Officiating and Replay Crisis

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,992
Somerville, MA
I don't know if this is like a nuclear option but if it must remain a penalty it should be 1 minute, not 2. The punishment will never fit the crime for as long as this is a penalty, but at least bring it a little bit more in line.
Dom L wrote an article in the athletic today and mentioned having 1 minute penalties for ticky tack calls.

https://theathletic.com/981501/2019/05/17/luszczyszyn-proposing-15-changes-that-would-improve-the-nhl/

I don't love that idea the more I think about it. There would be more penalties and more stoppages. Maybe they could do something like soccer does for minor calls -- something analogous to a yellow card, without stopping play. And 2-3 of them is a 2 minute penalty. And save 2 minute penalties for clear, play-altering calls.
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
9,953
My own "obviously I'm right where the NHL is wrong" thoughts:

1.) Replay is limited to reviewing the 10 seconds prior to the goal, or to the most recent faceoff, whichever is closest. Scoring plays are automatically reviewed at game speed by an off-ice official to see if there is justification for a replay review. This should eliminate the dumb offsides review that is absolutely useless, but would still correct the egregious errors made by officials in the Columbus and San Jose goals.

1a.) I'd be happy with just limiting review to determining whether the puck crossed the line, and letting on ice officials have final say on interference, hand pass, etc.

2.) First puck clear over the glass from the defensive zone during a game is a warning, with same rule as icing (defensive zone draw with no line change). Second is a two minute delay of game penalty. Attempting to clear the puck over the glass does have drawbacks; it's not always easier than simply clearing the puck down the length of the ice, and a misfired attempt can result in the puck bouncing unpredictably into your own zone. This rule would at least avoid most of the the obviously unintentional clears while also limiting unnecessary and momentum killing faceoffs. I don't go to a game to see faceoffs.

3.) I would consider giving the team on the penalty kill a limited number of times to ice the puck while killing a penalty; perhaps 2 times per minor penalty, and 5 in the event of a major. It would be good to implement such a rule on a trial basis during a preseason and then decide if it's worth implementing in the future.

I'm not exactly sure what the specific issues are with the existing goaltender interference rules; there will always be some compromise here in order to keep goalies safe.

Leave penalties as they are today. It will never be perfect; NBA and, to a lesser extent, NFL have similar problems with sometimes distinguishing between allowable and illegal contact. The officials in all cases have to decide when it makes sense to let them play, and when it's time to rein things in. It's not a science, but for the most part they've done a decent job in these playoffs.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,875
Maybe they could change the shading of the blueline so it goes from regular blue to white over a distance of 10 feet on both sides, and then nobody will know whether offsides has occurred.

There’s nothing arbitrary about an offsides violation. A player is either offsides or they aren’t. The silly part about the rule is that a team runs the risk of getting a penalty because they might not make the correct snap judgment on whether to review. You’re either right or punished. Since teams only care about this on scoring plays, requiring automatic review out of TO on all scoring plays would eliminate the need to have a debate over offsides.
I may not have articulated my point properly. Its arbitrary that we care about offsides. There are plenty of rules (icing, faceoff violations, Goalies playing outside the trapezoid, pucks hitting the netting, pucks going out of bounds without deflecting/touching the glass) that there is no review for and many of them have far more to do with whether or not a goal happens than offsides. My point was its only reviewable because Matt Duchene was offside that one time and it was a big deal pr-wise. The point is we spend all this time on reviews that 1) dont often matter to the scoring of the goal and 2) often are indeterminable or flat out wrong. There is no reason to continue doing it. It adds nothing.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,992
Somerville, MA
Leave penalties as they are today. It will never be perfect; NBA and, to a lesser extent, NFL have similar problems with sometimes distinguishing between allowable and illegal contact. The officials in all cases have to decide when it makes sense to let them play, and when it's time to rein things in. It's not a science, but for the most part they've done a decent job in these playoffs.
There is hard data that officials just blindly call the same number of penalties for both teams. That's a huge problem that doesn't exist in other sports.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
22,241
right here
I may not have articulated my point properly. Its arbitrary that we care about offsides. There are plenty of rules (icing, faceoff violations, Goalies playing outside the trapezoid, pucks hitting the netting, pucks going out of bounds without deflecting/touching the glass) that there is no review for and many of them have far more to do with whether or not a goal happens than offsides. My point was its only reviewable because Matt Duchene was offside that one time and it was a big deal pr-wise. The point is we spend all this time on reviews that 1) dont often matter to the scoring of the goal and 2) often are indeterminable or flat out wrong. There is no reason to continue doing it. It adds nothing.
To wit, from DGB at The Athletic

