Post-Game Talk: Hey look, another OTL

[Heaton]

It's a dumb interpretation of the rule, glad it wasn't called. If Z's stick didn't break (that was such a weak tap that Z's stick would've broken on his next shot) then we're not even talking about this.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

No one is arguing that judgement or intent plays a part in making a call. You example of Zetterberg falling is complete nonsense and unrelated to the play from the game. Not sure what you're talking about there.

Dubinksi swung his stick around and broke Zetterberg's stick. That's a penalty. If he swings his stick around and trips Zetterberg, that's a penalty. If he swings his stick around and hits Zetterberg in the face, that's a penalty. Obviously, his intent is to do none of these things, but they're still a penalty.

Anyone trying to argue against this doesn't know what they're taking about.

You can ignore intent and the forcefulness if you like but they are still two key factors in determining if it's a penalty. Breaking a guys stick with a slash is not an automatic minor. It's at the refs discretion.

Looking at that play there's definitely an argument that the intent was to play the puck and it wasn't a particularly forceful slash, hence no call.

Anyone trying to argue against this doesn't understand or is ignoring the rules.

 

[Winger98]

Its certainly true that the first one that broke Z's first stick was worse.

But the NHL needs to sort their game out. If accidental contact on a stick that cannot be penalised breaks that stick, why the hell is their standardised usage of such sticks? More importantly, why is it sometimes a call and sometimes not? I'm happy to accept it wasn't deliberate, and that perhaps it wasn't a call, but then this immediately invalidates about 1/3 of the slashing calls for the last 5 years.

Where is the consistency, and why leave every rule open to such diverse interpretation by keeping guidelines so vague? And don't get me started on what can and can't be challenged.

Even in this game the officiating inconsistency (for both teams) was infuriating. We deffo got away with a couple of late hits and holds, and they got away with 2 blatant deliberate trips and a whole load of deeply un-subtle interference.

The official stance seems to be ' well it evens itself out', without any evidence to back this up.

As far as I know the players pick their sticks, so they must think the positives outweigh the negatives.

As for the refs and consistency, I think they get it right more often than not. The only problem I have is this idea that they don't want to influence the game by calling too many penalties. It does go back to the idea of consistency, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. The idea of refs "managing" the game is so ingrained.

It's a dumb interpretation of the rule, glad it wasn't called. If Z's stick didn't break (that was such a weak tap that Z's stick would've broken on his next shot) then we're not even talking about this.

yeah, I mean, at that point you're going to have thirty slashing penalties every game. It's clearly not a slash. It sucks we got screwed by Z's stick breaking while being breathed on funny, but that's the nature of those sticks.

 

[Claypool]

You can ignore intent and the forcefulness if you like but they are still two key factors in determining if it's a penalty. Breaking a guys stick with a slash is not an automatic minor. It's at the refs discretion.

Looking at that play there's definitely an argument that the intent was to play the puck and it wasn't a particularly forceful slash, hence no call.

Anyone trying to argue against this doesn't understand or is ignoring the rules.

It was forceful enough to break the stick. It's a slashing motion that didn't even play the puck. Again, if he hit Zetterberg in the face with that swing or tripped him, it would be a penalty, too. Why wouldn't it be the same case for this particular play involving the stick?

How many slashing penalties have you seen called where the stick didn't break? I've never seen one. The broken pieces are the smoking gun. It's always been called that way. Even when a stick is knocked out of a player's hand.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

From the rulebook:

Rule 61 – Slashing
61.1 Slashing - Slashing is the act of a player swinging his stick at an
opponent, whether contact is made or not. Non-aggressive stick
contact to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be penalized
as slashing. Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an
opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s
hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play
the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.
61.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee
based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player
who slashes an opponent.

Meh, I think it is borderline.

 

[jkutswings]

No one is arguing that judgement or intent plays a part in making a call. You example of Zetterberg falling is complete nonsense and unrelated to the play from the game. Not sure what you're talking about there.

