Questions about ambiguous officiating, seemingly conflicting rules.....

[Rod Farva]

....and other hockey stuff.

1. Not sure why (other than it's always been done that way) the officials seem to feel they have to honor the "even up" on penalties. If it's a penalty it's a penalty, if you're gonna call it call it, if not then don't but at least b consistent. Said in the other thread teams have enough work to do preparing for an opponent. They shouldn't have to prepare for the various capriciousness and whims of each officiating crew as well.

2. If you're not allowed to touch, hit or otherwise impede a player who doesn't have the puck why are you able to lift his stick?

3. If shoot outs are good enough for the regular season why are they deemed unfit for the play offs? Single, double and triple OT games really take a toll on both teams in a series resulting in a less than optimal following game. Most fans I know love shootouts so I don't think the fans are the reason. And I'm fairly certain the players don't relish the thought of 120 minute games.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lmob0621]

The thing I absolutely hate about the NHL is how the refs do everything they can to try and even up penalties in the playoffs... it is why the strategies of teams like the Devils in the past and the Bruins last year where they obstruct and interfere all game long knowing that they will only be called for so many before the refs swallow the whistle to keep penalties as close to even as possible... It is one of the reasons Mario Lemieux retired in 1997. He was tired of the double standard.

 

[Vader]

NHL refs are some of the worst in pro sports. I almost stopped watching it a few years back when they let the pens get mauled in the playoffs.

 

[SteelerFan448]

After the Pens had three PPs in a row, the announcers commented that the Blue Jackets would surely be on the PP next. That is a major problem with officiating IMO.

No really comment on the second issue and I love OT playoff hockey. Way more meaning in those games and they deserve to be played in a normal setting.

 

[Confluence]

Shootouts are for soccer. "Let's play one game for a long time, like 60 minutes. If we can't tell who wins, then let's play a different game, largely unrelated to the previous game, and let that make the decision because we are so mentally addled that we can't fathom that the two teams were even." If an NBA game is tied at the end, they should decide it based on hook shots from half court. What a joke.

Shootouts have no place in hockey, except to provide un-needed excitement for bandwagon, fantasy fans who don't understand the game.
This is the NHL's equivalent of increasing offence, for no fundamental reason. And extra advertising. This is the Americanization/globalization of a game that didn't and doesn't need it. Like the flaming blue puck, just far more insidious.

Nothing wrong with a tie. The last couple minutes are the same as overtime.

Much as I despise ******* Goodell, I have despised that little damn Napoleon for much longer. **** Bettman.

 

[Djfan]

Confluence nailed it. The shoot out gives the advantage to the team with the superstars over a good team. I really don't like them at all.

 

[hamster]

I want to know how Lucic can practically chop an opponents balls off, and not get a suspension. No tough penalty, guys are going to keep doing it.

 

[Rod Farva]

After the Pens had three PPs in a row, the announcers commented that the Blue Jackets would surely be on the PP next. That is a major problem with officiating IMO.

No really comment on the second issue and I love OT playoff hockey. Way more meaning in those games and they deserve to be played in a normal setting.

Yeah....I'll never get used to, understand or appreciate that mentality. While it does occur in football it's nowhere near as often or seemingly on purpose as it is in the NHL. Stupid, stupid, stupid and the entire integrity of the game is affected by it.

Shootouts are for soccer. "Let's play one game for a long time, like 60 minutes. If we can't tell who wins, then let's play a different game, largely unrelated to the previous game, and let that make the decision because we are so mentally addled that we can't fathom that the two teams were even." If an NBA game is tied at the end, they should decide it based on hook shots from half court. What a joke.

Shootouts have no place in hockey, except to provide un-needed excitement for bandwagon, fantasy fans who don't understand the game.
This is the NHL's equivalent of increasing offence, for no fundamental reason. And extra advertising. This is the Americanization/globalization of a game that didn't and doesn't need it. Like the flaming blue puck, just far more insidious.

Nothing wrong with a tie. The last couple minutes are the same as overtime.

Much as I despise ******* Goodell, I have despised that little damn Napoleon for much longer. **** Bettman.

OUCH! Okay, man sorry I ripped that scab off. Your points are valid.....



No opinions from anyone on lifting the stick? It could conceivably be interference, right?


Another one occurred to me.......guys leaving their lane in the D zone to get in front of a rushing player......seems like they let that one go more than they used to, or at least allow guy more movement.


And this one has nothing to do with rules and may in fact just be faulty memory but it seems to me teams don't try to set up plays from behind the net when in their O zone anymore.....seem like an accurate observation to you guys? Just wondering why that might be....?

