"In this particular case, what would happen is we (in the League's video replay room in Toronto) would see the puck in the net and call the video goal judge and say, 'Please blow the horn and get the referee over here. We see a puck in the net that hasn't been ruled a goal.' At that point the referee would come over and we would have the discussion. Usually the referees know exactly what's happening and they would come to us and say, 'Listen, I blew the whistle or my intent to blow the whistle was there. I've got this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line.' No more need be said. Once we hear that, basically video review is now out of the process. We step aside and say it's a call made on the ice and it's a non-reviewable call. It's a whistle blown by the referee and it was blown or the intent to blow it was before the puck crossed the goal line."
2 months ago
James Mirtle
38 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
the intent to blow the whistle "rule"
this is the biggest sham that there is.
basically it is in place so refs can cover their asses when they mess up and miss things.
may as well call it the get out of jail free card.
by nuftjedi on Nov 19, 2009 2:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I dunno… I just don’t see the motivator on the part of the ref, really. Is it that shameful to admit you thought the puck was under his pad?
I think there must have, at the very least, been some miscommunication in his direction about just how substantial the call he missed was, as per some of the comments below.
...loving life for Christ's glory...
by NebCanuck on Nov 19, 2009 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
By this explanation, if a referee “intends” to blow the whistle because he thinks the puck is under the goalie but it’s actually in the back of the net, it’s no goal and there’s nothing the replay official can do about it.
That’s madness. Terrible loophole.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Nov 19, 2009 2:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well said sir, and I think it demonstrates that the Video Room, not the ref, is really at fault here. It should have been:
Ref: “No goal, I intended to blow the whistle before the puck was in.”
Room: “Actually, the puck was in the net for a solid second before you blew, so unless you have a serious neurological problem, you intended you blow after the puck was in.”
Ref: “Oh, OK then, catch you later.” [points to centre ice]
It really should have been that simple.
by MattF on Nov 19, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
this is the elephant in the room, isn't it?
The play died because the puck was IN THE NET. How no one’s addressing this problem— and I’m not talking about the NHL officials bringing it up, but the fact is no one’s asking them point-blank how that “intent to whistle” rule stands when what the ref thought was a dead play was actually a goal.
And the problem is that none of the teams are allowed to speak up against crap officiating like this or they get fined. If no one’s allowed to criticize, then how can the system be improved?
by chiblackhawks on Nov 19, 2009 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone in the Video room turned their brain off. I have no doubt that when Larue saw the video after the game, he said, “Well f*@k, I didn’t know the puck was in the net THAT early.”
The room could have uncontroversially overturned the call under the existing rules.
by MattF on Nov 19, 2009 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how they explained the play to LaRue, I suppose. Seems they did do a piss poor job of it.
by Resolute on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Lets go Islanders...
by TheMetalChick on Nov 19, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Say what you will, but at least Mike Murphy is consistent – he explicates about as well as he coaches.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
by mf37 on Nov 19, 2009 2:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The NHL is the only league in existence that allows an official to stop a play by just thinking about it.
by john ogrodnick on Nov 19, 2009 2:45 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
The NHL: Our refs have psychokinetic capabilities! Didn’t a movie just come out about this? “The Men Who Stare at Goals”
by Arenacale on Nov 19, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Although I’ve never seen an official who looked anything like George Clooney. :)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 19, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, ended that post before I intended to.
How are players supposed to know when a Referee or Linesman intends to blow the whistle. Either he blows it or he doesnt. How can a referee pinpoint the exact second he intended to blow the whistle? This is beyond idiotic that we’re even talking about this. Its so idiotic that I could not even comprehend a parallel to make an analogy in either the NBA or NFL.
by john ogrodnick on Nov 19, 2009 2:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What about Tim Donaghy knowing when he’s going to rig a game?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 19, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
You sure John?
Once an NFL ref decides a ball carrier’s forward progress has been halted, the play is over, even if replay seems to indicate that the ball came loose before the whistle sounded. So actually, there’s a pretty precise analogy.