Dubinksi swung his stick around and broke Zetterberg's stick. That's a penalty. If he swings his stick around and trips Zetterberg, that's a penalty. If he swings his stick around and hits Zetterberg in the face, that's a penalty. Obviously, his intent is to do none of these things, but they're still a penalty.

Anyone trying to argue against this doesn't know what they're taking about.

Are we watching the same clip? He's swiping at the puck, which is completely legal.

 

[njx9]

So you are saying that in general if a better team beats a worse team there is no way that officiating can influence the outcome because the better team winning is just the natural order of things? What happens when the worse team beats the better team due to officiating? Does it then become admissible as a point of discussion?

No, I'm saying that complaining about it as if it's the primary reason for a loss is sort of silly and comes off as petty. I know it's just fans kvetching, in the end.

Worse teams beat better ones remarkably regularly in sport, and particularly in an 82+ game schedule.

Absolutely, but they tend to do it when they play better than the other team, not because of a single missed penalty call. Complaining about the refs in this case feels like missing the forest for one, solitary tree.

That 20 second period in overtime may not have defined the pattern of the whole game, but given the facts we have, YES it WAS the reason we lost, definitively. Anything else is purely speculation. Up to that point, we hadn't lost, after it we had, regardless of whether you think it was a penalty or not.

I disagree. Until Mrazek let through the goal they hadn't lost. Apparently it was an entirely savable shot, regardless of the condition of Z's stick.

And I raised the ' influencing the broader narrative discussion' point, because you were inaccurately arguing a point in a non logical way using different discussions as a justification for doing so, attempting to strengthen arguments related to those discussions, which in the specific context of the point you made, were entirely irrelevant.

I think we disagree on the relevance, more than a bit, here. I think focusing on the slash/non-slash detracts and distracts from the larger point that the team simply didn't play well enough to win (in multiple areas). It may have been a big play, but in my opinion (and in every sport I've ever watched) if you leave every game up to the refs, you're generally going to have a pretty ugly record.

Ps - good use of the word obfuscate...under-utilised in everyday parlance ;-)

Figured I'd give you a reason to call me a hypocrite after complaining about your verbiage. [I mean that in good humor]

 

[Pavels Dog]

You can ignore intent and the forcefulness if you like but they are still two key factors in determining if it's a penalty. Breaking a guys stick with a slash is not an automatic minor. It's at the refs discretion.

Looking at that play there's definitely an argument that the intent was to play the puck and it wasn't a particularly forceful slash, hence no call.

Anyone trying to argue against this doesn't understand or is ignoring the rules.

How often is it a player's intent to actually break another player's stick? How often is it the intent to hit them in the face with their stick, or to shoot the puck over the glass?

Intent doesn't matter. Harder slashes are often not called simply because the stick doesn't break, and weak slashes are called 9 times out of 10 (probably more) if the stick breaks. That's the way the rule is interpreted by the refs, because trying to make a judgement call about the 'intent' or get an accurate assesment of the relative force of the slash in a millisecond is impossible.

All that matters is how the rule is applied, and slashing another player's stick to the point where it breaks is an automatic penalty in the NHL. Defending this call is like defending a missed high-stick because the player's intent wasn't to high-stick the opponent. Occam's razor here; the refs made a mistake, not a complex decision to not call it because they computed a combination of intent and force of slash to reach a conclusion in the span of half a second.

 

[Dotter]

Red Wings should start chopping opponents sticks now that we know it is legal part of the game. They might make the playoffs if the opposition doesn't have sticks to play with.

nu:NHL

 

[Heaton]

Red Wings should start chopping opponents sticks now that we know it is legal part of the game. They might make the playoffs if the opposition doesn't have sticks to play with.

nu:NHL

They chop sticks all game, it's just random when they break. Every team does it.

 

[SirloinUB]

4-2-4 over their last 10 games is not glamorous but it keeps them alive.

For perspective, its a point% of 60 which projects to 98 points over a full season.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It was forceful enough to break the stick. It's a slashing motion that didn't even play the puck. Again, if he hit Zetterberg in the face with that swing or tripped him, it would be a penalty, too. Why wouldn't it be the same case for this particular play involving the stick?