 

[Confluence]

Yeah....I'll never get used to, understand or appreciate that mentality. While it does occur in football it's nowhere near as often or seemingly on purpose as it is in the NHL. Stupid, stupid, stupid and the entire integrity of the game is affected by it.



OUCH! Okay, man sorry I ripped that scab off. Your points are valid.....
Thanks


No opinions from anyone on lifting the stick? It could conceivably be interference, right?
If the man has the puck, no. If he doesn't have the puck, not sure what is being interfered with if the player can move unfettered. I guess it is a minor interference, but calling this would slow the game immeasurably...


Another one occurred to me.......guys leaving their lane in the D zone to get in front of a rushing player......seems like they let that one go more than they used to, or at least allow guy more movement.
Nothing wrong with stepping in front of someone with a puck


And this one has nothing to do with rules and may in fact just be faulty memory but it seems to me teams don't try to set up plays from behind the net when in their O zone anymore.....seem like an accurate observation to you guys? Just wondering why that might be....?
Since Gretzky retired, the office behind the net is underused...

...................

 

[black and gold apex]

How about the call on Kunitz game four BS all the way .

 

[Rod Farva]

No opinions from anyone on lifting the stick? It could conceivably be interference, right?

If the man has the puck, no. If he doesn't have the puck, not sure what is being interfered with if the player can move unfettered. I guess it is a minor interference, but calling this would slow the game immeasurably...

Agree....bad description by me. Meant a guy w/o the puck.....and agree with not changing it and your reasons. This is one distinction the NHL gets right.


Another one occurred to me.......guys leaving their lane in the D zone to get in front of a rushing player......seems like they let that one go more than they used to, or at least allow guy more movement.

Nothing wrong with stepping in front of someone with a puck

RightAgain an incomplete description on my part....meant after a guy had already dumped the puck in deep.


And this one has nothing to do with rules and may in fact just be faulty memory but it seems to me teams don't try to set up plays from behind the net when in their O zone anymore.....seem like an accurate observation to you guys? Just wondering why that might be....?

Since Gretzky retired, the office behind the net is underused...

Think so too....just wondered why.

Just trying to get some discussions going somewhere....GG,GD and FO a little slow lately. Thanks

 

[Confluence]

Think so too....just wondered why.

Just trying to get some discussions going somewhere....GG,GD and FO a little slow lately. Thanks

How about a "I told you MAF sucked" thread?

 

[khruuton]

I want to know how Lucic can practically chop an opponents balls off, and not get a suspension. No tough penalty, guys are going to keep doing it.

Dang good question! How is he allowed to play without a suspension, especially since he's done this twice this year?

Incredible stuff at times. Major double standard.

 

[khruuton]

How about the call on Kunitz game four BS all the way .

Agreeing with this too. HOW was that a penalty?

 

[Rod Farva]

Dang good question! How is he allowed to play without a suspension, especially since he's done this twice this year?

Incredible stuff at times. Major double standard.

Matt Cooke got 7 games for a knee.

 

[F83]

nba refs are just feeding the Brooklyn nets calls vs the raptors, half *** charges and when a raptor drives and gets hacked nothing bc kg did and he has 2 rings. I really hope we take this series and brooklyn fans on thier best night or day cant create the atmosphere raptor fans do every game, Brooklyn has to hand out glow sticks to distract ft shooters the ACC is Jurassic park from start to finish.

 

[Rod Farva]

No one cares about the NBA.

Another hockey question / item for discussion.

When a team pulls their goalie they're effectively putting themselves on a PP, albeit sacrificing the goalie, but that's voluntary.....so why can't the opponent ice the puck?

 

[Vader]

No one cares about the NBA.

Another hockey question / item for discussion.

When a team pulls their goalie they're effectively putting themselves on a PP, albeit sacrificing the goalie, but that's voluntary.....so why can't the opponent ice the puck?

Because both teams have the same number of players on the ice.

 

[Rod Farva]

I get that...but only one team has made the conscious decision to sac, their goalie for an extra player....they can play 6 forwards if they choose.....just seems like the team that still has the goalie in oughtta be able to ice the puck. I'm sure there's a good reason for why they can't, again just trying to make conversation.

 

[Confluence]

I get that...but only one team has made the conscious decision to sac, their goalie for an extra player....they can play 6 forwards if they choose.....just seems like the team that still has the goalie in oughtta be able to ice the puck. I'm sure there's a good reason for why they can't, again just trying to make conversation.

There is no rule that says you have to play with a goalie. Just that it is a good idea to do so. And the limit is one goalie on ice at a time. But there is SFA stopping a coach from pulling the goalie whenever the hell he wants; each team still has 6 players on the ice, so it is not a power play.

