[PGT] Diving Jets at Canucks

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Ok Ron.

 

 

 

[BC_Hawk]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I do think bains and garland might have chemistry as they both think the game in a similar way and have complimentary skill sets.  I do also think he could fit with miller and boes as well.  He's an incredibly cerebral player with high skill and a great motor

And either him or Podz cost us nothing for a try. If either clicks…we are laughing not just this year but into next year; potentially clear $ for Lindholm.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

11 hours ago, spook007 said:

Best Canucks team in history up to this point point wise, (think its still the case), and yet they suck  yeah right...

 

I literally posted the Canucks have a near .610 winning percentage against the top contenders in the league as many seem to think the Canucks have a poor record versus top teams overall this season.

 

I guess its not the .714 winning percentage the Canucks have as a whole against the entire league this year so room to improve I suppose lol.

 

 

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

And either him or Podz cost us nothing for a try. If either clicks…we are laughing not just this year but into next year; potentially clear $ for Lindholm.

 

If DJ is out for awhile, I think we'll see podz up for part of it.......though I don't think podz and bains would get the same line assignment, podz is much more likely to get 4th line duty, imo

[BC_Hawk]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

If DJ is out for awhile, I think we'll see podz up for part of it.......though I don't think podz and bains would get the same line assignment, podz is much more likely to get 4th line duty, imo

I agree. I honestly think that Podz can play the DJ role; he’s shown it before. Just needs to work his ass off, which Ithink both he and Bains would do.

 

Having 4 legit Cs (5 with Petey) offers use huge flexibility. Skilled dudes like Boeser, garland, Petey, etc. benefit greatly from playing with true Cs. For the fwd group, finding a way to secure Lindholm long term w/o jettisoning Garland is PAs challenge. An emergence by Bains or Podz this year allows other mechanisms to happen (trade Brock in summer; replace long term with Lekermaki when ready).

[Combover]

Not a Myers fan but love he called out the shit officiating.(and got a beauty goal) 

- X

Tyler Myers held court in the scrum and said it felt like the Canucks were facing two teams on the night (officials and Jets)

 

 

 

maybe with all the reviewable plays we only need one ref  Again   so then the actual talent pool will be better since they can get rid of 50% of them and especially the ones that are total and completely incompetent  trash like the ones from  last two game's. 

ron should have been canned a decade ago. 
Just another pro ref  leaf loser. Lost all respect for him when he put words in burrows mouth and had to apologize because he’s a spineless worm. Who’s shtik is a stupid saying that’s neither clever nor entertaining  
 but I was never a fan of him and his pet dinosaur Don. And that’s  Going back to the late 80s 
 

bieska brought personality to a dried up turd panel and I hope he doesn’t change.

 

Edited February 19 by Combover

[coolboarder]

6 hours ago, Nucker67 said:

Jets get no respect, all these "experts" picking the Oilers, Leafs or Canucks to win it for Canada. When push comes to shove, though, the Jets are a big, nasty team who can shut 'er down with the best goalie in the league. Great coaching too. Bringing in Monahan was a good move. IMO, they're the Canadian team to beat.

 

Allvin needs to make a move, 'cause this Canucks team right now isn't there yet.

They doesn't have to get there because they are already there even in a loss.  If you notice, ref helped them to get back in the game undeservedly.  The Canucks can be dominating but when ref get involved for no reason at all, that's when  you know fix is in.  PP just need to get better in the playoffs, not in regular season.  You do not want to give away their strategy that early if they just passing things around and can be dominating if they want to.  The playoffs is when you adjust to everything.  That is why they work on many different things with many different lines during the regular season and change things up.   How they win the games in the season is so many different things that they couldn't stop.   If they have Soucy and Joshua in the line-up yesterday, we'd be seeing a different game, no question about it. 

[-dlc-]

Truth.

 

[gwarrior]

20 minutes ago, -dlc- said:

Truth.

 

Yeah, he would get more that goof from Toronto for cross checking what's his face from Ottawa. 

[-dlc-]

You know you're in trouble when Twitter's the voice of reason.

 

[Rocket-68]

38 minutes ago, -dlc- said:

Truth.

 

 

How is that not a penalty and if all 4 ref's (yes Linesmen can call penalties in certain circumstances) missed it, how is that not then brought to the attention of the DOPS. Lowry is 12 inches off the ground at the point of contact. While goon hockey is mostly behind us, these are the times you want a Brashear or Laraque or ideally someone like a Chris Simon circa 1999-2000 (who scored 29 goals that year with 146 PIM), who could regulate guys like Lowry when the refs wouldn't.

