Kerry Fraser's reply to my Gaudreau empty net question

[FlamesAddiction]

I think generally, the refs hate seeing a team get routed or dominated too much because it ends up making for really undisciplined (and sometimes event violent) finishes, which of course makes their job harder. Therefore, they do what they can to keep things close if they can (of course, sometimes they just can't).

[heep223]

There just is no doubt that there's emotional bias in any decision-making, including with refs in pro sports. The flames didn't just start playing like a bunch of goons all of the sudden. I doubt it's intentional, and I don't think there's some grand conspiracy, but I just think the numbers don't lie and they changed immediately after the Wideman incident and have persisted at that new higher level. It really sucks.

[thefoss1957]

A little off topic, but, the NHL's inconsistency in expecting Linesmen to get EVERY technical call applied, even to allowing reviews of calls that might be decided by micrometers, to "get the call right", yet, allowing referees to apply and not apply established rules at discretion, makes no sense at all, to this fan. Coaches often complain about "inconsistency" in officiating...remove the inconsistencies by whistling up EVERY witnessed infraction. But, some may argue, this will slow up the game! My reply is, the players will just have to adjust to playing, completely, by the rules, and would do so in short order.

One last point...Soccer, the sport I played in college and as a club member, gets a LOT of grief, but, one thing that they get right, is the "cynical" foul. In the St. Joe game, if that had been soccer, Pavelski would have gotten the call against him, and whatever punishment the rule dictated, PLUS, he would have been tossed from the remainder of that game (as he virtually was, anyway), PLUS he would have been automatically SUSPENDED for the the NEXT game, with no appeal allowed! This draconian measure eliminates so-called "good" penalties, and could and should be applied in the NHL. It is one thing to get a stick caught up in a guy's skates, it is quite another to, basically, tackle a guy on the way to the net. Referees (and fans) can usually tell when the foul is deliberate, and a scoring chance abated, by a purposeful foul. And that situation is what, in soccer, is considered a "cynical" foul, and is NOT tolerated. If increasing scoring, highlighting skill and speed, is a desirable outcome, then increasing punishments, should be considered.

[Wormius]

Maybe refs should be required to wear some GoPro style device. It's not a guarantee, but if the video camera sees it, there is a good change the ref saw it.

[Wormius]

Maybe refs should be required to wear some GoPro style device. It's not a guarantee, but if the video camera sees it, there is a good change the ref saw it.

[GGG]

I like the NBAs approach. They discuss if calls were right or wrong a publicise things that were both missed and called wrong.

I think if the feedback and promotion /demotion process was more public it would be helpful as a fan.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You don't see game management in any other pro sport, unless maybe NBA? Not familiar enough with it to say, but for sure MLB calls it strictly by the rules and outside of certain QB's, the NFL calls it by the rules.
Game management sucks

Have you watched ANY sport other than NHL hockey?

You will see rule interpretation in every sport where there is a referee.

And if you're complaining about hockey, please please please do not ever watch basketball, baseball, soccer, cricket, NASCAR, MMA, .....

[stang]

I missed all the controversy. Did that goal that wasn't allowed change the outcome of the game?

Genuinely asking? I'm assuming an empty net means the Flames were leading?

[AC]

Originally Posted by stang

I missed all the controversy. Did that goal that wasn't allowed change the outcome of the game?

Genuinely asking? I'm assuming an empty net means the Flames were leading?

It almost changed things.

San Jose got a breakaway with 8 seconds left. They could have tied the game.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by stang

I missed all the controversy. Did that goal that wasn't allowed change the outcome of the game?

Genuinely asking? I'm assuming an empty net means the Flames were leading?

Flames were up 3-2 at the time and the automatic goal that should have been awarded would have made it 4-2. Sharks get assessed a 2 minute minor instead and sprung Boedker on a shorthanded breakaway chance with under 10 seconds left that almost tied the game. Chad Johnson came up with a huge save to preserve the 3-2 win in regulation time.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

So with an unoccupied net, and a player hauled down from behind while on a clear breakaway, you wouldn't award him the goal? The team that just had the penalty called on them isn't allowed to put a goaltender in for the penalty shot. Why would you make the guy skate towards an empty net, and shoot it in? All that does is waste everyone's time. Award the goal, and drop the puck at centre.

Now picture it happening in the Stanley Cup Finals, game 7, Flames down by one, 2 minutes left in the game. Do you have the same sentiment? Would you be ok with seeing any SCF being decided with such a flakey call?

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Now picture it happening in the Stanley Cup Finals, game 7, Flames down by one, 2 minutes left in the game. Do you have the same sentiment? Would you be ok with seeing any SCF being decided with such a flakey call?

Yes...a purposeful hook to take away the "nail in the coffin" ENG should be called EVERY FREAKING TIME!

[Stay Golden]

That was a great read. Fraser broke down specifically why Gaudreau should have been awarded the Automic goal after the "multiple hooks by Pavalski" his words.
Really good article.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

So with an unoccupied net, and a player hauled down from behind while on a clear breakaway, you wouldn't award him the goal? The team that just had the penalty called on them isn't allowed to put a goaltender in for the penalty shot. Why would you make the guy skate towards an empty net, and shoot it in? All that does is waste everyone's time. Award the goal, and drop the puck at centre.

Better yet, make it a regular penalty shot, but force whoever took the penalty to go in net to try to stop it. Who wouldn't have enjoyed seeing Pavelski in goal trying to stop a Gaudreau penalty shot?

[EldrickOnIce]

Fraser's insight/comments always interesting to read. The latest, a Rick Nash goal against Habs after Price was contacted and dragged from crease by Hayes, is a good example of how goalie interference will never be a black and white call.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This has been an issue with the NHL forever. Like them putting away the rule book in overtime to "let them play". This is why I favour getting a lot of the old boys club out of NHL offices as too much of the business is based on nostalgia and old players that think the way it used to be played should still be applied today. Colin Campbell for example is everything wrong with NHL management.

The Broad Street Bullies manipulated this strategy into 4 cup finals and 2 cup victories. If you're an aggressive team that pushes the boundaries, you might get one penalty for 7-10 actual infractions. If you're not an aggressive team, you might get 1 penalty called for 2 or 3 actual infractions.

I get the idea of game management, but when refs "let the teams play" with the intent of not deciding the games, they're usually creating an advantage for one of the teams and unintentionally helping to decide the games.