Here’s a situation. It’s overtime in the playoffs, and the home team scores. The fans explode, the players pile on the ice to celebrate, confetti falls, all of that. Then a few minutes later the referee skates to center ice and announces that it turns out that a winger had his toe over the line on a faceoff that came well before the goal, so he invokes Rule 76.6 and the goal doesn’t count. How would you feel about that?
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,875
To wit, from DGB at The Athletic

Here’s a situation. It’s overtime in the playoffs, and the home team scores. The fans explode, the players pile on the ice to celebrate, confetti falls, all of that. Then a few minutes later the referee skates to center ice and announces that it turns out that a winger had his toe over the line on a faceoff that came well before the goal, so he invokes Rule 76.6 and the goal doesn’t count. How would you feel about that?
Yup. He's the writer who gave me the example. It's absurd, and offside is just as absurd but we accept it because... no reason.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,206
Quincy, MA
The issue is this has never really been a tactic prior to the lockout so you are creating a solve for a problem that either didn't exist or existed in such a minor way that nobody was aware of it.
Respectfully you are mistaken. Patrick Roy would flip the puck into the stands to relieve pressure on a regular basis. He was notorious for it while with Montreal. He was not the only goalie - they just had to act like it was accidental because the rule was written to require an "intentional" act.

I remember watching games in the late 90s where the puck was going out into the stands at least 10-15 times a game due to the defensemen relieving pressure. Was it an epidemic? I don't know - but I do know this was a post lockout rule intended to speed up the game and benefit offense. If it wasn't reasonably commonplace, why did they make the change? Why even think to make the change, unless they thought it was happening enough to warrant consideration?

As to the other part of your response - in this day and age of analytics you better believe if there was an advantage to doing it (over icing) it would become a tactic again in a BB moment. In order to avoid the delay of game penalty and relieve pressure - one is able to ice the puck in exactly one direction - and the offensive team knows this. If you treat it like icing, the puck can be flipped over the net behind the goalie or to either side - wherever there is less chance of a problem if it isn't lifted enough. The occurrence will multiply like rabbits. If it didn't result in a faceoff, I wouldn't care - but the best hockey is continuous action and anything that reduces it is a bad thing.

As to actual consequences - someone mentioned one warning a game, and then the 2 minute penalty for each occurrence after that - that sounds reasonable.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,435
Pittsburgh, PA
Picture this: Carolina has a really good ...
...I'm gonna stop you right there.

OK but seriously, to your point:
I'm admittedly biased (wanting to keep out the 'into the stands' tactic), and wish there were a happy medium for the consequences (treated like icing vs a penalty), but I can't think of a definite improvement - and I dislike the idea of turning the game back into the stop/go/stop tactics that had become commonplace. The only thing I think of is like tracking team fouls in basketball. After so many you get free throws, even on non-shooting fouls. Maybe you limit the into the stands clearing attempt to 3 per game (or one per period?) and after that - every one is a 2 minute penalty. I'm not sure that is a good idea, but it IS a midway point between icing and a penalty.
I'm OK with that. First one each period is "free" - defensive zone faceoff, can't change lines. You made a mistake trying to advance it up the boards, NBD. Anything after that, DOG minor. Heck, they have delay-of-game warnings in basketball, tennis, etc - a "cut that shit out or there will be real penalties next time" thing that doesn't interrupt or alter play.

You seem to view it as a strategic goal for the rule design of hockey, to try and minimize faceoffs. I like the thought process there, because each one involves 30-45 seconds of aimless skating around without action, and then the dance of getting thrown out of the circle or whatever, and then (at best) a coinflip for possession (and one that only results in quality possession, i.e. control and some thoughtful play design going forward, a small minority of the time). If there's one thing hockey has in abundance over all other sports, it's the density and continuity of action. It should play to its advantages.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,206
Quincy, MA
...I'm gonna stop you right there.
Fair enough, lol.

OK but seriously, to your point:

I'm OK with that. First one each period is "free" - defensive zone faceoff, can't change lines. You made a mistake trying to advance it up the boards, NBD. Anything after that, DOG minor. Heck, they have delay-of-game warnings in basketball, tennis, etc - a "cut that shit out or there will be real penalties next time" thing that doesn't interrupt or alter play.

