Kicking motion

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

This position makes no sense though because obviously the NHL will never do that. Therefore you are stating that under no circumstances, ever, do you accept that there ever could be a bias at play.

Well first you're talking about wanting a certain outcome, and now it's simply bias? And bias goes two way: Are they anti-Flames or pro-Oilers? Because those are two different things.

The questions you must ask yourself are:

Is there deliberate bias?

If so, is this bias being deliberately hidden?

Because you need both for your scenario. You need to shut a whole bunch of mouths up. Also, this is the complete opposite of what the NHL needs to do to expand gambling, because the FTC will gladly throw a whole bunch of people in jail for rigging.

Just remember, the Flames had a 2-0 and 4-3 lead in the game.

Also, the goddamned Kings had a 3-2 series lead over the Oilers in round 1.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it probably had more to do with Coleman's crease crashing throughout the series

plenty of crease crashing from both sides - Hyman and Kane were doing it as much as Coleman was.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Everyone has preferences. Most in positions of arbitration or decision making in sports will pretend that they don't, but of course they do. They even implicitly admit it in the Sportsnet article where they acknowledge the phenomenon that the first person speaking loudly can sway opinions.

My policy preference for reviews would be:

- you have a team of 5 who adjudicate the review calls in isolation and submit their ruling anonymously.

- to overturn a call on the ice, 4/5 have to rule in favour of overturn so that you meet a standard for concluding the initial decision to be in error.

- I'd also be in favour of a time clock to limit review for the adjudicators - can't decide within 3 or 5 minutes time? Call on ice stands.

- I'd also encourage/set a minimum for hiring people who don't have a professional background in hockey; if your rules are so clear, then a third party should have little problem in coming to reasonable decisions.

Edit:

On the topic of league bias, I'd submit it's more just unconscious stuff going on. These are long time hockey people, so of course they have preferences. But since the system is opaque and clearly muddled, people fill in the blanks with malice since there is no clear accountability from the league outside of issuing tautologies around their rulings (the puck was deemed to be kicked in because it was kicked in). Putting in a transparent system where you display the outcome of the ruling (for example, tweet out that 4 of 5 reviewers said overturn) would at least give people some procedural stability.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy either.

I do think it's possible that there's an unspoken and potentially even unaware bias for the guys in the room though.

We see it in most topics on social media. You read an article and see only what confirms what you believe.

Campbell has had run ins with Calgary fans before (probably shouldn't get into my encounter for legal reasons) so for him to see "red" when it's a Calgary call wouldn't be a shocker to me.

Don't personally believe it's a rigged plan, but a leaning that they likely aren't even aware of.

Or alert to opportunities which present themselves, of which they can take advantage

They can’t create the play for Coleman, but sure can make a quick phone call when need be

“There was a distinct kicking motion - Capisce?”

[Mr.Coffee]

My replies below in red.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well first you're talking about wanting a certain outcome, and now it's simply bias? And bias goes two way: Are they anti-Flames or pro-Oilers? Because those are two different things. Pro-Oilers

The questions you must ask yourself are:

Is there deliberate bias? Yes

If so, is this bias being deliberately hidden? Yes, obviously

Because you need both for your scenario. You need to shut a whole bunch of mouths up. Also, this is the complete opposite of what the NHL needs to do to expand gambling, because the FTC will gladly throw a whole bunch of people in jail for rigging. It's just something that doesn't get talked about, I'm sure there's no manilla envelopes of documentation held by evil top hat people. Easy to see how the bias can create a rigged outcome, and of course people aren't sitting around chatting about that. I could see conversations like "wouldn't it be cool / great if McDavid / Mackinnon played each other?" but I agree you are not going to find a smoking gun. If you are the type of person that requires written and physical evidence before you believe anything than this conversation is effectively over because you're stating you'll never believe anything without seeing it with your own two eyes. Which is fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those who see the outcomes of bias and comment on it are "conspiracy theorists"; a term used of course to intentionally discredit reasonable positions formed from what we literally just witnessed.

Just remember, the Flames had a 2-0 and 4-3 lead in the game.

Also, the goddamned Kings had a 3-2 series lead over the Oilers in round 1. What does this have to do with anything?

[sa226]

Unless it's happening behind closed doors, it bugs me that there isn't even more of an uproar over this, not because I want some.sort of justice, but because it let's them off the hook for their incompetence.

As long as they can put out BS explanations that the media just takes and reports and teams say things like "We don't agree but it's not why we lost tbe series " there isn't a shred of accountability and they'll just do it again next year given the opportunity.

Bonkers.

I'm pretty much over the loss itself, but I get more pissed about this with every passing day.

I saw a tweet that kinda encapsulates everything in a semi ironic way.

Something to the tune of "The Oilers can never complain about the officiating again"

Larf

[sa226]

Oh and to add, as stated above "The league is aware of the Flames targeting Draisatl's ankle"

Is some crazy media influence/bias just straight up BS.

It's the NHL playoffs, not Grade 3 recess. If its a penalty they call it. Otherwise if you're that scared, don't play.

Ugh.

[Mr.Coffee]

It'll always be brushed under the rug and people will always just move on if people always refuse to see what's plainly obvious.

And that happens every time, with reasonable people, you see it here right on this site and right in this thread. Go read Bingo and Shazam and Squirrel's posts.

"It's just the mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists". Sure, well, if that's your position that you can never call a spade a spade, that you always have to divert to the safe homestead of "nothing's wrong", then nothing will ever change, ever. Shazam requires literal evidence of bias. Well, of course that will never happen, obviously.

