way they do with icing. Faceoff in the defensive zone and don't allow a line change for the guilty player's team.

Agree, that’s a much better solution. If that’s not a sufficient deterrent, maybe have something along the lines that if it happens more than three (or two, or whatever number makes sense) times a game per team, any further puck over glass results in a minor penalty.

 

[bone]

Agree, that’s a much better solution. If that’s not a sufficient deterrent, maybe have something along the lines that if it happens more than three (or two, or whatever number makes sense) times a game per team, any further puck over glass results in a minor penalty.

Yeah, the league didn't have rules like that in place when they instituted mandatory over the glass penalty. There's plenty of ways to penalize teams outside of the 2 minute PP for it. Still keep it in for obvious deliberate plays like before the rule was instituted, but for incidental ones, it seems unnecessary and likely creates the effect of refs wanting to call even less real penalties in their "management" of the game.

I'll also keep beating the drum of automatic possession (i.e. attacking team doesn't just get a attacking zone faceoff, but actual automatic possession). For over the glass, I'd be absolutely fine making it so the defending team can't make a change, and the attacking team can change and gets automatic possession when play is blown in. I'd even consider extending it to over the glass calls that deflect off the glass as well.

 

[AM]

Yeah, the league didn't have rules like that in place when they instituted mandatory over the glass penalty. There's plenty of ways to penalize teams outside of the 2 minute PP for it. Still keep it in for obvious deliberate plays like before the rule was instituted, but for incidental ones, it seems unnecessary and likely creates the effect of refs wanting to call even less real penalties in their "management" of the game.

I'll also keep beating the drum of automatic possession (i.e. attacking team doesn't just get a attacking zone faceoff, but actual automatic possession). For over the glass, I'd be absolutely fine making it so the defending team can't make a change, and the attacking team can change and gets automatic possession when play is blown in. I'd even consider extending it to over the glass calls that deflect off the glass as well.

Should be like how it was in indoor soccer.

Automatic possession at the position on the ice where the puck was sailed over the glass.

I would go further. Meaning youre not allowed to use the glass.

Its a BS cheat. Allowed to use the boards, fine. Anything off the glass is 3 strikes and its a penalty.

 

[Sweetpotato]

As usual the wife has a good idea. Don’t pay the refs if they don’t call the game. If either of the teams votes at the end of the game that the game didn’t meet the rule book, they don’t get paid.

Too subjective to be used for someone's pay.

There doesn't need to be a penalty for referees because it's not their decision to call the game like this right now. Just mandate at the beginning of the season that everyone calls the game by the rule book. Set up all the refs in a preseason meeting where the rulebook is gone over if you actually don't think they'll call it right.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Should be like how it was in indoor soccer.

Automatic possession at the position on the ice where the puck was sailed over the glass.

I would go further. Meaning youre not allowed to use the glass.

Its a BS cheat. Allowed to use the boards, fine. Anything off the glass is 3 strikes and its a penalty.

So a 3 strikes rule that refs have to keep track of in the heat of the moment? Over complicates things.

 

[AM]

Too subjective to be used for someone's pay.

There doesn't need to be a penalty for referees because it's not their decision to call the game like this right now. Just mandate at the beginning of the season that everyone calls the game by the rule book. Set up all the refs in a preseason meeting where the rulebook is gone over if you actually don't think they'll call it right.

Its not subjective at all. I bet it would get the attention of the refs.

 

[AM]

So a 3 strikes rule that refs have to keep track of in the heat of the moment? Over complicates things.

They dont need to pay attention to it. Could be managed electronically, much like when the horn goes that indicates the refs missed a goal.

 

[bone]

So a 3 strikes rule that refs have to keep track of in the heat of the moment? Over complicates things.

Make it by team, not player. Shouldn't be overly hard to keep track of, and frankly it really didn't tend to happen all that often even before the rule.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Its not subjective at all. I bet it would get the attention of the refs.

So a coach doesn't agree with a call, hes not right, but just the fact he doesn't agree with it he votes no and the ref doesn't get paid.

My bonuses used to be calculated based on customer opinion surveys. I had access to those comments and we would get 1/10 and there were comments on them saying "not in stock"(which associates can't control in my company), "store too far away from my house", "management not willing to give discount above 20% off". These customers negative subjective ignorant reviews would tank our chance at bonus.