You seem to view it as a strategic goal for the rule design of hockey, to try and minimize faceoffs. I like the thought process there, because each one involves 30-45 seconds of aimless skating around without action, and then the dance of getting thrown out of the circle or whatever, and then (at best) a coinflip for possession (and one that only results in quality possession, i.e. control and some thoughtful play design going forward, a small minority of the time). If there's one thing hockey has in abundance over all other sports, it's the density and continuity of action. It should play to its advantages.
Yes, minimizing faceoffs as an approach to preserving continuity of action.

Especially important when one adds in the dance you describe. The way things are currently in the playoffs after an icing (Krug had a 3+ minute shift in G4 at Carolina with the only break an icing one), if I were coaching I'd have put my 3rd best faceoff person at the dot with instructions to intentionally get thrown out going early just to delay things a bit more (only in crucial situations). As a fan, that thought just sucks.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,206
Quincy, MA
Another review/officiating process I'd like to see cleaned up is whether or not the puck is actually in the net. It isn't a unique thought, but in this day and age of technology it's ridiculous that we are spending significant time during games to determine whether or not the puck went in the net. Put something in the puck, and sensors in the nets and be done with it. If you need to verify the puck went into the net - check the sensors and the time stamp, compare that with when the ref intends for play to have stopped and it's done. Either in the net or not - screw this thought process of not seeing the puck in the glove, or the goalie laying on top of it, or what have you. 30 seconds of review time tops, and an accurate call. Drop the puck, let's go.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,370
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I may not have articulated my point properly. Its arbitrary that we care about offsides. There are plenty of rules (icing, faceoff violations, Goalies playing outside the trapezoid, pucks hitting the netting, pucks going out of bounds without deflecting/touching the glass) that there is no review for and many of them have far more to do with whether or not a goal happens than offsides. My point was its only reviewable because Matt Duchene was offside that one time and it was a big deal pr-wise. The point is we spend all this time on reviews that 1) dont often matter to the scoring of the goal and 2) often are indeterminable or flat out wrong. There is no reason to continue doing it. It adds nothing.
Either you’re still not articulating it properly or I’m too dense (and I’m not discounting the second possibility), because neither of your two points seem right to me. Do teams seek reviews of potential offsides violations if the outcome wasn’t a scoring play? Maybe in the past with the purpose of arguing for a different faceoff location, but certainly not for any reason but a challenge of a goal against with the minor for getting it ruled against you.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,370
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
To wit, from DGB at The Athletic

Here’s a situation. It’s overtime in the playoffs, and the home team scores. The fans explode, the players pile on the ice to celebrate, confetti falls, all of that. Then a few minutes later the referee skates to center ice and announces that it turns out that a winger had his toe over the line on a faceoff that came well before the goal, so he invokes Rule 76.6 and the goal doesn’t count. How would you feel about that?
It sounds like a Hunger Games situation.

Who was it that decided that a faceoff violation should and could be legislated the same as an offsides violation? It’s a false dilemma.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,370
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
For fun, I looked through some box scores to see if I could get a feel for how often teams were shooting the puck over the glass to stop play. I assume that the NHL calls a penalty in all instances where this happens in accordance with the rule (own zone, not deflected, etc.). I picked the Sabres this past year because they had a CF% of exactly 50, so good enough, and I only went through 41 games because I actually have a life (I swear I do). They had three delay of game calls. The HR website isn’t descriptive of the reason for the DOG penalty (puck out of play, puck covered in crease). Okposo had two that were shot over the glass, and I think the other was because the play by play had it in their defensive zone.

TMI - assume it was and that 6 per year is an average rate for a team. The NHL reported penalty rates in the first round of this playoff season and last of about 9 per game, or 4.5 per team if we assume an even split and that they are only counting minors, meaning about 370 per year per team. These are obviously back of the napkin estimates. If one were to assume the rule is indeed unfair, I’m having a hard time understanding how something that occurs so infrequently can be worth all the angst it receives.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,370
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Anyone who says "review all scoring plays" did
I didn’t think anyone would take that to mean “review every bit of game action for violations in the immediate period before the goal.” However, don’t let that mean I think you don’t have a point, because I think you’re on to something. Reviewing all scoring plays could be a good idea but only if limits were set on the review. That shouldn’t be left unsaid. You’re right if that’s the point you’re making.