This league has a bias and credibility problem, a huge one actually, and it'll never change because a few fans will always be willing to accept it in the face of certain contradictory outcomes as obvious as what we just saw. A legal goal. A legal goal called legal on the ice. Four men from the NHL phone in and change the outcome. Meanwhile, we have video evidence (multiple... videos in fact) of the exact same play generating opposite calls.

Doesn't get more cut and dry than that, that is literally as good as you'll ever get.

Doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Sure, we can create standards of evidence that are impossible to overcome to provide forgiveness of what should be unforgiveable. We can do that too.

[GGG]

Can you be clear what you are alleging is happening?

Is this a better directive to ensure top players and markets are represented?
Is this guys is the room just hating the flames or liking the oilers?
Is it unconscious bias?

Are you alleging fixing?

What specifically to you believe to be the directive and by whom?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Colin Campbell is an anti vaxxer Q supporter and the call was made to favour the fact the Oilers have a prominent anti vaxxer on their roster and the flames have none.

[McG]

It’s game management.

I’m shocked…absolutely shocked that rogers employees support the decision via tweets, articles, websites and broadcasts. Green text for clarity on the preceding sentence.

I’m legitimately surprised that Campbell is still around. The guy who was so blindingly incompetent at running the discipline department that the term “wheel of justice” was invented somehow managed to get promoted to real time decision making?

To be explicitly clear, how people 200 “miles” away feel is entirely irrelevant. If the explanation was “we saw a distinct kicking motion on one video feed and that was enough to overturn the on ice call and the 9 other camera angles that didn’t show a distinct kicking motion” then that’s something different. Citing things like skate on ice or not, you can kick without lifting the skate off of the ice, etc., display a blatant disregard or knowledge of the rules and physics.

Game management means bias, and bias means not neutral.

For fun, look at the amount of rogers advertising in every oilers game. Take a shot of booze every time you see or hear “rogers”. It’s advertising, it’s influence, it’s outcomes, it’s money.

What else would it be?

[powderjunkie]

Rugby is a very fast and busy game. The on-field official and a VAR guy manage to resolve close calls - quickly (usually under 60 seconds) and completely transparently (we hear every word of their discussion).

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

plenty of crease crashing from both sides - Hyman and Kane were doing it as much as Coleman was.

For sure. I can just imagine there may have been warnings issued and these buffoons wanted to make him pay. I could also imagine they thought his tangling with Smith's pads was close to goalie interference - which is of course BS as that rule is written given it had no influence on his ability to make the save.


It took like 8 minutes...an awfully long time for 4 individuals to independently reach a unanimous decision...seems more likely that somebody was doing some 'convincing'

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Rugby is a very fast and busy game. The on-field official and a VAR guy manage to resolve close calls - quickly (usually under 60 seconds) and completely transparently (we hear every word of their discussion).



For sure. I can just imagine there may have been warnings issued and these buffoons wanted to make him pay. I could also imagine they thought his tangling with Smith's pads was close to goalie interference - which is of course BS as that rule is written given it had no influence on his ability to make the save.


It took like 8 minutes...an awfully long time for 4 individuals to independently reach a unanimous decision...seems more likely that somebody was doing some 'convincing'

I think the only reason it took 8 minutes is that Furlatt, being French, pretended not to understand the Italian word ‘capisce’

[Alpha_Q]

There's only 2 possible scenarios at play here.
1 - there is a bias and the league took an opportunity to influence the outcome of a game and series in their favor. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this is definitely a bad look.
2 - the review system is flawed. You can have as many camera angles as you want, and you can slow it down, but what they apparently did not do was look at this in comparison to other decisions involving goals of this type. They need to revise the review system to include the ability to compare goal to goal, decision to decision and not look at each event in a vacuum. Maybe they do that now, but it sure doesn't smell like it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeZoE

I can't wait until we meet again in the playoffs. Anyone who loves this game loves these series. Non hockey fans should be subjected to watching Oilers vs Flames playoff hockey.

I personally thought the hockey in this series was awful, and not at all what exemplifies the best parts of the current game.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Red_Baron]

I'd be far more willing to conclude incompetence if the league:
1. Had not went against the principle that you need irrefutable evidence to overrule the call made on the ice.
2. Removed their video explaining the rule after it was called out on twitter by Francis.


The removal of that video is very concerning to me. That is the work of a dishonest individual or organization.

[djsFlames]

What made the hockey awful was that the officiating hampered the Flames ability to play a physical game that fits their brand (with Oilers flopping and diving all over the place to exacerbate all physically dealt upon them) and Markstrom also crippling anything they did from the back end.

If whistles were put away and they were forced to play big boy hockey on both sides and Markstrom could make a big stop then this COULD have been an epic series and a battle of willpower where everybody skating in could be punished.

Instead we got baby hockey where guys like Nuge and McDavid could thrive.

Effin awful.

[Manhattanboy]

Not that it will mean anything but am told at least two of the owners were furious after Game 5 and also of the view that the fix was in.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Not that it will mean anything but am told at least two of the owners were furious after Game 5 and also of the view that the fix was in.

If true I hope they do something about it but what can they do? Refuse to build a new arena? Already got that box checked off lol.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

If true I hope they do something about it but what can they do? Refuse to build a new arena? Already got that box checked off lol.

Not much. As if any comments to Bettman and Co. will be taken seriously.

Maybe other owners and managers are happy with the state of the game.

My own view is that game management is real and has wrecked the league.

I’ve largely checked out as far as interest in the NHL.

I imagine EDM will be gifted a cup.