Edited February 19 by Rocket-68

[EdgarM]

3 hours ago, -dlc- said:

An example of how the Jets drew up their game plan to beat us. Not respectable is right.

 

 

I'm nominating this for an Academy award. 10/10

 

WAIT FOR IT.....

Miller on Shieffle was even worse. Shieffle goes down as if he was knocked out, looks directly at the ref, sees his hand up, then gets up like nothing happened. I can't blame Miller for being pissed after that for sure.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

36 minutes ago, -dlc- said:

You know you're in trouble when Twitter's the voice of reason.

 

 

Have to say the " can't hang with the big boys " narrative is so very lame and factually not even close to reality yet people feed into so easily.

 

Almost as bad as the suggested " measuring stick " or " statement games " people seem to think the Canucks get psyched up for then fail miserably.  Vancouver is near .610 winning percentage against those " statement game " opponents. 

 

The truth of it is, the Canucks were MAYBE supposed to push for a wild card spot if you asked anyone during the offseason. They have exploded this season under excellent coaching and management to the point they have expedited where they should be.

 

Enjoy the games, the success whether it be a division banner, President's trophy, or Playoff success. Dont take it for granted and nitpick game by game results or false narratives about this team's standing in the league.

 

The Canucks are playing .714 % winning hockey against the league, most teams are bringing their " A " games to try and beat our Canucks. The statement was made a long time ago.

[EdgarM]

3 hours ago, Darius said:

Period? Are you arguing with someone here? All I said is he is the most important guy on that line. If you faced Winnipeg or Boston in the playoffs who out of the three would you keep if you only had one guy to choose? 

You were giving the impression that they are not as good without Joshua. I totally agree he is key as that line has so much chemistry but they scored last night and still play a lot in the Ozone. That is all. 

[coho8888]

15 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Miller on Shieffle was even worse. Shieffle goes down as if he was knocked out, looks directly at the ref, sees his hand up, then gets up like nothing happened. I can't blame Miller for being pissed after that for sure.

Watched that clip many times and have a hard time seeing where any part of hoglander’s stick or elbow contacted his head.  Stuff like this should be sent to the league for further disciplinary action

’

Edited February 19 by coho8888

[EdgarM]

23 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

Watched that clip many times and have a hard time seeing where any part of hoglander’s stick or elbow contacted his head.  Stuff like this should be sent to the league for further disciplinary action

’

??? I was talking about Miller's penalty not Hogs penalty, although that one was bad too.

[coho8888]

7 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

??? I was talking about Miller's penalty not Hogs penalty, although that one was bad too.

I replied to your reply to Deb and it had Hog's first penalty

 

[Gawdzukes]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

 

I've said it many times.  These are, literally, the best officials on the planet and there isn't some big pool of better ones to choose from.  And, I'd say this is the best officiating we've probably ever seen.......a lot of the people complaining either weren't alive, were too young or just didn't watch a lot of hockey way back........you want to talk about refs with personal vendettas

 

The criticisms of the referees on this site are something else. It's just wild.

Like do people here honestly think by some insane coincidence all, and I mean like every single referee just happens to be the least intelligent human on the face of the earth? Are people really that self delusional?

 

I found this article which had a funny but true statement.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems.

But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-what-can-we-really-do-about-nhl-officiating

 

 

 

Opinion: What Can We Really Do About NHL Officiating?

Adam Proteau argues that as much as NHL officials should be held accountable, there are limited ways to improve each referee in a fast-paced game.

• ADAM PROTEAU
• MAR 15, 2023

Kris Letang and Dan O'Rourke.

Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Last week, NBA star guard Fred VanVleet made headlines when he lashed out against NBA officiating. After a loss by his Toronto Raptors team, VanVleet did not mince words as he criticized the game’s referees.

“I think the jurisdiction and the power trip that we’ve been on this year with some of our officials in this league is getting out of hand, and I’ll take my fine for speaking on it,” said VanVleet, who was subsequently fined $30,000 for his comments. “Most of the refs are trying hard, I like a lot of the refs, they’re trying hard, they’re pretty fair, and communicate well. And then you got the other ones who just want to be (idiots) and just kind of (screw) up the game. And no one’s coming to see that. They come to see the players.”

 

VanVleet has every right to his opinion. And certainly, officials in all sports make numerous mistakes, which we hear about frequently in the NHL. But from our perspective, harping on NHL refereeing is a waste of time. There’s nothing wrong with noting errors officials make, and we do need to keep them accountable, but let’s get to the logical endpoint of all these complaints: what is going to be done about it?

