No ref for the wicked?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

What say you, gentle reader? Is our favourite game a model of democratic justice duly enforced? Or has it fallen prey to the "I can do what I want, so f you" attitude that has become more and more prevalent in our society?

Inquiring clowns want to know.

[roke]

I have to personally say it's inconsistent. I mean, for example, Sundin could have seriously hurt a fan when he threw the broken stick into the crowd and he gets one game. While Jeremy Roenick gets the same amount of time for throwing a waterbottle. Even though it was at a referee what could a waterbottle do? Yes, Roenick deserved a suspsension but not for the same length of time Sundin got. Dagenais did deserve a suspension too for his low sticking of Marchment since it was intentional but the NHL needs to get it's priorities straight. Safety of the fans should be right up there with making money and if it means that we have to listen to some players or coach whine about their players being suspended for throwing stuff into the fans so be it. Without the fans there is zero money coming into the NHL and casual fans would stop going to the arena if they saw somebody get hurt because some stupid player threw a stick in the stands.

[blaise]

The officiating seems to be arbitrary, like something out of Alice in Wonderland, with Colin Campbell in the role of the Queen of Hearts. In the case of Quinn, it's like Animal Farm, in which some animals are more equal than others.

[patate]

Blaise said:

The officiating seems to be arbitrary, like something out of Alice in Wonderland, with Colin Campbell in the role of the Queen of Hearts. In the case of Quinn, it's like Animal Farm, in which some animals are more equal than others.

Yes, Quinn does look like a stalinesque pig ;D, and i hope Colin will be more like Humpty Dumpty and crack his eggshell after falling from the wall.

[HabbaDasher]

After Saturday's game, I'd have to say wildly inconsistent, or at least abitrary.

Call each game the same way, from the opening faceoff 'till the last second of overtime.

[Vinna]

I just get P.Od when one game is good, lots of flow, back and forth action, then the next game it starts off with 3 penalties in the first 5 min. Then the league gets involved with a "crackdown" that lasts two or three games and they must tell each ref something different because no one seems to be calling from the same rule book. Then Commish Bettman says "there is nothing wrong with the game". Then why the crackdown? In the off season they make all kinds of rule changes to better the game. What the hell??? I thought the commish just said there is "nothing wrong with the game"? Okay, well lets ask the AHL implement a test, something radical like widening the lines because there is "nothing wrong with the game". Guess where I think the problem lies?

[Andrew]

I'd say that the day to day game officiating is pretty consistent. The front office are extremely inconsistent with regards to suspensions and rules, however.

What I don't understand is why the league doesn't protect its players. Kariya, Lindros, Alison, and Deadmarsh are just a few players who's careers have been threatened by head injuries: players that put fans in the seats and generate revenue. It baffles me that a league woulod allow for a fringe player to jeopordize the career of a star.

The simplest solution is to have a minumum suspension for certain penalties (elbows to the head, high sticking, knee on knee). If players knows that a 2 game suspension will follow a high stick drawing blood, they'll be much more concious of how they carry their stick - especially if it's a 5 game suspension for second time offenders and 10 for third.

[franko]

Andrew said:

I'd say that the day to day game officiating is pretty consistent. The front office are extremely inconsistent with regards to suspensions and rules, however.

Game to game consistently inconsistent on ice and off.

Just wait until the playoffs, when rugby on ice returns.

[patate]

I think the 2 referees system should go as soon as possible. We've all witness the junior referee watch the senior to get his "approbation" on close call. Did anyone ever demanded this system? It came from nowhere. I think this would improve the quality of the referring. As for the highstick dilemma, I think the visor should be mandatory as it would ensure the security of all players. I think it's a nobrainer.

[Yeti]

I would not be surprised to hear that NHL headcoaches have a different pre-game speech for their players according to whom are the refs.

Still, you find wide variations in the world of 'evidence-based medicine" in how GPs are treating similar hypertensive patients... So I think variations are inevitable. It's the grabbing that gets me and that is seldom called. Leafs are pro at that game.

[CentreHice]

The most inconsistent reffing I've seen occurs during Leafs games, and I've seen a lot of them.
What really gets me is seeing guys like Gary Roberts and Darcy Tucker jump, elbow, forearm, and glove their way around the rink and get away with it most of the time. A lot of these shots are to the head. And when they DO get called, they manically berate the officials without the extra two. And who knows what they're hearing from the Leaf bench at the same time?

Are today's refs Quinn-timidated?

[Maritimer]

on the topic of protecting the stars minor hockey has adopted a 10 min misconduct to go with a 2 min minor for contact to the head. Yeah its frustrating to have a player receive 12 mins for elbowing or high sticking but maybe it has a place? With high hits rampant at the minor hockey level this has been brought on to try and control the amount of concussions that have been sustained.

[MC Habber]

Not to mention the number of times a stick breaks when a player takes a shot. Rather than legislating what kind of sticks can be used, how about imposing a penalty on any player who's stick breaks, or who's stick breaks more than once in a game?

EDIT: Blaise? Where's the post I was responding to?

[blaise]

MC said:

Not to mention the number of times a stick breaks when a player takes a shot. Rather than legislating what kind of sticks can be used, how about imposing a penalty on any player who's stick breaks, or who's stick breaks more than once in a game?

EDIT: Blaise? Where's the post I was responding to?

I moved it to the high-tech stick thread moments before you posted here.

[PTH]

Well, I find the reffing terribly inconsistent, because I can't tell what should or shouldn't be a call.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need a strict definition of what is a penalty, and it needs to be called each and every time.

