Post-Game Talk: Hey look, another OTL

[opivy]

So as a referee (albeit only at the collegiate level)

That was not a slash, the swing was low, the point of contact was low on the stick and it was intended to break up contact with the puck. It was not downward, it was not overly strong and it had no intent to break the stick. It was a good defensive stick check - the fault, and the problem was that he hit the stick right at the fusion point and Z had pressure on the stick. Cheap new stick, snappy snappy. Saying the call is automatic is silly, usually those happen right near the hands and its downward, and with two hands. This was neither, and was just a good play that had an unfortunate consequence.

 

[aar000n]

So as a referee (albeit only at the collegiate level)

That was not a slash, the swing was low, the point of contact was low on the stick and it was intended to break up contact with the puck. It was not downward, it was not overly strong and it had no intent to break the stick. It was a good defensive stick check - the fault, and the problem was that he hit the stick right at the fusion point and Z had pressure on the stick. Cheap new stick, snappy snappy. Saying the call is automatic is silly, usually those happen right near the hands and its downward, and with two hands. This was neither, and was just a good play that had an unfortunate consequence.

it broke the stick and yes that is silly but that's the standard. Does it matter that he didn't intend to break the stick? Not at all. The only thing that matters is the results. Stick broke penalty.

 

[jkutswings]

it broke the stick and yes that is silly but that's the standard. Does it matter that he didn't intend to break the stick? Not at all. The only thing that matters is the results. Stick broke penalty.

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.

 

[Winger98]

It still has to be deemed a slash for the call to be made. If it's a slash, and the stick breaks, it's called. For it to be a slash it has to be forceful and the ref has to decide that it wasn't an attempt to play the puck.

 

[Vladdy84]

Werenski and Jones are so good.

 

[TatarTangle]

Was at the game. Laziest team in the NHL. Saw Mantha flat out give up two times, the fight was cool though I guess. Nobody wants to move their feet. If they had a goalie they win the game despite being outplayed.

Disgusting that people decided to throw stuff at CBJ and the refs

 

[Mister Ed]

Jensen looks like a bigger version of Ian White - when he was playing great, not the benched version of 2012-13. Mobility and speed, great outlet passes and a goal to boot!

 

[jkutswings]

It still has to be deemed a slash for the call to be made. If it's a slash, and the stick breaks, it's called. For it to be a slash it has to be forceful and the ref has to decide that it wasn't an attempt to play the puck.

Exactly.

"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."

 

[lomekian]

Actually, here's the point I'm making:

It's entirely possible, in a given random game, that the officials botched one or more calls, and it played a significant, even vital role in determining the outcome of the game. The human element is always prone to mistakes.

But when a given team is toward the bottom of the standings after 50+ games, and several fans continue to go to the well of, "the refs hosed us again"...I call shenanigans.

And again I ask, why either/or? As we have seen plenty of times in plenty of sports the two states co-exist quite happily in a complementary fashion. Indeed struggling teams on average get less calls in most sports, due to the fundamental inconsistent interpretation of events by humans.

Why does the fact that we lost to a team better than us mean than a controversial call (or non call) on a fundamentally game deciding moment cannot be seen as significant?

 

[lomekian]

There was 60 minutes of hockey played before overtime and we generated very few quality shots outside of the first six minutes of the game. Because it was an OT loss, however, 9 out of 10 posts will discuss the game winning goal as if it was the only reason we lost and there was absolutely nothing else that could have altered the outcome of the game during those 60 minutes.

I think everyone on here will happily accept that if we had McDavid or Hedman or indeed anyone that would significantly improve our team that it would be significant. Yes, ultimately the relative strengths of the teams impacted on the outcome.

But ultimately, we have to deal with reality and with the two teams on the ice playing as they did, the intervention or lack of it of the on ice officials cannot be dismissed as insignificant. A 4 on 3 in overtime for the wings or a 3 on 2 breakaway for Columbus are likely to represent rather different odds to the potential outcomes of the game.

We've all been watching sports long enough to see how officials can influence games regardless of players performances...2009 SCFs being a case in point...

 

[njx9]

Even if the refs called the "slash", we're only slightly more likely to get a PP goal than we are to give up a shortie.

It's weird how many people want to jump on that one moment in the game, as if it's why the Wings actually lost, but I guess it's the grand tradition of "it's certainly not that my team isn't particularly good, it must've been the refs!"

 

[lomekian]

It still has to be deemed a slash for the call to be made. If it's a slash, and the stick breaks, it's called. For it to be a slash it has to be forceful and the ref has to decide that it wasn't an attempt to play the puck.

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.

 

[lomekian]

Werenski and Jones are so good.

Aren't they just! And a totally complementary pair.