Indeed, where are the improvement lanes for referees to take from here on? How are we going to ensure all the right calls are made all of the time? 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

This isn’t to say we can’t do better on the officiating front. This writer has advocated numerous times for the addition of a third referee in the NHL, one who would occupy an “eye-in-the-sky” position off the ice and could buzz in with a stoppage of play when they see some infraction the on-ice officials have missed. 

Using a third referee would be a notable change, but people said there would be terrible difficulties when the NHL went from a single referee for games to two referees for games, beginning in the 1998-99 season. For the six decades years prior to that, only one referee was the norm and was what everyone was accustomed to. But fans, players, coaches and officials all adjusted, and we’d argue the game is better officiated now because of that change.

 

The same could and would happen with three referees. But even then, mistakes would be made, calls would be missed, and people in all cities would begrudge officials for “bias” against them. To the contrary – fans have to recognize the increased speed of the game makes it impossible for hockey referees to get everything right. And if there was a legitimate case to be made for referees having a bias against a player or team, the league would move very quickly to address the problem. But most officials are admirably professional in all their tasks.

Is there some ego involved in player and coach engagement with referees? Sure, there is. But, after talking to many officials over the years, I think any perceived ego from referees is more of a defense mechanism than an exercise in superiority. Most of them have talked (off the record) about not wanting to have the opinions of players or coaches override their opinions and decisions, even when those opinions and decisions can be challenged fairly. 

 

You understand where they're coming from – it's human nature to want to be correct or at least feel that they're correct. And when you put the egos of officials into a head-on collision with the egos of players and coaches, the results can be messy and ugly.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems. But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

Like them or not, the current officials are the very best ones we have. We can train them all we want, but they’re not robots. (That said, MLB is experimenting with robot umpires, but hockey officiating is an entirely different animal. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but it doesn’t work for hockey – at least, until there’s a massive leap forward from AI.)

As far as the idea of allowing referees to review more incidents goes, we’re of a split opinion. 

 

On the one hand, it's worthwhile to give refs the leeway to review more plays, but if it leads to the expectation they're always going to get things right, people are fooling themselves. The subjectivity of the position will always be there, no matter how much help is provided by emerging technologies of the game or increased boundaries of officials’ decisions.

 

Barking at the refs isn’t going to go away. But you’re best advised not to work yourself into a lather over the people in stripes. They’re going to make mistakes, and sometimes it’s going to affect one team more than another team. That’s not on purpose. Good teams, and great players, find a way to thrive in spite of missed or mistaken calls. 

Our referees are the best we have, and the game would be better if we get past this blind hatred of them. 

 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

[NHL Tyranny]

53 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

Have to say the " can't hang with the big boys " narrative is so very lame and factually not even close to reality yet people feed into so easily.

 

Almost as bad as the suggested " measuring stick " or " statement games " people seem to think the Canucks get psyched up for then fail miserably.  Vancouver is near .610 winning percentage against those " statement game " opponents. 

 

The truth of it is, the Canucks were MAYBE supposed to push for a wild card spot if you asked anyone during the offseason. They have exploded this season under excellent coaching and management to the point they have expedited where they should be.

 

Enjoy the games, the success whether it be a division banner, President's trophy, or Playoff success. Dont take it for granted and nitpick game by game results or false narratives about this team's standing in the league.

 

The Canucks are playing .714 % winning hockey against the league, most teams are bringing their " A " games to try and beat our Canucks. The statement was made a long time ago.

Yup and the reffs/league has been trying to knock the Nucks down a bit as it's not good for the business model to have a runaway team, especially a Canadian team. It's a reality the team will need to overcome. It's a sign of greatness and we last saw something similar in 2011. Health and depth will be key. Too bad we won't see a Canadian final...

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

The criticisms of the referees on this site are something else. It's just wild.

Like do people here honestly think by some insane coincidence all, and I mean like every single referee just happens to be the least intelligent human on the face of the earth? Are people really that self delusional?

 

I found this article which had a funny but true statement.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems.

But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-what-can-we-really-do-about-nhl-officiating

 

 

 

Opinion: What Can We Really Do About NHL Officiating?

Adam Proteau argues that as much as NHL officials should be held accountable, there are limited ways to improve each referee in a fast-paced game.

• ADAM PROTEAU
• MAR 15, 2023

Kris Letang and Dan O'Rourke.

Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Last week, NBA star guard Fred VanVleet made headlines when he lashed out against NBA officiating. After a loss by his Toronto Raptors team, VanVleet did not mince words as he criticized the game’s referees.

“I think the jurisdiction and the power trip that we’ve been on this year with some of our officials in this league is getting out of hand, and I’ll take my fine for speaking on it,” said VanVleet, who was subsequently fined $30,000 for his comments. “Most of the refs are trying hard, I like a lot of the refs, they’re trying hard, they’re pretty fair, and communicate well. And then you got the other ones who just want to be (idiots) and just kind of (screw) up the game. And no one’s coming to see that. They come to see the players.”

 

VanVleet has every right to his opinion. And certainly, officials in all sports make numerous mistakes, which we hear about frequently in the NHL. But from our perspective, harping on NHL refereeing is a waste of time. There’s nothing wrong with noting errors officials make, and we do need to keep them accountable, but let’s get to the logical endpoint of all these complaints: what is going to be done about it?

Indeed, where are the improvement lanes for referees to take from here on? How are we going to ensure all the right calls are made all of the time? 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

This isn’t to say we can’t do better on the officiating front. This writer has advocated numerous times for the addition of a third referee in the NHL, one who would occupy an “eye-in-the-sky” position off the ice and could buzz in with a stoppage of play when they see some infraction the on-ice officials have missed. 

Using a third referee would be a notable change, but people said there would be terrible difficulties when the NHL went from a single referee for games to two referees for games, beginning in the 1998-99 season. For the six decades years prior to that, only one referee was the norm and was what everyone was accustomed to. But fans, players, coaches and officials all adjusted, and we’d argue the game is better officiated now because of that change.

 

The same could and would happen with three referees. But even then, mistakes would be made, calls would be missed, and people in all cities would begrudge officials for “bias” against them. To the contrary – fans have to recognize the increased speed of the game makes it impossible for hockey referees to get everything right. And if there was a legitimate case to be made for referees having a bias against a player or team, the league would move very quickly to address the problem. But most officials are admirably professional in all their tasks.

Is there some ego involved in player and coach engagement with referees? Sure, there is. But, after talking to many officials over the years, I think any perceived ego from referees is more of a defense mechanism than an exercise in superiority. Most of them have talked (off the record) about not wanting to have the opinions of players or coaches override their opinions and decisions, even when those opinions and decisions can be challenged fairly. 

 

You understand where they're coming from – it's human nature to want to be correct or at least feel that they're correct. And when you put the egos of officials into a head-on collision with the egos of players and coaches, the results can be messy and ugly.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems. But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

Like them or not, the current officials are the very best ones we have. We can train them all we want, but they’re not robots. (That said, MLB is experimenting with robot umpires, but hockey officiating is an entirely different animal. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but it doesn’t work for hockey – at least, until there’s a massive leap forward from AI.)

As far as the idea of allowing referees to review more incidents goes, we’re of a split opinion. 

 

On the one hand, it's worthwhile to give refs the leeway to review more plays, but if it leads to the expectation they're always going to get things right, people are fooling themselves. The subjectivity of the position will always be there, no matter how much help is provided by emerging technologies of the game or increased boundaries of officials’ decisions.

 

Barking at the refs isn’t going to go away. But you’re best advised not to work yourself into a lather over the people in stripes. They’re going to make mistakes, and sometimes it’s going to affect one team more than another team. That’s not on purpose. Good teams, and great players, find a way to thrive in spite of missed or mistaken calls. 

Our referees are the best we have, and the game would be better if we get past this blind hatred of them. 

 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

 

This article is a good argument for developing AI refereeing as much as possible.

[spook007]

2 hours ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

I literally posted the Canucks have a near .610 winning percentage against the top contenders in the league as many seem to think the Canucks have a poor record versus top teams overall this season.

 

I guess its not the .714 winning percentage the Canucks have as a whole against the entire league this year so room to improve I suppose lol.

 

 

Yes they have been excellent. 
I know they lost to pegs, a team we've struggled against like forever, but I think it was their goalie, who beat us... reminded me a bit of Tim Thomas...

up to the point of 2 mistakes, I thought it was an even game, in which we had very good chances, but just couldn't bury one. 
Lets see how we fare against Rat boy and co next time, as well as the Avs and Kings. 
I thought the turning point was Lowry beating up MDG... we went out for revenge, or to show we can play with physicality, and lost our shap a bit because of it. 
All a good learning process for the team. 