I'd call every single time a player tugs at another with his stick or grabs onto him in any way. Period. No more "free tugs" - every game plays are slowled down and scoring chances lost.

Call'em all. Each and every one.

-----

Just about no one liked the goalie crease protection rule, it seemed arbitrary in a way, but at least it was very clear, and on TV we could tell pretty easily whether a goal really was one. It should be the same thing for penalties.

[Tattac]

I find this thread a bit ironic. Last Friday, I watched a Russian hockey show. They were talking about officiating and kept comparing the work of referees in the RSL and the NHL. The general idea was that in Russia the referees are inconsistent and biased; on the other hand in the NHL they are consisted and not biased. Then I watched the Habs-Leafs game on Saturday and thought, “Hmm….did they invite Russian officials or what?”

[patate]

Tattac said:

I find this thread a bit ironic. Last Friday, I watched a Russian hockey show. They were talking about officiating and kept comparing the work of referees in the RSL and the NHL. The general idea was that in Russia the referees are inconsistent and biased; on the other hand in the NHL they are consisted and not biased. Then I watched the Habs-Leafs game on Saturday and thought, “Hmm….did they invite Russian officials or what?”

Hockey is a difficult sport to officiate mainly because of it's fast pace and the fact that a certain amount of physical contact is allowed. Drawing the line between a clean hit and a dirty one is sometimes a hard thing to do.

Tattac bring's a good point here with the russian league having the same kind of controversy as the NHL. People blame referees in every level from Pee-Wee to Senior hockey. I've never believed in the biased accusation on certain people ( Kerry Fraser ) as every officials do their best. And the NHL do hire the most competent ref in the world. Wich bring the question : Where are the worst officials ? ;D I'd like to know.

[LoupDogg]

patate said:

I As for the highstick dilemma, I think the visor should be mandatory as it would ensure the security of all players. I think it's a nobrainer.

Well, I did too until I read qhat Quntal said about it yesterday. He said that he can't wear the visor, because he'd then have to remove his helmet every time he wants to fight. Doing so, it would be dangerous for his head to hit the ice (remember that NYR goalie?) and get a severe injury. I have to admit that he's got a good point there. Fighting won't stop in the NHL, and you can't really punch a guy in the visor. I mean, you could, but then, you'd definitly be a no-brainer.

So, I guess they'll have to come with some kind of a retractable visor before guys like Quintal start wearing one.

[BadCompany]

Goo said:

Well, I did too until I read qhat Quntal said about it yesterday. He said that he can't wear the visor, because he'd then have to remove his helmet every time he wants to fight. Doing so, it would be dangerous for his head to hit the ice (remember that NYR goalie?) and get a severe injury. I have to admit that he's got a good point there. Fighting won't stop in the NHL, and you can't really punch a guy in the visor. I mean, you could, but then, you'd definitly be a no-brainer.

So, I guess they'll have to come with some kind of a retractable visor before guys like Quintal start wearing one.

I'm sure they could make a quick-release visor if they wanted to, but the NHL would never go for it. That would mean tacit "approval" of fighting, which the NHL always snears at. They don't want to be seen as "condoning" fighting, which this sort of technology would be doing.

Personally, I wouldn't make visors mandatory at all. If players want to risk their eyes, that's their business. They are all grown men, and if they want to be idiots, then its their own business. Lots of people drill and hammer and saw without eye glasses, and I suspect a lot more of those guys lose their eyes than do hockey players.

What they should do is just have the insurance companies refuse to pay salaries in the event of an eye injury. In the real world, most insurance companies won't pay out if you don't take basic safety precautions, so why should that be any different here? The reason, of course, is that eye injuries, despite the press they get, are not financially significant enough yet to make insurance companies jack up their rates. They still make money off the players, so they don't care. Once insurance companies start losing money because they are always paying players with eye injuries then they the insurance companies will start demanding visors. Aren't italics fun?

Until then, I say leave them be. You can't regulate stupidity.

[Polarice]

BadCompany said:

I'm sure they could make a quick-release visor if they wanted to, but the NHL would never go for it. That would mean tacit "approval" of fighting, which the NHL always snears at. They don't want to be seen as "condoning" fighting, which this sort of technology would be doing.

The NHL already have made changes to equipment "that would mean tacit approval of fighting" when they made it manatory for the jerseys to be tied down so a fighter couldnt pull it over a guys head and start pounding. So to make a tear away visor could be done.

Using a flip up Visor wouldnt work because a high stick could just as easily flip up the visor injuring the eyes.

[insomnius]

HabbaDasher said:

Call each game the same way, from the opening faceoff 'till the last second of overtime.

Yes but really - do we think that will happen?

[franko]

BadCompany said:

What they should do is just have the insurance companies refuse to pay salaries in the event of an eye injury. In the real world, most insurance companies won't pay out if you don't take basic safety precautions, so why should that be any different here? The reason, of course, is that eye injuries, despite the press they get, are not financially significant enough yet to make insurance companies jack up their rates. They still make money off the players, so they don't care. Once insurance companies start losing money because they are always paying players with eye injuries then they the insurance companies will start demanding visors. Aren't italics fun?

My thoughts exactly. If insurance companiew were to say "Players will not be insured for eye injuries unless a visor or face shield is worn" (of course, the lawyers will get in there with their legalese: to manufacturers specifications, a face shield that covers so much of the face, etc) I think that you'd see a lot more players "choosing" to wear the things.

Interestingly enough, I could never get used to wearing one when I played, but did wear a full cage and wound up not noticing it after a shift of two.

Until then, I say leave them be. You can't regulate stupidity.

If stupidity were illegal there wouldn't be enough room in the jails for us all