How do Professional Referees still keep falling plays like this (Pietrangelo embellishment)...and why cant all penalties be challenged?

[wgknestrick]

I have never understood this stupid stance by the NHL. Either it IS a penalty, or it IS embellishing. It cannot be both, and coaches should be able to challenge it to have it reviewed.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Very grey. He didn't put his glove to his face so you could argue just the cross check made him react like that. Tough one for a ref to give an embellishment call.

 

[LuLover96]

This year especially has gotten much much worse when it comes to egregious reffing errors that could've been fixed by review. Off the top of my head for my team only, there's:

- this
- Manson boarding against JT Miller
- Ian Cole major penalty overturned and given to Myers

and many more instances for every team.

However, I agree that opening this can of worms is a poor decision. Look at what goalie interference has turned into; you cannot tell what is and what isn't GI and teams are being punished because the rules are so arbitrary. Or, you have to wait for 10 minutes because the refs can't tell if the puck is a millimeter offside. We can't have this in meaningful games.

The problem is referee mistakes should be a part of the game. It keeps the game human, and an overdependence on "getting every call right" is ruining the flow of the game. Unfortunately the refs are so undeniably poor right now that it's no longer a minor mistake here and there - it's multiple game-changing errors per game. Here's what I would do:

(1) Annual well-funded NHL sanctioned referee camps for budding and current AHL/NHL refs to go over real world scenarios to better prepare them for games
(2) More youth outreach to promote refereeing, and increased support to leagues that adequately support referee abuse. This is the biggest reason nobody wants to ref, hockey parents are ruthless.
(3) Eye in the sky official (like VAR) to communicate with refs and let them know if something important has been missed. They won't make calls but they can say "Pietrangelo is diving, watch for it" or "Joshua is slashing guys behind the play."
(4) Remove the idea that penalties should be relatively even over the course of a game. Game management to avoid tempers blowing over is okay, but "I wanted to get a $$$$in' penalty against Nashville..." is absolute bs, and a mindset shared by all officials. Same with trying to create parity by calling multiple penalties against a team that's up by multiple goals. A penalty is a penalty, call it if it happens or let it go if you want to let them play, but be consistent for both teams
(5) Once officiating has improved, abolish video review entirely and bring back the human error.
(6) Transparency from the league. Either referees turn their mics on during a scrum, or give us an interview postgame to explain the rationale behind certain calls. No media involved, just a firsthand recount of what was seen, what the rule was, and why they came to that determination.

 

[SEALBound]

Decent question but bad example

 

[LuLover96]

I have never understood this stupid stance by the NHL. Either it IS a penalty, or it IS embellishing. It cannot be both, and coaches should be able to challenge it to have it reviewed.

Not true.

Player A breaks his stick slashing Player B's stick. Player B immediately drops his stick and grabs his hand, embellishing to ensure a call.

Player A cross checks player B in the chest. Player B grabs his face and lies on the ice.

Player A boards Player B. Player B jumps into the boards to sell it (Taylor Hall with the Devils)

 

[Dr Robot]

Naturally flinching away from objects coming at your face is pretty normal for most humans right? I know refs aren’t perfect but if a stick comes within inches of a persons face and you have to zoom in to see if it actually connects then just call the penalty. Don’t be a dummy, don’t put your stick that high for the ref to even debate it.

 

[BiolaRunner]

Looks like more of a flinch

 

[wgknestrick]

You cannot embellish while a legit penalty is being committed against you where the scale of your reaction requires the official to nullify the original penalty.

Its like you cried out in too much pain after you got shot, so we aren't going to arrest the guy for attempted murder.....or you bled too much after getting stabbed. It makes zero sense and puts the refs as judging what is an appropriate reaction. They don't know how much something hurts. This is a problem that doesn't need solved. If anyone swings something around your face, you are going to whip your head back to avoid it.

If it is truly embellishment, then there is no original penalty. It was staged.

