Officiating: Is the NHL doing it right or is the NBA, or neither/both

[sandysan]

I'd say more when an infraction is missed/let go. If someone breaks the rules, I want them to receive the appropriate punishment; the only way to mould behaviour via penalisation is to consistently and repeatably penalise the offenders as they commit offences. If the occasional weak call is made because the refs are trying to make sure they make the calls they see, then so be it. Better than "letting them play" and having guys chop off each other's fingers.

And to be clear: I don't want more penalties, per se. I want consistently called penalties, which will mean more penalties in the short term, but should lead to better player behaviour in the long term as the players adjust to the strictness of the rules.

You do realize that by advocating " by the book" you are emboldening the fakers and the divers, right? And you are fundamentally changing the way defensive players address opposing forwards riding the crease.

What is the better alternative, having both teams play under the same lax rules or teams that are clearly outplayed but lose because of some tickytack call that was aided by a dive ( phaneuf on kessel?).

No one wants a parade to the penalty box because EVERYTIME a team sets up in the offensive zone the defensive team commits a penalty. Every time.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

No one wants a parade to the penalty box because EVERYTIME a team sets up in the offensive zone the defensive team commits a penalty. Every time.

So smarten up and stop taking penalties. Problem solved. If you can't win by the rule book you don't deserve to win.

 

[sandysan]

So smarten up and stop taking penalties. Problem solved. If you can't win by the rule book you don't deserve to win.

so you want to call crosschecking, roughing and interference everytime a guys sets up shop 5 inches in front of your goalie ? Or you want to allow him to be ablw to do that with impunity ? Thanks but no.

Crosschecks to the back in or near the blue paint shouldn't be called no matter how well it meets the description of the text in your beloved rule book.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

so you want to call crosschecking, roughing and interference everytime a guys sets up shop 5 inches in front of your goalie ? Or you want to allow him to be ablw to do that with impunity ? Thanks but no.

Crosschecks to the back in or near the blue paint shouldn't be called no matter how well it meets the description of the text in your beloved rule book.

In other words you want anarchy on ice. No rules, just an unwatchable free-for-all. Thanks but no.

 

[sandysan]

In other words you want anarchy on ice. No rules, just an unwatchable free-for-all. Thanks but no.

no I want what amounts to about more than a century of actually what happens on the ice to stop being a surprise to people who dont watch games.

Refereeing is subjective, a cross check in the lower back to a guy standing near the paint is not now NOR SHOULD EVER BE a penalty, even if your precious rule book defines it as such.

if you think that the players dont know about the dirty parts of the ice or if you are shocked, shocked I tell you, to find guys getting the business in front of the net, the remedy is clear. watch more games.

the difference between a stick check and a slash is subjective, the line between incidental contact and interference is blurry at best. Call everything all the time would kill the game and if you dont know that you should ( again suprisingly the same remedy)

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

no I want what amounts to about more than a century of actually what happens on the ice to stop being a surprise to people who dont watch games.

Refereeing is subjective, a cross check in the lower back to a guy standing near the paint is not now NOR SHOULD EVER BE a penalty, even if your precious rule book defines it as such.

if you think that the players dont know about the dirty parts of the ice or if you are shocked, shocked I tell you, to find guys getting the business in front of the net, the remedy is clear. watch more games.

the difference between a stick check and a slash is subjective, the line between incidental contact and interference is blurry at best. Call everything all the time would kill the game and if you dont know that you should ( again suprisingly the same remedy)

I'm 49 and have probably watched more hockey than YOU have. Crap like that was garbage hockey in the '50s, it was garbage hockey in the '70s, and it's garbage hockey now. And no amount of you rhapsodizing about rule less goon hockey is going to change that. Cheating should never be rewarded.

 

[sandysan]

I'm 49 and have probably watched more hockey than YOU have. Crap like that was garbage hockey in the '50s, it was garbage hockey in the '70s, and it's garbage hockey now. And no amount of you rhapsodizing about rule less goon hockey is going to change that. Cheating should never be rewarded.

yeah you are 49 (oooooh!!! ) make broad assumptions and claim that every decade is " crap". you want to yell at kids on your lawn next ?

