Fun fact from today

[TheDizee]

The ref who made the terrible call today to allow the broken stick goal was Ian Walsh. This is also the same ref who 2 years ago in the same building gave Backes a 5minute major for a hit to the head, even though his head was nowhere close to the head.

Broken stick goal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyqOOkvBmF4&feature=youtu.be

Backes hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqU8apsnLs

Ian Walsh still has a ways to go to be worse than Tim Peel, but he must be so honored to have his name in that conversation! I wonder if he has a Federov poster on his wall? He loves him some Redwings!

Click to read more...

 

[MissouriMook]

I remembered that from earlier today as well. I just wasn't sure which one of today's refs was the one actually working in the Blues end in OT.

 

[Dbrownss]

#RefWings

 

[542365]

We're making too big of a deal about this broken stick nonsense. It broke half a second before he put it in the net. Yes, technically the goal shouldn't have counted, but he deserved the goal in my opinion. If he was using an old fashion wooden stick, there is no controversy to speak of.

 

[KirkOut]

yeah it was the wrong call and should not have counted but there's really no way the ref could be held accountable for such a split second situation. To suggest that this is some kind of anti-Blues or pro-Wings agenda is outlandish.

 

[Dbrownss]

Except that the Ref was standing right there. It's not outlandish to expect them to do their job, split second or not.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They can still converse and make the correct decision. It wouldn't be the first time that teams are called back to finish OT. Granted the Rangers/Pens game was in a shootout, but the point still stands, the refs could've corrected the call. It's not a split-second decision or nothing. Doesn't matter if it's reviewable or not, just how refs can discuss penalties with each other.

Then, the NHL showed no accountability for it. They are lucky they aren't a popular sport because if it was the NFL, ESPN and the media would've destroyed them for it. If this was a Toronto or Montreal, the Canadian media would've had a field day.

All the NHL has to deal with is some tweets from Blues media that will be forgotten about in a day.

 

[Dbrownss]

Exactly. Even the NHL network was swooning over the amazing Abdelkader in their coverage. Not one mention of him even using a broken stick WHILE showing the replay

 

[bleedblue1223]

ESPN probably talked about that Dez Bryant "catch" for a week. Hell, it still gets brought up.

 

[STL fan in MN]

It was a blown call but I didn't see the broken stick in real time so I would imagine it would be hard for the red to see it in real time as well. That said, it's his job to see it but I've also reffed in the past so I know it's an impossible job.

What I want to see changed is for this type of play to be reviewable. I understand the desire to not make EVERYTHING reviewable as it would slow the game down immensely but IMO, any scoring play should be reviewable.

I'll also note that I don't think there's any pro-Wings conspiracy here. Ian Walsh simply sucks. Pretty much every fanbase would tell you he sucks.

 

[Blues88]

The play should be reviewable. That's where the nonsense lies.

The Blues were going to lose at some point so that isn't an issue. Convert on some chances in the second period and create more in the third and we wouldn't be having a conversation about an OT goal. They weren't sharp, plain and simple.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Just make every goal automatically reviewable by Toronto. They'd be able to determine the outcome on almost every goal by the time teams are ready to lineup for the next faceoff.

 

[Dbrownss]

I'd be absolutely happy if every scoring play and major penalty was subject to review. Too much game changing can happen

 

[Note Worthy]

Just make every goal automatically reviewable by Toronto. They'd be able to determine the outcome on almost every goal by the time teams are ready to lineup for the next faceoff.

I'm not a football guy but isn't every scoring play in NFL reviewed? No matter how obvious the touchdown or field goal is they still take a look at it, correct?

 

[MissouriMook]

It was a blown call but I didn't see the broken stick in real time so I would imagine it would be hard for the red to see it in real time as well. That said, it's his job to see it but I've also reffed in the past so I know it's an impossible job.

What I want to see changed is for this type of play to be reviewable. I understand the desire to not make EVERYTHING reviewable as it would slow the game down immensely but IMO, any scoring play should be reviewable.

I'll also note that I don't think there's any pro-Wings conspiracy here. Ian Walsh simply sucks. Pretty much every fanbase would tell you he sucks.

The bolded part of your comment is spot on. The information is available every time a goal is scored for them to get the call right, they simply refuse to use it. I'm not sure if it is a pace of play issue or if they are protecting officials from being shown up, but I don't really think anyone who follows the game at all believes that even the best refs in the league have the ability to get 100% of their calls correct. It is the inability (or refusal) to admit ones own humanity and ask for help that I have a problem with. I appreciate the guys that get more of the calls right eventually much more so than the guys who have a better handle at game speed but refuse to offer or ask for help to make sure everything is called correctly.

How many times would someone in Toronto have had to review the replay yesterday to determine that the play should have been whistled dead immediately when Abdelkader touched the puck with his broken stick? Exactly once from the overhead view. In a matter of 15-30 seconds, they could have had the captains over to the semi-circle and explained the review process. Abdelkader goes to the box to serve his 2 minutes and in a matter of 60-90 seconds you could be facing off in front of Howard 3-on-3.