 

[Woodrow]

Or you could try not cross checking the opposition if you don't want a penalty.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Canucks must truly be back if their media is spending an intermission segment crying for reviews of a mediocre non-call

 

[tarheelhockey]

On top of all the other things said here, always remember the ref is not looking at the TV angle. Most likely the ref who called this was along the boards on one side of this play. He basically has a 2-dimensional view of the stick going vertical at head level, and then the player flinches back from it. That is really not easy to distinguish from actual contact.

Zadorov decided to cross-check a guy in the chest and then swing his stick up at face level. Maybe play the game under control and his luck gets better?

 

[Three On Zero]

The Canucks must truly be back if their media is spending an intermission segment crying for reviews of a mediocre non-call

It’s not just Canucks media that does this.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It’s not just Canucks media that does this.

Okay sorry, their media is spending an intermission segment crying for reviews of a mediocre non-call AND it's brought here as a premise for the thesis that a rule needs to be changed

 

[Neil Racki]

Okay sorry, their media is spending an intermission segment crying for reviews of a mediocre non-call AND it's brought here as a premise for the thesis that a rule needs to be changed

Its the Jack Edwards echo chamber effect.

Local sports fans see and hear their local "professional sports person" giving these biased views as objective ... and then it snowballs from one mouth to the next mouth.

 

[Oleksiak]

Because the NHL refuses to hold known problem officials like Sutherland accountable. There seems to be no punishment for openly fixing games.

 

[Mattb124]

Very grey. He didn't put his glove to his face so you could argue just the cross check made him react like that. Tough one for a ref to give an embellishment call.

That is my thought, moving the head back is a natural reaction to a stick coming in high. Embellishment would have been if he put his hand to his face and acted like contact had been made.

 

[snag]

So what, now we want the refs to discern between embellishment and flinching?

Yeah....like there won't be any bitching and whining about that.

How's about they just implement a publicly viewable review/rating system on refs. We have all sorts of stats on the players and every one of their metrics. Players and coaches have been fined how many times because of the shit refs cause. Why should they get to escape scrutiny beyond just perception?

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

Feel like guys should use the honor system like was it OV? Who threw his head back and then said, naw that didn't hit me and the penalty was called off.

 

[Super Cake]

When it comes to slow motion, you can make anything look bad.

How about play it in real time and see how bad it actually looks.

And i say no to reviewing penalties. There are enough coaches challenges already. Don't need to add another stoppage to the game while the refs gather around and watch a replay on a ipad to see if someones stick actually made contact with the face.

And you say how do professional referees keep on falling for this? Well it is the same reason why linesman sometimes miss offsides. Hockey is an extremely fast game and referees are only human.

 

[Zerotonine]

That's just Vegas getting ready for playoffs

 

[snag]

I want the refs who call the penalties to be the ones who announce the outcome. “Upon further review, I am blind and that stick didn’t touch his head, we have no penalty on the play”

Exactly. Everyone saw you f*** up.....so own it.

 

[crowi]

I don't want to watch the f***ing NBA where the last 40 seconds takes 10 minutes and 3 commercial breaks.
If not clear what I meant, you change the rules, then that's where we go. More challenges, more ads, even worse refs.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not seeing an embellishment penalty here, and anyone who has played at a decent level knows, when a stick comes close to your face, you move your head back naturally, there is no snap back in this case.

Looks fine to me, other than wasn’t a high stick.
Competition committee then the PA, will review the GM’s decision to review highsticks, as stated at last month, then approve or disapprove the review going forward for next year.
Reviews included whose stick was it, in case of teammates, I think general high sticks was included, but don’t recall for sure.
Not a fan of keep adding reviewable plays, there is enough now, but fine if they approve this one.

 

[LuLover96]

I don't want to watch the f***ing NBA where the last 40 seconds takes 10 minutes and 3 commercial breaks.
If not clear what I meant, you change the rules, then that's where we go. More challenges, more ads, even worse refs.

Instructions unclear, adding more gambling ads - NHL

 

[joestevens29]

I want the refs who call the penalties to be the ones who announce the outcome. “Upon further review, I am blind and that stick didn’t touch his head, we have no penalty on the play”

That probably happens when players stop acting like they were nowhere near the infraction and come out on the mics and say "yep, I cross checked that guy as hard as I could"