The high stick: the concept of height no longer has meaning

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The NHL needs to hire this guy. But even though the Flames got hosed, I tend to agree this penalty should no longer be called, just like the kicking motion. It's hard enough to score in today's hockey, the league should consider letting players try stuff like this to beat the goalies, so long as they aren't laterally swinging above shoulders and putting faces and heads in jeopardy.

I would agree but it would probably lead to more high sticking injuries.

[nickerjones]

Sure the high stick goal sucks but it's more than that. It's the inconsistency of what is called and the timing of when refs arbitrarily decide that they aren't going to call penalties. It shouldn't matter that the Ducks had been penalized 0 times, 5 times, or 100 times. If they commit an infraction it should be called.

The goalie interference on Bouma, the late holding the stick on Dougie, the lack of calling Perry for interference on the Dougie infraction.

The 2nd goal went in sure.. but the play should have been blown dead 10 seconds before the shot, when Perry is over at the bench punching players in the face... with an official standing right there.

In the last few minutes the Ducks had too many men, a high stick, and a blatant holding that were all let go , seemingly because the refs decided the Ducks had already had enough called on them.


I understand refs can't see "everything" but you can't use that line when a ref is literally standing beside Perry while he is throwing punches at players on our Bench. It's just sickening the amount of money fans put into this game and have to deal with the officiating that we have seen this year. I yell at beer league refs that make 40 bucks a game. NHL officials are making 6 figures a year. What other job can you be so consistently bad and still retain a job (not including anyone in the Oiler organization 2006-2016)?

But back to the original point of all these calls, what's the point of even having rules and penalties if you can simply stop following those rules at any time?

[RM14]

Science!

https://thewincolumnblog.wordpress.c...hompsons-goal/

[TheScorpion]

Oh yeah, that makes me feel way better

[Flash Walken]

I think the standard for the flames is tighter than for th if opposition, but even if you think that goal should not have counted, I still think the flames had the edge as far as officiating was concerned in that game.

Flames scored 3 of their 4 goals on the power play in a game where the opposition had none. The flames we're also fortunate they didn't have to kill off a major or lose Bennett for the game after his big from behind on bieksa. Other players for sure got away with things as well.

This was a game that as far as the officials on the ice were concerned was almost gifted to the Flames, but their goaltending fell apart and they stopped working.

[djsFlames]

What about ref cams? Then we could also witness what they "saw". They were a good experiment in October, should've implemented them in all games.

[surferguy]

Well if history has anything to say that new implementations will be made because of something that happened during a Flames playoff game.

[liamenator]

It was close enough, based on all this evidence, that the call on the ice would have to stand -- no matter how long they had to look at it. There's just no time in the heat of the moment for the kind of analysis we're seeing the day after -- even from the Toronto booth. It's like 4 guys looking at all the inconclusive angles we were, but without the data visualization tools that show it to be borderline.

And, yeah, it stings that 2 close calls went against the Flames. But in an ideal world, previous calls should have absolutely no bearing on a call under review. You can't have reviewers giving the benefit of the doubt to a team because it 'missed a close one' two nights ago.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I doubt the NHL did the tip top analysis we've done using MS Paint in this thread, much less a thorough analysis like the blog did.

The question is why doesn't the "war room" have these projections, straight line markers and models at every single camera angle pre-programmed so that things like parallax, the tilted cameras and such can be assisted? My imagination of the war room is two old guys staring at one camera angle and making a decision just squinting a bit harder than the refs.

I'm sure they have more than one camera angle, but I'm also pretty sure it's just some guys squinting at the screen real hard. I just can't see the NHL actually being technologically savvy.

I also strongly suspect that the TV channels have better people finding those best camera angles for TV than what the NHL uses in Toronto. (Simply because a good broadcast is worth money, but getting a call right isn't.)

[CroFlames]

Gelinas in 04, Bennett in 2015, last game and now this.

What luck with the officials and reviews the Flames have.