 

[lomekian]

Even if the refs called the "slash", we're only slightly more likely to get a PP goal than we are to give up a shortie.

It's weird how many people want to jump on that one moment in the game, as if it's why the Wings actually lost, but I guess it's the grand tradition of "it's certainly not that my team isn't particularly good, it must've been the refs!"

Again...who is protesting that this team is 'particularly good'? Oh that's right, ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE! Sure we can debate the call, and the division on that issue suggests greater clarity would be good, but to ridicule anyone who thinks it was a significant moment in the game because our team isn't very good is trying to create a fundamental causality where none exists.

As I said before...the two opinions are rather more complementary than mutually exclusive. To imply anything else is either dishonest, or an attempt to influence the broader narrative discussion about this team's strength and direction, or to deliberately antagonise anyone of a differing view.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

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.

Hahahahahahaha. The NHL is about results of plays not intent when it comes to penalties.

About intent? Shea Weber sits a game in the series where he goes Hulk Hogan on Zetterberg against the wall. Z wasn't hurt, so Shea wasn't suspended.

 

[njx9]

Again...who is protesting that this team is 'particularly good'? Oh that's right, ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE! Sure we can debate the call, and the division on that issue suggests greater clarity would be good, but to ridicule anyone who thinks it was a significant moment in the game because our team isn't very good is trying to create a fundamental causality where none exists.

As I said before...the two opinions are rather more complementary than mutually exclusive. To imply anything else is either dishonest, or an attempt to influence the broader narrative discussion about this team's strength and direction, or to deliberately antagonise anyone of a differing view.

Oh stop it. Suggesting that that single moment was, in essence, what lost the game, sums up most of this thread so far. That or pinning the loss on Mrazek, I guess.

If you don't think, on this board, people have been suggesting that the team is 'actually a playoff team if only...' for most of the season, you haven't been paying attention. But please, keep railing about other people pushing a narrative.

And stop mis-using the 'fundamental causality' nonsense - there's no 'causality' being created, no matter how much you want to try use big words to obfuscate and confuse. The team is not very good, they lost to a better team. That play was a few seconds out of an entire game, and suggesting it was the only reason the team lost is dishonest.

And you're right, no one should try to 'influence the broader narrative discussion' by, you know, arguing their own perspective. God forbid we do that on a message board.

 

[jkutswings]

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that it was such a bad call, that after the fact, the league publicly acknowledged that it was a blown call.

So what?

Over the course of a season, any given team will get some dubious calls, both for and against them.

Saying it's a bad call is one thing. Putting yourself in that position to begin with, then saying that bad call was the reason you lost the game, is another.

If you want to avoid the possibility of losing in overtime immediately after a questionable call...play better and win in regulation.

Or learn to live with the fact that bad teams lose in all sorts of ways, and them's the breaks.

 

[steafo]

I don't believe every broken stick should be a penalty. For example, this call. The slash was really, really minor. The stick just so happened to break. Try to find a replay of this, they will show you a few angles. I'm okay with the call. Not okay with a slow, tired Zetterberg thinking he's Crosby there.

I know this comment was way earlier in the thread but this my exact thought. Had the stick not broke there is no way that's a call. It was marginal at best. That wouldn't of broken Z's stick 99/100 times there was no real force behind it. It just seemed to catch it on the perfect spot. The real issue is Zetterberg whining to the ref and not hauling ass to the bench. I know hauling ass for him is a relative term but he didn't look like he was hustling. I'm tired of Z going in to the corners and waiting to carry people on his back. I don't mind it in 5 on 5 play as much because time and space is limited and it actually frees space up when he does it. It simply does not work in OT on a 3 on 3. There is SOOOOO much open ice that you should be avoiding contact at all costs. He was trying to carry the team and he simply cannot do that anymore.

 

[lomekian]

Oh stop it. Suggesting that that single moment was, in essence, what lost the game, sums up most of this thread so far. That or pinning the loss on Mrazek, I guess.

If you don't think, on this board, people have been suggesting that the team is 'actually a playoff team if only...' for most of the season, you haven't been paying attention. But please, keep railing about other people pushing a narrative.

And stop mis-using the 'fundamental causality' nonsense - there's no 'causality' being created, no matter how much you want to try use big words to obfuscate and confuse. The team is not very good, they lost to a better team. That play was a few seconds out of an entire game, and suggesting it was the only reason the team lost is dishonest.

And you're right, no one should try to 'influence the broader narrative discussion' by, you know, arguing their own perspective. God forbid we do that on a message board.

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?

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

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.

As I've been at pains to say, I've no problem accepting that we lost to a better team (We've lots of practice of that this year). But saying that a significant moment, directly related to the game winning goal is irrelevant to the outcome literally makes no sense at all.