And its STILL doesnt change the fact that refereeing IS subjective. A cross check in front of the net is NOT the same as a cross check on the boards. If you have watched more games than I have and havent come to this realization, I have to ask when you say watch games you mean "ice hockey" games right ?

it has nothing to do with goons or rule less. it has to do with expectations. you run the goalie someone is going to punch you in the face. can you believe that's NOWHERE in the rule book ?????? Oh the horrors ? My eyes dont match the written word !!!!! it causes me such consternation that I have to moan about it incessantly !!!!!

if you are surprised that guys in front of the net are going to get slashed and crosschecked and punched, you might want to watch more games because in the 49 years it looks like nothing has stuck.

so long as both teams play bu the same subjecticve rules, that's about as close as you are going to get to equitable ( which the NBA is decidedly not).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

yeah you are 49 (oooooh!!! ) make broad assumptions and claim that every decade is " crap". you want to yell at kids on your lawn next ?

And its STILL doesnt change the fact that refereeing IS subjective. A cross check in front of the net is NOT the same as a cross check on the boards. If you have watched more games than I have and havent come to this realization, I have to ask when you say watch games you mean "ice hockey" games right ?

it has nothing to do with goons or rule less. it has to do with expectations. you run the goalie someone is going to punch you in the face. can you believe that's NOWHERE in the rule book ?????? Oh the horrors ? My eyes dont match the written word !!!!! it causes me such consternation that I have to moan about it incessantly !!!!!

if you are surprised that guys in front of the net are going to get slashed and crosschecked and punched, you might want to watch more games because in the 49 years it looks like nothing has stuck.

so long as both teams play bu the same subjecticve rules, that's about as close as you are going to get to equitable ( which the NBA is decidedly not).

In other words goon hockey and fighting. No wonder underwater basket weaving gets better ratings in the US. Sorry pal, I watch hockey to see guys like Gretzky and Kurri flying down ice and scoring, NOT to see Schultz "punch people in the face" and Clarke cheapshot people. You can keep that troglodyte crap and put it where it belongs: In history's dustbin.

 

[Kardi]

the Nba refs are a joke.. The amount of traveling that isn't called is unreal. Plus superstar treatment is the worst!

 

[Fugazy]

the Nba refs are a joke.. The amount of traveling that isn't called is unreal. Plus superstar treatment is the worst!

The non traveling calls have gotten so bad in recent years. You have guys now taking 4-5 steps in the lane without any of the three officials making a call.

 

[sandysan]

In other words goon hockey and fighting. No wonder underwater basket weaving gets better ratings in the US. Sorry pal, I watch hockey to see guys like Gretzky and Kurri flying down ice and scoring, NOT to see Schultz "punch people in the face" and Clarke cheapshot people. You can keep that troglodyte crap and put it where it belongs: In history's dustbin.

A defenseman who crosschecks a guy riding the blue is all of a sudden a goon? Since freaking when?

And for someone to lament the subjectivity of refereeing and invoke fighting is laughable. When was the last time two guys dropped the gloves and didn't get a 5 min major? But I guess any screed against physical play is good even if its based on lies.

Perhaps you might get your wish and ice dancing might incorporate a puck and a stick. Just think of all of the dirtiest of danglez! Ooooooh look at that guy fly down the outside and with such rhythym!!!!

 

[SpookyTsuki]

The non traveling calls have gotten so bad in recent years. You have guys now taking 4-5 steps in the lane without any of the three officials making a call.

Traveling is a dumb rule the way it is written. But taking 4-5 steps before dribbling is stupid

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Travelling and double dribbling are called though. Sure they are relaxed like you said, but not to the extent that interference is relaxed in the NHL. And at the end of the day, does it really tangibly take away from the entertainment value if players carry the ball a bit when they dribble? The fans know the difference, as evidenced in the last Cavs game where the fans called for a travel on LeBron, but upon replay the ball was deflected so it was a good non-call. But at least the fans noticed and called for it (honest mistake by the fans, as they couldn’t see the deflection).

But the stars get the calls in the NBA because they are ones who are initiating the plays, so they are earning the calls. But yeah, the 50-50 calls do go to the stars. But is that a bad thing? There is a fine line between calls. A quick judgment call needs to be made, and if the judgment tends to err on the side of the superstar, so be it. They are the ones the fans pay to see. They are the ones earning it with their skills.

That’s what the NHL doesn’t seem to get. Instead we get the stars of old making comments like this: http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hoc...on-dirty-play-theyre-seeing-in-these-playoffs

I’m not sure if the owners of the NHL want it this way, but the NBA owners should be happy with their product. It would be interesting to see what the NHL owners think.

Good post. Hey, I am with you. I believe OVERALL the NBA has it right, moreso than the NHL. I believe there is a middle ground somewhere that can be found, though, where superstars can still shine in the NHL playoffs at an even greater level, and superstars don't get EVERY break in the NBA like they seemingly do now.


Great link, too. Coffey is bang on.