But, if a replay showed that the ball was actually loose a good second or so before the whistle…
by MattF on Nov 19, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More accurate of an analogy would be if the ball was never even possessed by the ball carrier when he was contacted, if he’d already fumbled, and then was ruled down on forward progress and was given back the ball.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is, in the case of the NFL, the play is still going when the ref makes the decision, and the play resumes from the spot he called it at.
With this goal, the play was dead. He blew the whistle on a play that had been dead for three seconds. And he justified calling back the goal on the basis that he “blew the whistle to end the play”. The two are similar, but not the same. If an NFL ref were to say “I meant to declare that forward progress had ceased back five yards”, there would be no way it’d go over.
I’m not that upset about this, really. But it’s a weird, weird call. I don’t think you can really say that there is any similarity in any other league, and I doubt there’s any other case in NHL history that we’ve seen it, either. Hopefully they change the rule instead of letting this set a precedent…
...loving life for Christ's glory...
by NebCanuck on Nov 19, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
@ MattF. Clearly I need to watch more NFL.
by john ogrodnick on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculous. There was never a reason for the play to be blown dead. So any intent to end the play is not applicable, because at the point the play was intended to be dead, the puck was already in the net. Brad May shoveled it to the net, and it went directly in, and sat against the side of the net, against the goalie’s skate. At no point did the goalie have possession of the puck, or even appear to, or even obstruct the puck on its way into the net. Because it went right through the goalie, there are only two possibilities here:
1) The ref intended to blow the whistle as the puck was travelling to the net.
2) The ref intended to blow the whistle after the puck was already in the net.
There was nothing in between those two moments, no save, no bobble by the goalie, no rebound, it just went clear in. If #2 is the case, then it should be a goal, because the ref wanted the play to end, and it turns out the puck was in the net when the play ended, whether he initially realized it or not. If #1 is the case, well, the ref just plain blew the play dead for no reason whatsoever, and ought to be punished.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 3:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It does happen though.
Mick McGeough screwed the Flames out of a win against Colorado a couple years ago when he blew the play dead as the puck was going through the goalie’s five hole. The puck literally did not stop or slow down. McGeough simply assumed that the puck was going to be stopped, and wanted to give the Avs a quick whistle. Seen that a few times in the WHL so far this year as well.
by Resolute on Nov 19, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, you’re right in that it does happen. And it’s wrong. It was wrong in this case. It was wrong in the case you’re mentioning, I’m sure. It was wrong last year against the Ducks in the playoffs. It does happen, but that doesn’t make it any less bogus.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At least the league admitted the call was wrong, even if they wont otherwise man up. That is far less insulting to the fans than the league defending Eric Furlatt and calling this a “gutsy call”.
by Resolute on Nov 19, 2009 3:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Where did they admit the call was wrong? All I’ve seen from the league is this, from which Mirtle excerpted a quote:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731&cmpid=rss-rosen
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it appears we didn’t,” Murphy said.
by Bosc Ulrich on Nov 19, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, whoops. You have a better eye than me.
Nicely couched in a bunch of “not really our fault” language though.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, at least you can man up to your mistake…you’ve got at least that on LaRue.
by Bosc Ulrich on Nov 19, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, why doesn’t the ref have a TV monitor down at ice level? They just sit on the phone and talk to the video room, but can’t see the play themselves. How hard is it to stick a closed circuit TV down there with the scorekeeper for the ref to watch? Put a hood over it if you want, like the NFL, but get something down there for the ref to look at.
Also, one of my favorite things about the NFL Network is the Official Review segment with Mike Periera, head of officiating. He stops in on Total Access and walks you through a few of the controversial calls from the week before, explaining why things were called, why they should’ve or shouldn’t have been called, and has no problem saying if his refs did something wrong.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Nov 19, 2009 3:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No idea. The CCHA (college hockey) does this. The ref steps into one of the penalty boxes with the other ref and just watched the goal being reviewed. I think all college conferences does this but I’m not 100%.