In your example, the NHL could restrict faceoff violations from consideration in a video review. That’s not unreasonable. Moreover, the rulebook gives a great amount of discretion to the linesman in calling faceoff violations. The section on faceoffs is almost 6 pages long and mentions the linesman 15 times. The offsides rule is a clear description and provides for no discretion - and why would it? It’s a big blue line and if you cross it before the puck is over you’re offsides, and you’re not if you don’t.

The origin of this discussion was the Meier hand pass that wasn’t called. I’m sure the referees would have loved to have reviewed that play, but they couldn’t. Generally speaking, expanding the limits on referee-initiated review - however it might happen (I prefer modesty here) seems like a fix Occam could get behind.

Anyway, you’re right in implying that a review system that didn’t have limits would be opening Pandora’s box. I don’t see why they couldn’t include offsides in that review - or they could leave it as is (coach’s challenge for offsides with minor penalty if wrong).
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
708
Herndon, VA
What if you limited the review to the same way a scorekeeper determines assists? The secondary assist being as far back as you can review.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,041
Hingham, MA
I know this thread is about replay but I have a question about icing: why do they relax the rule when a team is short-handed? Would killing penalties be way too difficult if you couldn’t ice the puck?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
9,953
The justification for reviewing scoring plays is that hockey is a low scoring game, so reviewing plays that has a huge impact to ensure they are correct makes sense. Still, scoring play review can be limited in some fashion:

- Review back only the 10 seconds prior to the goal.
- Review back only as far as the scoring team gained possession.
- Limit review to puck over line or not, and leave it to the officials to get everything else correct.

None of the above limits are any more arbitrary than today's review policy which places an unjustified premium on getting marginal offsides calls correct.

I know this thread is about replay but I have a question about icing: why do they relax the rule when a team is short-handed? Would killing penalties be way too difficult if you couldn’t ice the puck?
The WHA did not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck. I'm sure it would lead to more scoring. Downside is that there would be more face-offs due to inadvertent icing plays by the shorthanded team.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,206
Quincy, MA
I know this thread is about replay but I have a question about icing: why do they relax the rule when a team is short-handed? Would killing penalties be way too difficult if you couldn’t ice the puck?
I can't answer the question directly, but obviously the changes to rules are almost always an attempt to maintain either a) parity or b) tweak the game to make it more appealing to the masses (offense is king!). I think the 50s Canadiens were so good at the power play they had to change the PP rules to let the offending player out of the penalty box when a goal was scored. I read somewhere they scored 50ish PP goals one year (playing less games than today). The mid 80s Oilers destroyed teams so badly when matching minor penalties occurred (at the time played 4x4) that they changed the rules to make matching penalties stay 5x5 with the offenders in the penalty box. All this to say, at some point things must have appeared too out of balance when PPs occurred and they decided to give the defense a bit of help.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
1,785
Worcester
TMI - assume it was and that 6 per year is an average rate for a team. The NHL reported penalty rates in the first round of this playoff season and last of about 9 per game, or 4.5 per team if we assume an even split and that they are only counting minors, meaning about 370 per year per team. These are obviously back of The Napkin estimates. If one were to assume the rule is indeed unfair, I’m having a hard time understanding how something that occurs so infrequently can be worth all the angst it receives.
Well that does give you plenty of space to work with...
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
2,213
In the simulacrum
Infractions that result in penalty shots should also result in a two minute minor penalty if the player fails to score on the penalty shot.

Eliminating the icing change during penalties would increasing scoring by an enormous amount, at least in the NHL. It would be too much. The short handed team would find it almost impossible to get out of their end and would never get a change (especially since they would be trapped on the ice when they did ice it).
 

NAR29996

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2006
634
Kissimmee, FL
Infractions that result in penalty shots should also result in a two minute minor penalty if the player fails to score on the penalty shot.

Eliminating the icing change during penalties would increasing scoring by an enormous amount, at least in the NHL. It would be too much. The short handed team would find it almost impossible to get out of their end and would never get a change (especially since they would be trapped on the ice when they did ice it).
You could allow the defensive players to change out after icing only while shorthanded.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
2,213
In the simulacrum
You could allow the defensive players to change out after icing only while shorthanded.
I suppose. I guess it really depends on how much you want penalties to likely lead to goals and how much you want stoppages in play. To my mind, one of the virtues of hockey is that the game just plays out, with few stoppages. The less it slides into being like basketball and football, the better. So allowing the defending team to ice the puck without a stoppage is part of that.