How many slashing penalties have you seen called where the stick didn't break? I've never seen one. The broken pieces are the smoking gun. It's always been called that way. Even when a stick is knocked out of a player's hand.

You've seriously never seen a slashing penalty that didn't involve a broken stick??

And with these sticks you can sometimes sneeze on them and they break. Guys have had sticks practically melt in their hands while on the ice. Or snap like a twig while taking a wrist shot. It's not an automatic penalty just because the stick broke.

If he hit Zetterberg in the face it's a high stick. If he trips him, it's still at the refs discretion whether or not it was accidental while making a play.

I'm not saying it's never a penalty. I'm saying it's not an automatic penalty. It looked like a play on the puck. It didn't look like a particularly vicious slash. And it's hard to tell but it looks like Z's stick doesn't even break in the spot where it was slashed.

The ref decided it wasn't enough to call a slash. This isn't some precedent changing non-call.

 

[BinCookin]

Why is everyone so Salty. This was great news.

We lost moving us up in the draft.
And I have Dubinsky in my pool and he got 3 points.

Everyone wins!!

 

[Flowah]

4-2-4 over their last 10 games is not glamorous but it keeps them alive.

For perspective, its a point% of 60 which projects to 98 points over a full season.

But 60% from here on out doesn't get them in.

They need like 70-75%.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

How often is it a player's intent to actually break another player's stick? How often is it the intent to hit them in the face with their stick, or to shoot the puck over the glass?

Intent doesn't matter. Harder slashes are often not called simply because the stick doesn't break, and weak slashes are called 9 times out of 10 (probably more) if the stick breaks. That's the way the rule is interpreted by the refs, because trying to make a judgement call about the 'intent' or get an accurate assesment of the relative force of the slash in a millisecond is impossible.

All that matters is how the rule is applied, and slashing another player's stick to the point where it breaks is an automatic penalty in the NHL. Defending this call is like defending a missed high-stick because the player's intent wasn't to high-stick the opponent. Occam's razor here; the refs made a mistake, not a complex decision to not call it because they computed a combination of intent and force of slash to reach a conclusion in the span of half a second.

Slashes and delay of game penalties aren't relevant. Those are different infractions with different rules.

With shooting the puck over the glass there is no language about intent. Puck goes over the glass. Automatic penalty. For high sticking there is no language about intent but there is specific language spelling out the instances where it may not be a penalty. When it's a follow through on a shot, and during a faceoff. It even spells out that swinging at a puck is not considered a normal windup and should be called a penalty.

With slashing however, there is very clear language giving the ref discretion. It literally says "in the judgment of the referee." That makes it not automatic. The ref has discretion to decide on the forcefulness of the slash and if it was an attempt to make a play at the puck. You're simply wrong. There's plenty of times where a players stick is knocked out of his hands or broken and the ref doesn't call a penalty.

I agree it's Occam's razor. The ref decided based on the NHL rulebook that the slash didn't constitute a penalty, so he didn't call one. You may disagree with the call (I thought it was borderline), but it's not automatic.

 

[SirloinUB]

But 60% from here on out doesn't get them in.

They need like 70-75%.

60% gets them to 90 which could be enough. The flyers (who hold the final spot) are currently pacing for 89 points. Either way there is next to no room for error.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Why is everyone so Salty. This was great news.

We lost moving us up in the draft.
And I have Dubinsky in my pool and he got 3 points.

Everyone wins!!

I'm a little salty because even though it's probably better in the long term, the Wings aren't a good hockey team and that's a bummer.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

his stick breaks so easily there, one wonders whether he pre cut it to make it break easier

that is not a penalty

 

[GoAwayDanCleary]

Seth Jones is a freak. The play of CBJ's defenseman compared to Detroit's was laughable.

 

[Bench]

60% gets them to 90 which could be enough.

Keep this guy away from Ken Holland.

 

[lomekian]

No, I'm saying that complaining about it as if it's the primary reason for a loss is sort of silly and comes off as petty. I know it's just fans kvetching, in the end.