My 8 year old has played the goal position, with players equipment, more than a few times as his team has had "goalie head problems" a la MAF. The player can play wherever they want to, but cannot cover the puck in the crease like a goaltender or it is supposed to be a penalty shot. So it is quite possible for a team to play with 6 skaters, and have one of them assume the goalie "position" in the crease area when necessary. I've actually thought that this would be a great strategy for kids games where shots are few and many go in, but think that most opponents and parents would feel it a "dick" move to use the extra skater instead of a goalie who does almost nothing the whole game.

 

[Rod Farva]

Good points all. My mind wanders a lot between games.....admittedly jumped on the hockey band wagon in the early 90's but have been deeply hooked since. This is the one place where I have exposure to other actual fans and can pick brains.

 

[F83]

My god the refs handed the nets the game so many bullshit charging calls, bias non calls for garnett, i hope lbj @ co. Eat the nets.

 

[khruuton]

All great questions and points. I can't stand how the NHL eats it's own. Constantly changing how the game is called regular season then the playoffs. Bettman has ruined this game IMO, although the financial statements will say otherwise. However, I for one, can't stand the "americanization" of the game and the tradition removed from it's fabric.

For example:

The Prince of Wales Conference
The Campbell Conference

Put the names back into the game because it's important to the history and legacy of hockey.

The Patrick Division now is the Metropolitan Division

Talk about sissifying the game. You knew what you were getting in the Smythe, the Adams, the Norris and the Patrick Divisions. The Metropolitan is a really bad drink name. Why apply it to the NHL?

End the shootouts. Just do the 5 minute OT and if a team ties, it's one point each. Absolutely get rid of the one point for an OT Loss. Gone. Goodbye. It's stupid. You earn your points through a win or a tie ONLY. Not a tie then a loss in the same contest. Get rid of this scoring system.

Call the penalties the same. All year round. Hooking, boarding, slashing, tripping, obstruction, embellishment, interference...whatever. Keep it the same. And if a player embellishes a call you can't apply a penalty to the other team still. It's either the penalty was embellished or it was a true penalty. Not both.

I want the traditions put back in hockey and I want Bettman, and Shanahan (player enforcement my butt) to go. You guys are right. How wasn't Lucic suspended for spearing the groins of those players? Incredible the double standard that the NHL has. They're mostly interested in large market teams it seems. If the small market teams can get through their gauntlet of bogusness then fine. And heaven forbid if a Canadian team actually make the finals. That will take a miracle. Like it's taking this year because the Bruins played entitlement hockey and Montreal popped them. Good for Montreal. (Mostly because I won a bet at work that the Canadians would win in 5. Yes, I said 5.) Even though it was 7 they still won.

Okay, done rambling for now....

 

[JupiterBnG]

End the shootouts. Just do the 5 minute OT and if a team ties, it's one point each. Absolutely get rid of the one point for an OT Loss. Gone. Goodbye. It's stupid. You earn your points through a win or a tie ONLY. Not a tie then a loss in the same contest. Get rid of this scoring system.

I don't see why they don't just have sudden death until someone wins. If the game ending in a tie is so abhorrent, then play until someone wins. I understand the concerns about players being tired, or more prone to injury.... WORK HARDER TO WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION TIME.

Call the penalties the same. All year round. Hooking, boarding, slashing, tripping, obstruction, embellishment, interference...whatever. Keep it the same. And if a player embellishes a call you can't apply a penalty to the other team still. It's either the penalty was embellished or it was a true penalty. Not both.

Agree totally. And end the practice of "evening up" penalty calls. If one team commits lots of penalties and the other doesn't, don't penalize the other team just to "make it even." Each penalty is a punishment and a deterrent to that individual player. Overall number of penalties in a game should be an indicator to the organization as a whole that they are undisciplined. Maybe some teams commit lots of penalties and still win, and that's their philosophy, and I'm OK with that. But there shouldn't be this sense with the officials of, "the last three penalties went against Team A, so I should look for any ticky-tack, questionable thing I can find so I can blow the whistle on Team B."

 

[Lmob0621]

Agree totally. And end the practice of "evening up" penalty calls. If one team commits lots of penalties and the other doesn't, don't penalize the other team just to "make it even." Each penalty is a punishment and a deterrent to that individual player. Overall number of penalties in a game should be an indicator to the organization as a whole that they are undisciplined. Maybe some teams commit lots of penalties and still win, and that's their philosophy, and I'm OK with that. But there shouldn't be this sense with the officials of, "the last three penalties went against Team A, so I should look for any ticky-tack, questionable thing I can find so I can blow the whistle on Team B."

Didn't you watch the Rangers series??? They sure didn't even up the penalty calls in that series.