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Nov 20, 2009 1:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is all much ado about nothing. Didn’t you guys watch the Western Conference Finals? Joel Quenneville made it quite clear that the penalty called on Matt Walker was “the worst call in the history of sports.” Case closed!
by hawksfan21 on Nov 19, 2009 7:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That one has a new challenger.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Nov 19, 2009 9:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kerry Fraser has had a few for us…
His officiating in game 4 of the finals in 2004 forced the NHL to change officiating assignments.
Fraser, again (iirc), let Claude Lemieux slew foot Mike Vernon in the 1989 finals that directly led to a game tying goal (Flames still won the game, thankfully)
McGeough’s infamous blunder on the hand pass in the Dallas-Edmonton game of a couple years ago.
Eric Furlatt calling back two good goals within a minute last year.
Clearly, Quenneville needs to watch more hockey. ;)
by Resolute on Nov 20, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I agree. From what I remember, that wasn’t even the worst call of that particular game (was that Game 4?).
I’ve read enough Down Goes Brown to know all about what Kerry Fraser has done for hockey. Though if you aren’t a Leafs fan, you may have approved of that play.
by hawksfan21 on Nov 20, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve read enough Down Goes Brown to know all about what Kerry Fraser has done for hockey. Though if you aren’t a Leafs fan, you may have approved of that play.
Everywhere I go, it’s like Kerry Fraser just mocks me.
Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell
by bkblades on Nov 20, 2009 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No more need be said.
Actually, there is more that needs to be said, like, for example, “We think this was a clear error, and it’s something we’ll be discussing with the GMs, refs, and players association to see if the rule and the process are appropriate. We have the ability to use these video tools to our advantage, so we will examine improvements in the process to improve our fans belief in the integrity of the game”
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Nov 19, 2009 9:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wonder why a league that emphasizes (or tries to, at least) technology and the internet and such isn’t more innovative with video technology in the game. Or sensors in the pucks so even if the goaltender’s glove is in the way of a shot, it is still clear when a puck crosses the line. It would improve the officiating and the novelty of it might appeal to people, too.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 19, 2009 9:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Or, you know, you could get rid of this ridiculous “intent to blow” rule. Maybe give the ref a quarter-second leeway on that sort of thing if you really want, but this is absurd.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Nov 19, 2009 10:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That would be the quickest, easiest fix by far. Players are taught to play until they hear the whistle – officials should officiate until they actually blow the whistle.
There are already arguments about early or late whistles, and it is annoying when your own team is hurt by such a thing, but you can hear on the replay when the whistle blew, so that is that. There is no reason to have arguments about when the official should have thought about intending to blow the whistle or not, too.
The sad thing is that I get the feeling that if someone said “sloppy seconds” this would be fixed this weekend, at the latest. The NHL cares more about superficial appearances than actual underlying reality, it seems.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 20, 2009 3:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and the refs went an blew it again in overtime of the Canes-Leafs game! Unbelievable.
by RedBirdie on Nov 19, 2009 11:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Blog extras
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Evgeni Nabokov puts his name in the Vezina race
- Puck Daddy chats with Brandon Yip about life as a rookie, his first NHL game, Colorado’s success this season and the upcoming Olympics
- Puck Headlines: Getzlaf ankle worry; Quick's Olympic mask
- Versus: 'Not optimistic' DirecTV deal in place by playoffs
- Fight Video: Jody Shelley's right hand defeats Orr
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hurricanes activate Ruutu after missing 15 games with upper-body injury
- Claude to joy: Blue Jackets interim coach Noel hopes his shooters play loose
- As players say goodbye to Gainey, Plekanec happy to get attention from new GM
- Edmonton's AHL affiliate to be located in Oklahoma
- Edmonton's AHL affiliate to be located in Oklahoma
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