Absolutely, but they tend to do it when they play better than the other team, not because of a single missed penalty call. Complaining about the refs in this case feels like missing the forest for one, solitary tree.

I disagree. Until Mrazek let through the goal they hadn't lost. Apparently it was an entirely savable shot, regardless of the condition of Z's stick.

I think we disagree on the relevance, more than a bit, here. I think focusing on the slash/non-slash detracts and distracts from the larger point that the team simply didn't play well enough to win (in multiple areas). It may have been a big play, but in my opinion (and in every sport I've ever watched) if you leave every game up to the refs, you're generally going to have a pretty ugly record.

Figured I'd give you a reason to call me a hypocrite after complaining about your verbiage. [I mean that in good humor]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the 30 second passage of play starting from the first slash/break of Z's stick to the goal going in would fundamentally be the primary reason given that the game was tied 2-2 at that point. Whether or not it was a penalty, the first and then second stick break led directly to the 3-on-2, the clear shooting chance and ultimately the goal. I'm willing to accept that the call was borderline and may have been correct (without getting into the larger issue of inconsistent officiating), but if the primary reason for a result is not the immediate precursor to and also including the decisive action, then logic no longer works.

To say that it wasn't the whole reason would be fair from one perspective, but to deny its ultimate significance is a bit like saying that the goals scored are not the primary reasons for a result, which just doesn't make any sense.

Re the forest/tree analogy, if one tree falls on you, does that give equal responsibility to the entire forest?

Re Mrazek letting the goal in, surely that counts as part of the passage of play as I defined it?

Re your disagreement, its fine on the basis on which you are making your point, but that doesn't actually respond to what I said!

I still find it mind boggling that the deciding goal and the immediate build up to it can be dismissed as not being a primary decider of the outcome. Without it the game remains tied. I take the broader point being made, but there is still a fundamental logical fallacy being argued here...

As for Hypocrisy, we're all human, so are all guilty as charged. And I'm British, which makes hypocrisy a fundamental par of my national psyche... ;-)

 

[lomekian]

They chop sticks all game, it's just random when they break. Every team does it.

Yup. And most of the time a broken stick means a penalty, regardless of relative force. But not always. Which is the problem. Because the rule itself is constantly open to interpretation, but poor decisions are hidden behind a pretence of absolutes.

The fact it an identical action, in the same game, with the same officials can often lead to opposing outcomes as far as discipline, mean we have a league where play is defined as much by 'what we can get away with' as any consistent ruling. Personally, I don't have a problem with a rule being based on interpretation, but for all but the most obvious offences, interpretation has little consistency within games or the league, and seems to be dependent on my favourite ******** hockey word 'intangeables'

 

[Red Stanley]

Oh stop it. Suggesting that that single moment was, in essence, what lost the game, sums up most of this thread so far.

The fact that the single moment you refer to led to the winning goal makes it, in essence, the deciding moment in the outcome of the game. What sums up this thread, among others, is how some people constantly bring up the butterfly effect of choice into every discussion. If Holland wasn't so bad, the Wings wouldn't suck so hard and Zetterberg's stick wouldn't break.

P.S. That slash was borderline. Outside of overtime, I believe it gets called almost always. Therein lies the inconsistency of reffing. When it leads to a game-deciding goal, it shines even more light on how the rulebook should be revised with clearer rules that take away most the ridiculous judgement calls officials have to make in the blink of an eye.

 

[aar000n]

Sorry, but the NHL is all about intent. Shoot, they can even waive off a goal if a ref had the intent to blow the whistle before it went in.

Opivy stated it quite well. Whether you're upset by the outcome or not, they're was plenty of circumstance to not consider it a penalty.

What about slashing when a guy tries to lift a stick. But that logic that would never be a penalty because he was trying to play the puck, or offside let it slide because they were trying? How about batting a puck in with your hand? He wasnt trying after all. In the end they have been calling a broken stick slashing for years. How many times have the wings been screwed on that call? The standard is broken stick penalty.