St. Louis won the cup a couple years ago because of how ####ty the nhl calls games and change the rule books. I still haven’t met anyone in person who watched a single game of that series.
I'm just curious to the opinion here, especially on the topic of how refs are justifying what's a penalty and for what reason it may be a penalty.
This just happened to Couture in the LA vs Sharks game. I would say a clean hit from Jeff Carter, but just a bad angle and rough outcome for Couture.
How in the hell is this called high sticking???
How does a ref justify a penalty for that after the play had been made and nothing was called or maybe seen initially?
Mind boggling to try and understand how strange the officiating of the NHL has become in the last few years.
The ref put his arm up and blew the whistle right away. He called it high sticking because from his angle it looked like a butt end to the face. Multi-angle slow motion replay shows that maybe the stick didn't catch him at all, but the ref doesn't have that luxury in real time. Also, the penalty was not reviewable as it was only a minor.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
The ref put his arm up and blew the whistle right away. He called it high sticking because from his angle it looked like a butt end to the face. Multi-angle slow motion replay shows that maybe the stick didn't catch him at all, but the ref doesn't have that luxury in real time. Also, the penalty was not reviewable as it was only a minor.
I watched it twice and I still thought he caught a butt end to the face.
Not to mention, they called the penalty on the team down 2. They can’t win no matter what they do.
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
The ref put his arm up and blew the whistle right away. He called it high sticking because from his angle it looked like a butt end to the face. Multi-angle slow motion replay shows that maybe the stick didn't catch him at all, but the ref doesn't have that luxury in real time. Also, the penalty was not reviewable as it was only a minor.
Isn't butt ending a major penalty? why not call it that and then go to review?
Refs are also afraid to call majors now after the Vegas-Sharks incident. Can't remember the last one involving the Flames for example.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
The ref put his arm up and blew the whistle right away. He called it high sticking because from his angle it looked like a butt end to the face. Multi-angle slow motion replay shows that maybe the stick didn't catch him at all, but the ref doesn't have that luxury in real time. Also, the penalty was not reviewable as it was only a minor.
They can also fix this by publicly fining players for embellishment more often. GirlySports makes a good point - if the ref saw it the way the ref saw it, it’s a butt-end. There’s either no penalty, or there’s major being handed out - which is reviewable.
That looks like a dive by Couture.
The Following User Says Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
Isn't butt ending a major penalty? why not call it that and then go to review?
Refs are also afraid to call majors now after the Vegas-Sharks incident. Can't remember the last one involving the Flames for example.
That's actually a very good point. If he thought it was a butt end, then call it that and make it reviewable. Unless of course they're afraid of being embarrassed by a review going against them. I could see them choosing a minor over a major just to make sure the penalty stuck (not at all saying it's right, just saying it seems to fit with how they do things).
The rule change I've always advocated is simple: you can only use your stick for the purpose of playing the puck. Anything else is a penalty.
The only grey area would be making a stick check, but I don't think they already do a fine job of discerning that from a slash.
Another pet peeve is that the most egregious fouls (say a trip on a 2-1, or big dangerous hits) often get blown down immediately, whereas ticky-tack fouls (say a neutral zone hook) are more likely to end up with an extended 6 on 5 scenario. I want 1-3-5 minute penalties...puck over glass shouldn't be penalized the same as tackling a player in the slot with the puck.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The rule change I've always advocated is simple: you can only use your stick for the purpose of playing the puck. Anything else is a penalty.
The only grey area would be making a stick check, but I don't think they already do a fine job of discerning that from a slash.
.
That would make it impossible to defend. How would you hold your ground? And you can't let go off your stick and grab someone. When you have both hands on your stick you can use it as leverage. The stick is a of part of your body. You can use it to block people and push people away. it just can't be an obvious cross check motion that knocks someone down.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
^Yes, it was a running joke about misstating common phrases... he was doing it completely on porpoise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
It's amazing that pretty much everyone who has watched an NHL game wishes they were called by the book, yet the NHL keeps giving us game management.
Spoiler!
It's not that amazing. The people whose opinions matter aren't the fans, but the owners and to a lesser extent, the GMs and hockey ops people. Pretty much everyone who watches NHL games also wants a change to some version of a 3 point standings system, but the people whose opinions matter are cowards and they want the artificially close points standings, so it's not going to change no matter how obvious it is that it should.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
^Yes, it was a running joke about misstating common phrases... he was doing it completely on porpoise.
It's not that amazing. The people whose opinions matter aren't the fans, but the owners and to a lesser extent, the GMs and hockey ops people. Pretty much everyone who watches NHL games also wants a change to some version of a 3 point standings system, but the people whose opinions matter are cowards and they want the artificially close points standings, so it's not going to change no matter how obvious it is that it should.
It's the half pregnant attitude of the NHL. Just look at the evolution overtime for example.
NHL games ended in a regulation tie until the 80s
Then added 5 minute overtime.
Not enough games decided let's make it 4-on-4.
Still don't like ties (add shootout) and felt sorry for teams losing 4-on-4 without any reward so let's add a loser point.
We don't like the shootout, let's make it 3-on-3
I wonder what's next?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