Someone's pay shouldn't be effected by someone's opinion of their performance, just objective facts from unbiased parties.

 

[AM]

So a coach doesn't agree with a call, hes not right, but just the fact he doesn't agree with it he votes no and the ref doesn't get paid.

My bonuses used to be calculated based on customer opinion surveys. I had access to those comments and we would get 1/10 and there were comments on them saying "not in stock"(which associates can't control in my company), "store too far away from my house", "management not willing to give discount above 20% off". These customers negative subjective ignorant reviews would tank our chance at bonus.

Someone's pay shouldn't be effected by someone's opinion of their performance, just objective facts from unbiased parties.

Yes it would be a pretty big thing if one of the teams felt cheated by how a game was officiated. What you have to keep in mind is that it isnt the refs. They are just doing what they are told. Its the league that doesn't want the rules followed. And the refs listen to who pays them. Thus the above.

BTW, whether you like it or not, your pay is affected by the disgruntlement of your customers.

 

[AM]

Make it by team, not player. Shouldn't be overly hard to keep track of, and frankly it really didn't tend to happen all that often even before the rule.

They can have a series of lights that fill up until the next penalty is awarded.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Yes it would be a pretty big thing if one of the teams felt cheated by how a game was officiated. What you have to keep in mind is that it isnt the refs. They are just doing what they are told. Its the league that doesn't want the rules followed. And the refs listen to who pays them. Thus the above.

BTW, whether you like it or not, your pay is affected by the disgruntlement of your customers.

I don't stop being paid if a few customers don't like something that the store/company has done.

In a grand scheme context or over time sure if a large sum of customers stopped purchasing product from my company(for context I work for a fortune 100 company that operates all over NA) then it effects my pay in that I wouldn't have a job, but bringing that concept to that scope it loses the actual meaning it started with.

As for the actual topic of refs. Yes, the NHL pays them, and they listen to their bosses the people that pay them. So why implement a system to penalize them if teams don't like their calls when as the league you can just tell them to call it properly. Why does their pay have to be in jeopardy at the hands of teams.

 

[Lacaar]

Even the obvious tripping penalties are situational. If it clearly causes a scoring advantage such as a dman getting tripped for example they usually call it. But otherwise nope.

Yup.. I saw something about Trotz telling his players.

1. No High sticking
2. No Penalties in the offensive zone

I think there was 1 or more little tidbits as well.

What it really said to me is this though.

*In your defensive end.. Do whatever the f*** you can to prevent a scoring chance. Just don't high stick. Even if they call you.. I'll take that penalty. Because they won't call you the next time. The power play is not nearly as dangerous as
A) Letting the scoring chance happen.
Compounded with
B) Being allowed to continue to prevent future scoring chances by committing penalties knowing the refs won't likely call a penalty.

Theoretically it is in essence as the following.

1. If player A is about to generate a scoring chance he has a 10% chance to score. If Player B commits a penalty to stop him you have a power play that is usually about 20%. So you're trading some odds here.
But if player A is then allowed to do the same 9 more times without a penalty. He has effectively changed the odds from 10 10% chances of scoring to 1 20% chance.

The numbers are made up to illustrate the point, but effectively that's how the players are coached. Commit any penalty you need to prevent a goal in the defensive end. As it will pay off in the long run banking on the referee's resistant to make calls.

I'd be interested to know the number of non off-setting minor penalties these playoffs. Then see what percentage of them are high sticking and over the glass. I have a feeling that number would be oddly skewed to a higher number than expected.

Even reading that I'm guessing the coaches have pointed out that you can get away with penalties to defend.. but never to attack. It's like a referee mindset. Trip a guy to create a scoring chance is much more likely to be called than to trip a guy to prevent one.

 

[AM]

I don't stop being paid if a few customers don't like something that the store/company has done.

In a grand scheme context or over time sure if a large sum of customers stopped purchasing product from my company(for context I work for a fortune 100 company that operates all over NA) then it effects my pay in that I wouldn't have a job, but bringing that concept to that scope it loses the actual meaning it started with.

As for the actual topic of refs. Yes, the NHL pays them, and they listen to their bosses the people that pay them. So why implement a system to penalize them if teams don't like their calls when as the league you can just tell them to call it properly. Why does their pay have to be in jeopardy at the hands of teams.

The refs wouldn’t be punished because the ref to the rule book, instead of the corporate nhl druthers.