On the other hand, I could see real merit to changing the length of penalties: with say, three minutes for some minor penalties but only one minute for some of the ticky-tack ones. (I'll let others decide which are which.)
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,875
Either you’re still not articulating it properly or I’m too dense (and I’m not discounting the second possibility), because neither of your two points seem right to me. Do teams seek reviews of potential offsides violations if the outcome wasn’t a scoring play? Maybe in the past with the purpose of arguing for a different faceoff location, but certainly not for any reason but a challenge of a goal against with the minor for getting it ruled against you.
No. The point is there are a million things that "COULD" be reviewed that lead to a goal but we only review a select few things and offsides is a procedural violation just like all the rest of them. Like all things NHL, the only reason it is reviewed is because they took a ton of crap when Duchene scored while being 3 feet offsides. It's not needed or necessary to the game and causes far more problems than it solves.
 

Boston Brawler

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2011
9,002
I just want to drop this here:

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/professional/blues-notebook-bettman-confirms-missed-call-on-hand-pass/article_403a6ac3-6158-5f93-8cf4-20b1ed94a0e1.html

Bettman says:

Bettman said that while the league wanted to use review to get calls right, officials had to balance that with how far back they could go to review a call and without slowing down the game.

“What if the hand pass happened a minute earlier and four or five other people touched the puck?” Bettman asked, “or it cleared the zone, or, or, or. You can roll it back endlessly, so again we’re going to have to come up with something, if we decide to extend replay, that defines it in a way that we can not ruin the game but get it right.
How does he say that with the current offsides review executed the way it is? What a moron.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
25,651
Melrose, MA
It definitely needs to be something but I think it's too much as is and I for damn sure don't trust the officials to make a call if it was on purpose or not. I feel like just treating it like icing is the easiest and simplest and best solution. I guess there's the potential for abuse with teams doing it like 5 times in a row but I'm willing to cross that bridge when it's built.
How about this: on the ensuing faceoff after a team clears the puck out of play, the offending player needs to be stationed at his offensive blue line. He's free to hustle back as soon as the puck is dropped. Also, like with icing, no substitutions are allowed.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,144
How about this: on the ensuing faceoff after a team clears the puck out of play, the offending player needs to be stationed at his offensive blue line. He's free to hustle back as soon as the puck is dropped. Also, like with icing, no substitutions are allowed.
Sort of like a penalty corner in field hockey.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,206
Quincy, MA
How about this: on the ensuing faceoff after a team clears the puck out of play, the offending player needs to be stationed at his offensive blue line. He's free to hustle back as soon as the puck is dropped. Also, like with icing, no substitutions are allowed.
I like the creativity, but wouldn't that lead to a bunch of home run passes attempting breakaways (assuming the offending team got control of the faceoff)? Which would lead to the other team keeping a defender back with him... which would lead to...
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,435
Pittsburgh, PA
Offending player has to do 10 pushups on the ice after the puck drop before he can pick up his stick again.

Offending player has to do a lap around the goals before he can participate in play again. Checks on him still allowed.

Offending player must land a double axel before getting his stick back.
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
9,411
Multivac
How about this: on the ensuing faceoff after a team clears the puck out of play, the offending player needs to be stationed at his offensive blue line. He's free to hustle back as soon as the puck is dropped. Also, like with icing, no substitutions are allowed.
Start with him off the ice.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
25,651
Melrose, MA
I like the creativity, but wouldn't that lead to a bunch of home run passes attempting breakaways (assuming the offending team got control of the faceoff)? Which would lead to the other team keeping a defender back with him... which would lead to...
Start him at the penalty box, without a stick.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
25,651
Melrose, MA
Or we can just not change icing on penalties, because it's not something that needs to be changed.
Icing on penalities is fine the way it is. That has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether a 2-minute minor for flipping the puck into the stands is excessive.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
6,457
Falmouth
Icing on penalities is fine the way it is. That has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether a 2-minute minor for flipping the puck into the stands is excessive.
Agreed here...I guess my reading comprehension is poor at this hour of the day.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,435
Pittsburgh, PA
ok ok, the penalty for flipping the puck out of your defensive zone is that you lose your stick and can't come off the ice until you land a double salchow. Success in the endeavor is judged by audience acclamation.