To dismiss the significance of individual tipping point moments in any area of human endeavor is to dismiss almost the whole of human history. The devil is ALWAYS in the detail.

I'm being stubborn, and perhaps with wings tinted spectacles, but in saying that the 30 second period of play in question was definitively and absolutely the reason why the team lost is the absolute opposite of dishonest. It is absolutely factual. There were a myriad of other possibilities, but the game winning goal was scored when it was scored. Until it was, both outcomes were entirely possible and were converging in terms of probability.

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.

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

 

[jkutswings]

Hahahahahahaha. The NHL is about results of plays not intent when it comes to penalties.

About intent? Shea Weber sits a game in the series where he goes Hulk Hogan on Zetterberg against the wall. Z wasn't hurt, so Shea wasn't suspended.

I'll quote the rule again (emphasis mine):

"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."

Not only does the ref observe what occurs, but to what degree, and, to his best JUDGMENT...why (which goes to intent).

Otherwise, if all it takes is one stick touching another, and the second one breaks, you could get all sorts of ridiculous scenarios that would qualify for slashing.

Say that Zetterberg and Dubinski are tangled up after a faceoff. Werenski comes in and trips Hank. As he falls, he awkwardly lands on his own stick, and falls at an angle such that he drives his own stick on to Dubinski's stick, breaking it in the process.

No way in the world is Zetterberg getting a slashing call.

Same deal if a player has his back to an opponent without the puck, and swipes at the puck, just as the opponent who had been out of his field of vision enters the play, and the swipe hits the stick and breaks it.

You're perfectly entitled to feel that the ref made a bad call. But saying that intent never plays a role simply isn't true.

 

[lomekian]

PS - I'm more than happy to agree that this team is mediocre, that our coach appears to be barely competent at best and that despite the turgid middle ground that swallows much of the NHL at present, we don't deserve to make the playoffs barring a late season miracle.

And that our GM has made mistakes making the post Lidstrom-era rather bumpier than necessary.

 

[lomekian]

I'll quote the rule again (emphasis mine):

"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."

Not only does the ref observe what occurs, but to what degree, and, to his best JUDGMENT...why (which goes to intent).

You're perfectly entitled to feel they the ref made a bad call. But saying that intent never plays a role simply isn't true.

Intent clearly plays a role in all officiating judgement calls. What doesn't help matters is that sometimes certain calls are presented as being automatic when it is convenient, when they are, as you say, judgement calls.

It also doesn't help that there is such chronic inconsistency when it comes to these judgement calls within games, from game to game and across seasons.

The inconsistency actually makes it harder for officials as well because if the players aren't clear, they are sure as hell going to test the limits.

I suppose the bigger question is, does the NHL as a franchise machine want consistency? I suspect not.

 

[jkutswings]

Intent clearly plays a role in all officiating judgement calls. What doesn't help matters is that sometimes certain calls are presented as being automatic when it is convenient, when they are, as you say, judgement calls.

It also doesn't help that there is such chronic inconsistency when it comes to these judgement calls within games, from game to game and across seasons.

The inconsistency actually makes it harder for officials as well because if the players aren't clear, they are sure as hell going to test the limits.

I suppose the bigger question is, does the NHL as a franchise machine want consistency? I suspect not.

Fair enough, and good points. I just took issue with another poster's notion of intent not applying.

For goodness sake...the very definition of a match penalty is squarely inclusive of intent (as one example).

 

[lomekian]

Fair enough, and good points. I just took issue with another poster's notion of intent not applying.

For goodness sake...the very definition of a match penalty is squarely inclusive of intent (as one example).

Its just a thorny area as intent is a)judged by an external party who can never have 100% certainty of intent and b)applied incredibly inconsistently (see supplimental discipline). I'd say this is an area where NHL officiating has got worse over the last decade. That's not say that there haven't been improvements in other areas.

 

[Claypool]

I'll quote the rule again (emphasis mine):

"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."

Not only does the ref observe what occurs, but to what degree, and, to his best JUDGMENT...why (which goes to intent).

Otherwise, if all it takes is one stick touching another, and the second one breaks, you could get all sorts of ridiculous scenarios that would qualify for slashing.

Say that Zetterberg and Dubinski are tangled up after a faceoff. Werenski comes in and trips Hank. As he falls, he awkwardly lands on his own stick, and falls at an angle such that he drives his own stick on to Dubinski's stick, breaking it in the process.

No way in the world is Zetterberg getting a slashing call.

Same deal if a player has his back to an opponent without the puck, and swipes at the puck, just as the opponent who had been out of his field of vision enters the play, and the swipe hits the stick and breaks it.

You're perfectly entitled to feel they the ref made a bad call. But saying that intent never plays a role simply isn't true.

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.