 

[Cawz]

What is the better alternative, having both teams play under the same lax rules or teams that are clearly outplayed but lose because of some tickytack call that was aided by a dive ( phaneuf on kessel?).

Option B please. Diving isnt nearly as big as a problem as the interference is. But how about an option where a team clearly outplayed just loses?

the Nba refs are a joke.. The amount of traveling that isn't called is unreal. Plus superstar treatment is the worst!

the Nhl refs are a joke.. The amount of interference that isn't called is unreal. Plus superstar treatment is the worst!

Good post. Hey, I am with you. I believe OVERALL the NBA has it right, moreso than the NHL. I believe there is a middle ground somewhere that can be found, though, where superstars can still shine in the NHL playoffs at an even greater level, and superstars don't get EVERY break in the NBA like they seemingly do now.


Great link, too. Coffey is bang on.

Yeah, I agree a middle ground would be nice, but the NBA is a lot closer to the ideal than the NHL is. No wonder we seem to see an endless stream of people complaining about the way the game is called now (for exmaple, the link from Coffey).

so long as both teams play bu the same subjecticve rules, that's about as close as you are going to get to equitable

So if both teams played by the same subjective rules similar to 05/06, you'd be ok with that?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

The middle ground is increasing scrutiny on the defensive team in their own zone while continuing to call the NZ as is.

That, and pairing any rules to increase game speed with targeting rules that limit the direction of any upward force around the head while delivering a check, ending the awful "if my tip toe is on the ice and my shoulder just barely grazes your chin it's legal sometimes" grey area.

 

[Cawz]

The middle ground is increasing scrutiny on the defensive team in their own zone while continuing to call the NZ as is.

That, and pairing any rules to increase game speed with targeting rules that limit the direction of any upward force around the head while delivering a check, ending the awful "if my tip toe is on the ice and my shoulder just barely grazes your chin it's legal sometimes" grey area.

I'd prefer the opposite of your first point. Have zero tolerance for interference in the NZ, allow the status quo around the nets. Would allow for more exciting o-zone entries.

You gotta be able to rough guys up if they are around your net, but theres no reason to allow interference in the NZ. That clogs the game up.

I agree with your 2nd point. NFL has gotten strict their shots on the QB and WRers, and the fans are still there. NBA has gotten strict on their flagrant foul calls, and fans are still there. Why does the NHL feel it has to slow the game down to protect its stars?

 

[Grandrift145]

NBA officiating is better because it rewards skill

 

[Five Alarm Fire]

The NBA caters to their stars too much.

The NHL doesn't protect their stars enough.

 

[jw2]

So smarten up and stop taking penalties. Problem solved. If you can't win by the rule book you don't deserve to win.

the best teams have "smartened up" to use the rules to their advantage. Nashville and Penguins are great with picks and interfering with guys to open up space for their offensive players. Ottawa enabled and ensured Karlsson was getting space to carry the puck and make plays. Anaheim was a gritty team and went hard to the net.

This is the "obstruction" that led to offensively skilled guys getting space in the 80s and early 90s. Not goons. And the top guys weren't hindered because they "smartened up".

 

[Ducks in a row]

I take it you dont watch much NBA.

Nothing is totally about the reffing. Curry isnt shooting lights out becasue of the reffing. LeBron isnt dominating becasue of reffing.

And the NHL makes differnt calls for differnt players. Just in the opposite way. If LeBron drives the play, he gets fouled quite often becasue defenders have issues stopping him legally. When someone like McDavid drives the play, the refs ignore many infractions against him because, well, they called a penalty on the previous play so refs will wait for a few more infractions before calling another one.

You may see it as a problem, but thats just your perception. Realitys perception is strong attendance (a record set this year for the 3rd year in a row) and strong tv ratings. So no-one else seems to have a problem. Just some hockey fans, which is typical.

Basketball was my favorite sport at one point but things changed after I got older and seen how things have been. NBA has a reffing problem. They favor stars and the home teams too much with their calls and non calls. We know how there was a rigging problem before and I do believe it still exists.

NHL does have a reffing problem as well not saying it doesn't but it isn't as bad as the NBA and with how fast things happen in the NHL it becomes so much easier to miss things.

Everyone has a perception of things but with the NBA things can't be explained without seeing it as a reffing thing. When the playoffs start you can look at seeds from each conference and say one of the top 3 seeds from both the east and west will make it to the finals and be right at such a crazy high rate. No way should home teams have won so much like we have seen before in the NBA. No way should upsets in the NBA be so rare compared to other sports. The reason why things have been like they have been is obvious and that is reffing helps it be that way. My perception isn't what is wrong when it comes to the NBA.