As a fan, I am more than willing to let a game go 5 minutes longer to get three calls a game correct if the league decides they want to make sure the obvious missed calls get corrected. My guess is that they see it more as an indictment of the fallibility of their officials if they correct too many of their on-ice calls rather than a statement of their commitment to a fair and balanced outcome. Shame on them.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm not a football guy but isn't every scoring play in NFL reviewed? No matter how obvious the touchdown or field goal is they still take a look at it, correct?

Yep, and it doesn't slow the game at all. Almost all are determined by the time teams lineup for the extra point, and the plays worth reviewing would've been reviewed anyway.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Every scoring play and every turnover is now reviewed by the NFL. They have a bit of an easier time with it since so many commercial breaks are built into the program, but the NHL could do something similar with only scoring plays. From the time it takes to celebrate on the ice, show the high-five line, show the 2-3 replays and analysis about how the goal was scored, then line up for the face-off, Toronto would have at least 2-3 minutes to review the goal and send down a signal that they might need more time without disturbing the regular flow of the game.

I feel that every fan is willing to accept getting the call right over a small delay.

 

[StLHokie]

Every goal already is reviewed by Toronto, the problem with this was that Toronto is only allowed to say whether or not the puck crossed the line. They don't have the ability to judge whether the stick was broken or not on the play, as that is to the referees discretion. Same thing with goaltender interference.

 

[MissouriMook]

Every goal already is reviewed by Toronto, the problem with this was that Toronto is only allowed to say whether or not the puck crossed the line. They don't have the ability to judge whether the stick was broken or not on the play, as that is to the referees discretion. Same thing with goaltender interference.

You can still amend the process to allow no-brainers like this one to be fixed while leaving alone the calls that are still very much open to interpretation. Sadly, I feel the league is probably more invested at this point in shielding its officials (on and off the ice) from criticism than they are in actually getting more calls correct on the ice.

 

[DeuceNine]

When you consider that every goal is reviewed upstairs, there's really no excuse. Problem is, the NHL won't tell an official to call a penalty (which is mandated under the rule) from Toronto.

 

[StLHokie]

You can still amend the process to allow no-brainers like this one to be fixed while leaving alone the calls that are still very much open to interpretation. Sadly, I feel the league is probably more invested at this point in shielding its officials (on and off the ice) from criticism than they are in actually getting more calls correct on the ice.

That's the problem with updating this rule though. In this case, you would be reviewing not the goal itself, but rather, the penalty that occurred before the goal was scored. This opens the floor to reviewing any penalty that occurs where the result is a goal being scored. Should you be able to review a hooking call that occurred a minute and a half ago that occurred because a team scored a power play goal on the penalty as a result?

 

[Alklha]

That's the problem with updating this rule though. In this case, you would be reviewing not the goal itself, but rather, the penalty that occurred before the goal was scored. This opens the floor to reviewing any penalty that occurs where the result is a goal being scored. Should you be able to review a hooking call that occurred a minute and a half ago that occurred because a team scored a power play goal on the penalty as a result?

Here is a similar scenario... a player, very obviously, intentionally knocks the goal off the mooring as a puck is going in, no minor for delay of game is assessed on the ice and the goal goes to video review. They can waive off or award the goal, but they can't punish the player because the penalty wasn't called on the ice.

Make it so penalties can't be assessed via video review, but all goals need to be legal. Saying that "we have to let those terrible calls stand because otherwise..." is a terrible argument. It's a matter of fact play and not a matter or judgement. If this isn't reviewable next season, they should scrap video review completely.

 

[MissouriMook]

That's the problem with updating this rule though. In this case, you would be reviewing not the goal itself, but rather, the penalty that occurred before the goal was scored. This opens the floor to reviewing any penalty that occurs where the result is a goal being scored. Should you be able to review a hooking call that occurred a minute and a half ago that occurred because a team scored a power play goal on the penalty as a result?

I think you're taking this way too far. I'm talking about penalties (or any non-penalized stoppages) that, when missed, directly impact the immediate scoring of a goal. Someone later pointed out intentionally knocking off the net. In that instance you would award the goal, but that goal would negate the penalty since it would be like scoring on a delayed penalty.

The point is not to try to come up with a policy change that "fixes" everything, but rather to implement a common sense policy that allows the on ice officials to have their calls (or non-calls) corrected in cases that are glaringly obvious so they can restore some degree of integrity to the outcome. The league may never get there, but like the NFL they need to acknowledge that there is no "acceptable level of error" that includes these types of mistakes that are easily correctable, and where judgment can be superseded based on irrefutable video evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line - the NHL office needs to acknowledge that their on ice officials are human and, therefore, make mistakes, and implement policies to make sure that the mistakes that are a) easily identifiable; and b) affect the scoring of a goal (allowing or disallowing) are corrected quickly and efficiently.