Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
I've said it in other threads, but I do miss when bad teams were bad. There was something special about the Blackhawks finally entering the realm of 'good team' and Cinderella stories actually felt like a team overcoming adversity. I don't know how you ever get back to it, and it's likely 'grass is greener' but never-the-less I don't think I like this 'anyone can win!' 2019 playoffs better than the playoffs I remember.
However, if the teams are going to be entering the arena this even by design - and we're comparing the wills of the gathered pawns in a best-of-7... the game has to function properly.
They use 2019 technology to build parity in communication and research... so the game isn't exactly 'classic' and untouched anymore. Which is the only reason I can assume for the NHL to roll out the ineffective and heavily criticized "2 humans standing in the middle of the action" that was appropriate in 1920. This game needs to be officiated well, and we've seen success in other sports. It's possible, you just need people doing good jobs and to actually invest in your on-ice product. I'm floored by how inconsistent reffing, reviews, and suspensions are and yet I see a large consensus from fans on the right call quite often - and these are biased, likely intoxicated un-trained refs demonstrating that it's not that damn hard. Whether by influence or gross incompetence, the decision maker frequently chooses the wrong option. Is it the rulebook? Is it poor management? Are they that dumb? There is no way this can't be improved, and the NHL asks fans to pay good money for a garbage product. If it wasn't for their freelancers putting on a good show, the NHL would deservedly be out of business.
I would love to know what people in the situation room and refs on the ice really think about the job they're doing. Do they know the right call and there's something that they always have to bend to?
The classic hockey with human error was a different hockey than today in every facet but how calls are made. GMs used to make trades with feet-on-the-ground research and without hundreds of scouts, the internet and video of every 15-30 year old player they could imagine. This parity is only possible with technology, so it's time to refresh this rag-tag group of losers to something more befitting of what they ask us to pay for.
|
ThAts a great take, One of the most well reasoned and explained positions I have heard yet. Kudos
I think the officiating is in dire need of a re-evaluation. I have been a notorious critic of these officials for years. I appreciate the parity. Yet, I don’t appreciate inconsistent officiating. In any sport.
Look at the nfl though and the lions and packers game last Monday. Human error will always be a factor until leagues demand more certainty and accuracy of how their product enforces its own rules. It’s an evolving process I see, yet why not innovate? At least the NFL has altered its rules with the coaches challenge on pass interference. Perhaps that’s what could stand improving immediately before throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Allow coaches in the nhl to challenge would be penalties or go with a popular opinion of putting more officials at birds eye view a chance to support their on ice cohorts ? I appreciate the off side challenge and the goalie interference but there needs to be more. Even then look how inconsistent the goalie interference challenge is arbitrated. It’s still seemingly ineffective. This leads me to believe an over haul of how the game is regulated and adjudicated is paramount. Additional officials on a closed loop communication network between off ice and on ice officials could do wonders.
And the yyc colo series was called in light of the shift from regular season to let them play playoff style wasnt affforded to Calgary. Game three in Colorado was a farce. Regular season calls for Colorados benefit but playoff calls for our team which benefitted Colorado in that our chances werent awarded until too much momentum had been gained by the avs. /rant