 

[ForumNamePending]

NBA officiating is better because it rewards skill

Paragraph after paragraph could be written about this topic, but ultimately this is probably where I land as well. Ideally reffing would "reward" no one, but if anyone is going to benefit I rather it be first line talent instead of 4th line talent or someone trying to "make something happen" instead of someone trying to prevent "something from happening".

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I'd prefer the opposite of your first point. Have zero tolerance for interference in the NZ, allow the status quo around the nets. Would allow for more exciting o-zone entries.

You gotta be able to rough guys up if they are around your net, but theres no reason to allow interference in the NZ. That clogs the game up.

I agree with your 2nd point. NFL has gotten strict their shots on the QB and WRers, and the fans are still there. NBA has gotten strict on their flagrant foul calls, and fans are still there. Why does the NHL feel it has to slow the game down to protect its stars?

I was envisioning that to apply more to protecting puck carriers from stickwork and freeing up the slot vs calling every third cross check in front of the net.

While I see your point, I think freeing up the neutral zone just means more violent collisions for defensemen. Tiered officiating in either direction would be a big improvement for the league though.

 

[sandysan]

So if both teams played by the same subjective rules similar to 05/06, you'd be ok with that?

If it wasn't clear, the answer is yes. Just wondering, were those goonish defenseman not crosschecking guys standing near the crease in 05/06 ? Were guys dropping the gloves without getting called then either ? no ? so your premise was faulty from the jump ?

If you want to focus on interference, that's ok. Still doesn't change the fact that even in the " by the book" nostalgia days, wasn't 100% by the book. Reffing is subjective, and a crosscheck near the blue isnt the same a crosscheck near the circles no matter what your precious rule book says. you know who can tell the difference ? 100% of the people who play or have watched more than a weeks worth of games.

which was and still is my point. That and the emboldening of the fakers.

 

[Cawz]

If it wasn't clear, the answer is yes. Just wondering, were those goonish defenseman not crosschecking guys standing near the crease in 05/06 ? Were guys dropping the gloves without getting called then either ? no ? so your premise was faulty from the jump ?

If you want to focus on interference, that's ok. Still doesn't change the fact that even in the " by the book" nostalgia days, wasn't 100% by the book. Reffing is subjective, and a crosscheck near the blue isnt the same a crosscheck near the circles no matter what your precious rule book says. you know who can tell the difference ? 100% of the people who play or have watched more than a weeks worth of games.

which was and still is my point. That and the emboldening of the fakers.

My premise?

All I want is the interference called more like it was in 05/06. I dotn care about the rest of the by the book calls. Nothing will ever be 100% for anything.

Basketball was my favorite sport at one point but things changed after I got older and seen how things have been. NBA has a reffing problem. They favor stars and the home teams too much with their calls and non calls. We know how there was a rigging problem before and I do believe it still exists.

NHL does have a reffing problem as well not saying it doesn't but it isn't as bad as the NBA and with how fast things happen in the NHL it becomes so much easier to miss things.

Everyone has a perception of things but with the NBA things can't be explained without seeing it as a reffing thing. When the playoffs start you can look at seeds from each conference and say one of the top 3 seeds from both the east and west will make it to the finals and be right at such a crazy high rate. No way should home teams have won so much like we have seen before in the NBA. No way should upsets in the NBA be so rare compared to other sports. The reason why things have been like they have been is obvious and that is reffing helps it be that way. My perception isn't what is wrong when it comes to the NBA.

One of the top seeds will make the Finals becasue they are the best teams - hence the seeding. Why do you see it as a problem? Thats a big reason why the NBA is so much more popular than the NHL. A star player or a strong team will play well in the regular season and go far in the playoffs - hence getting more exposure. The NHL is more regional becasue underdog teams can have immediate flukey success in the playoffs, but it doesnt make it more globably popular since casual fans like familiarity.

And no-one sees reffing as a big problem in the NBA, so of course its your perception. If others see it as a problem, why is the NBA breaking attendence records and continueing to have strong tv and streaming numbers? Of course its not perfect but it never will be in any sport.

I assume you dont watch a lot of NBA now since youre not a fan anymore, so I can see how your opinions would be incorrect.

 

[Cawz]

Paragraph after paragraph could be written about this topic, but ultimately this is probably where I land as well. Ideally reffing would "reward" no one, but if anyone is going to benefit I rather it be first line talent instead of 4th line talent or someone trying to "make something happen" instead of someone trying to prevent "something from happening".

Exactly. 100%.

Most reffing exists in the grey area anyways, so “rewarding†either party is within the interpretation of the rules.