When figuring out how the NHL will change rules, I usually start with "what's the dumbest, most over-wrought idea the NFL might come up with?", and then look for something dumber.
 

AMcGhie

Set Adrift on Memory Bliss
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
3,251
Portland, OR
My icing/POG compromise: Puck Over Glass counts as an icing. BUT. If you start in the defensive zone under an ice, and you ice again without clearing the defensive zone cleanly, that's a delay of game.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
6,146
The Island
I would pay all the money to be in the room with Gary Bettman right now. Neely’s call to him is/will be epic, no doubt.

It’s really everything with the rules. Poorly written (McAvoy gets 2 for a hit to the head because the rules are, minor or match only), poorly executed (hi Kozari and Sutherland, join the scrap heap of refs exposed for their botched blatant calls this postseason), and even the failsafes are poor (the replay system, just all of it). We’re here, but imagine a casual that watched the regular season game between these two in Boston and tonight. Is it realistic to tell them both games are governed by the same rules?
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,985
Its not just THIS SC, this entire Playoffs have been full of shit officiating (LV series for example) (from round 1 to today). Its also been worse (IMO) this playoffs than in years past, and the asinine replay rules are partly to blame..

There is a reason the NHL is the #4 sport in the US.... Any time the NHL has a chance to gain on the other big 3, they shoot themselves in the foot
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
6,670
Brookline
We’re here, but imagine a casual that watched the regular season game between these two in Boston and tonight. Is it realistic to tell them both games are governed by the same rules?
I know I’m getting to be droningly repetitive, but this is what pisses me off the most. No other league lets its officials call playoff games by a different and capricious set of rules than the ones in force in the regular season. Only the NHL. Why? Aren’t rules what give sports integrity?

I don’t even care if the refs call regular-season penalties against the Bruins in the playoffs, I really don’t. Just don’t let the officials make up their own rule book during games. It’s bad for the sport.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,264
Tuukka's refugee camp
Its not just THIS SC, this entire Playoffs have been full of shit officiating (LV series for example) (from round 1 to today). Its also been worse (IMO) this playoffs than in years past, and the asinine replay rules are partly to blame..

There is a reason the NHL is the #4 sport in the US.... Any time the NHL has a chance to gain on the other big 3, they shoot themselves in the foot
Meh, officiating is a red herring for the NHL’s standing in popularity. It’s not popular because most players aren’t American, you can’t just pick up and play, it’s expensive, and absurdly white. Then maybe officiating starts coming in to play.
 

Garshaparra

lurker
Feb 27, 2008
149
McCarver's Mushy Mouth
No other league lets its officials call playoff games by a different and capricious set of rules than the ones in force in the regular season. Only the NHL. Why? Aren’t rules what give sports integrity?
I really wouldn't agree with that. Offensive holding penalties essentially aren't called during the Super Bowl. The NBA's star system calls amps up during all of the playoffs.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,537
I know I’m getting to be droningly repetitive, but this is what pisses me off the most. No other league lets its officials call playoff games by a different and capricious set of rules than the ones in force in the regular season. Only the NHL. Why? Aren’t rules what give sports integrity?

I don’t even care if the refs call regular-season penalties against the Bruins in the playoffs, I really don’t. Just don’t let the officials make up their own rule book during games. It’s bad for the sport.
I think the NBA and NFL change the rules quite a bit in the postseason.. definitely allow more physicality in both IMO...don't know what MLB could change in the same way.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,267
The difference is that in the NBA - where I agree officiating is equally bad - it’s really not nearly as likely to lead to injuries. Especially head injuries.

The NFL might be capricious with holding or offsides, but, again, not much injury risk there. And, if anything, they tighten up on hits to the head or roughing the passer calls.

The NHL is the only sport where there’s discretion to call penalties on plays that can literally change/ruin people’s lives/careers. That’s bullshit and treating your players like less than commodities.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
11,304
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I know I’m getting to be droningly repetitive, but this is what pisses me off the most. No other league lets its officials call playoff games by a different and capricious set of rules than the ones in force in the regular season. Only the NHL. Why? Aren’t rules what give sports integrity?

I don’t even care if the refs call regular-season penalties against the Bruins in the playoffs, I really don’t. Just don’t let the officials make up their own rule book during games. It’s bad for the sport.
That's not true, the NFL does it every year
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
27,763
At this point, it's probably just better to get rid of referees, go by the honor system, and add a 21st active spot for an enforcer-type to back up the honor system.