I honestly don't think the NHL is CAPABLE of running a conspiracy. It's just a string of serious bad luck. And I hate it. And I want to punch people.

[burn_this_city]

City should tell the league they'll get a world class building for the team when we get something better than 3rd rate video review.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would agree but it would probably lead to more high sticking injuries.

Which is the entire reason it's a rule. Making high sticking a legal play isn't the answer to this problem.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

City should tell the league they'll get a world class building for the team when we get something better than 3rd rate video review.

Bettman should probably work on fixing his league's officiating before running off to cities campaigning to get public money for a new building.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by RM14

Science!

https://thewincolumnblog.wordpress.c...hompsons-goal/

Confirms what one feels is obvious simply knowing the player's height. Good stuff.

It's officially we got screwed on a terrible call.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by liamenator

It was close enough, based on all this evidence, that the call on the ice would have to stand -- no matter how long they had to look at it. There's just no time in the heat of the moment for the kind of analysis we're seeing the day after -- even from the Toronto booth. It's like 4 guys looking at all the inconclusive angles we were, but without the data visualization tools that show it to be borderline.

And, yeah, it stings that 2 close calls went against the Flames. But in an ideal world, previous calls should have absolutely no bearing on a call under review. You can't have reviewers giving the benefit of the doubt to a team because it 'missed a close one' two nights ago.

The analysis concludes it was likely at least 9" high. That's hardly borderline. They should be able to make the right call. Beyond the analysis you could simply ascertain this within 3-6" based on just knowing the player's height and body position at the point of contact.

I did this in 1 minute and matches the more scientific analysis. One could eyeball it was probably a shade under a foot high based on height.

[djsFlames]

I just can't believe that common sense / logic doesn't play into that.

No there isn't conclusive visual proof, but it's not like the net height (4 feet) changes based on an angle. That's a constant variable. So look at how high it is next to the player and do the math. In a playoff game you'd think they'd be more reluctant to let iffy goals pass. You know, hence the other night. Oh well....

Double standards GMG.

[JBR]

Looks like the NHL has finally released the Ref-Cam images. We can now see what the officials were looking at when the high stick hit the puck..

NSFW!

[/URL][/IMG]

[Robbob]

Even Ron Maclean thought it was a high stick. Hell even Garrett thought it shouldn't have count. I was at the game so I didn't see the replays until I rewatched portions of the game tonight and I just can't see how any reasonable person could come to the conclusion the war room did.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Sure the high stick goal sucks but it's more than that. It's the inconsistency of what is called and the timing of when refs arbitrarily decide that they aren't going to call penalties. It shouldn't matter that the Ducks had been penalized 0 times, 5 times, or 100 times. If they commit an infraction it should be called.

The goalie interference on Bouma, the late holding the stick on Dougie, the lack of calling Perry for interference on the Dougie infraction.

The 2nd goal went in sure.. but the play should have been blown dead 10 seconds before the shot, when Perry is over at the bench punching players in the face... with an official standing right there.

In the last few minutes the Ducks had too many men, a high stick, and a blatant holding that were all let go , seemingly because the refs decided the Ducks had already had enough called on them.


I understand refs can't see "everything" but you can't use that line when a ref is literally standing beside Perry while he is throwing punches at players on our Bench. It's just sickening the amount of money fans put into this game and have to deal with the officiating that we have seen this year. I yell at beer league refs that make 40 bucks a game. NHL officials are making 6 figures a year. What other job can you be so consistently bad and still retain a job (not including anyone in the Oiler organization 2006-2016)?

But back to the original point of all these calls, what's the point of even having rules and penalties if you can simply stop following those rules at any time?

THIS 100%. The Refs even saw Perry holding Bennett behind the net and the play, then dropping him to the ice and told him to KNOCK it off.

Also, I can't understand why Perry was in the Flames bench for as long as he was, without a penalty which resulted in a goal.

[SebC]

That some people consider deductive reasoning "inconclusive" is a microcosm of what's wrong with western society these days.