[Bob Long]

Just now, spook007 said:

Yes they have been excellent. 
I know they lost to pegs, a team we've struggled against like forever, but I think it was their goalie, who beat us... reminded me a bit of Tim Thomas...

up to the point of 2 mistakes, I thought it was an even game, in which we had very good chances, but just couldn't bury one. 
Lets see how we fare against Rat boy and co next time, as well as the Avs and Kings. 
I thought the turning point was Lowry beating up MDG... we went out for revenge, or to show we can play with physicality, and lost our shap a bit because of it. 
All a good learning process for the team. 

 

Without the two embellishment PP goals we at least go to OT.

[spook007]

8 hours ago, Viper007 said:

I don’t blame coaching much, but this was a coaching issue this game.  You don’t play the 3rd defense pairing against the opponents top line.  Hughes and Hronek should’ve been defending not Juulsen.

Wonder if Tocchet is trying figure out how much he can rely on the 3rd pairing v top teams? 
Some how he has to find a way, to ease Hughes ice time, or he'll burn out...

[stawns]

48 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

The criticisms of the referees on this site are something else. It's just wild.

Like do people here honestly think by some insane coincidence all, and I mean like every single referee just happens to be the least intelligent human on the face of the earth? Are people really that self delusional?

 

I found this article which had a funny but true statement.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems.

But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-what-can-we-really-do-about-nhl-officiating

 

 

 

Opinion: What Can We Really Do About NHL Officiating?

Adam Proteau argues that as much as NHL officials should be held accountable, there are limited ways to improve each referee in a fast-paced game.

• ADAM PROTEAU
• MAR 15, 2023

Kris Letang and Dan O'Rourke.

Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Last week, NBA star guard Fred VanVleet made headlines when he lashed out against NBA officiating. After a loss by his Toronto Raptors team, VanVleet did not mince words as he criticized the game’s referees.

“I think the jurisdiction and the power trip that we’ve been on this year with some of our officials in this league is getting out of hand, and I’ll take my fine for speaking on it,” said VanVleet, who was subsequently fined $30,000 for his comments. “Most of the refs are trying hard, I like a lot of the refs, they’re trying hard, they’re pretty fair, and communicate well. And then you got the other ones who just want to be (idiots) and just kind of (screw) up the game. And no one’s coming to see that. They come to see the players.”

 

VanVleet has every right to his opinion. And certainly, officials in all sports make numerous mistakes, which we hear about frequently in the NHL. But from our perspective, harping on NHL refereeing is a waste of time. There’s nothing wrong with noting errors officials make, and we do need to keep them accountable, but let’s get to the logical endpoint of all these complaints: what is going to be done about it?

Indeed, where are the improvement lanes for referees to take from here on? How are we going to ensure all the right calls are made all of the time? 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

This isn’t to say we can’t do better on the officiating front. This writer has advocated numerous times for the addition of a third referee in the NHL, one who would occupy an “eye-in-the-sky” position off the ice and could buzz in with a stoppage of play when they see some infraction the on-ice officials have missed. 

Using a third referee would be a notable change, but people said there would be terrible difficulties when the NHL went from a single referee for games to two referees for games, beginning in the 1998-99 season. For the six decades years prior to that, only one referee was the norm and was what everyone was accustomed to. But fans, players, coaches and officials all adjusted, and we’d argue the game is better officiated now because of that change.

 

The same could and would happen with three referees. But even then, mistakes would be made, calls would be missed, and people in all cities would begrudge officials for “bias” against them. To the contrary – fans have to recognize the increased speed of the game makes it impossible for hockey referees to get everything right. And if there was a legitimate case to be made for referees having a bias against a player or team, the league would move very quickly to address the problem. But most officials are admirably professional in all their tasks.

Is there some ego involved in player and coach engagement with referees? Sure, there is. But, after talking to many officials over the years, I think any perceived ego from referees is more of a defense mechanism than an exercise in superiority. Most of them have talked (off the record) about not wanting to have the opinions of players or coaches override their opinions and decisions, even when those opinions and decisions can be challenged fairly. 

 

You understand where they're coming from – it's human nature to want to be correct or at least feel that they're correct. And when you put the egos of officials into a head-on collision with the egos of players and coaches, the results can be messy and ugly.

It's also fair to talk about refs who are consistent problems. But it's always going to take a good deal of time to (a) identify them and (b) weed them out. And again, what are the alternatives to the current refereeing situation? Is there a hidden island somewhere where the human beings on it are far and away better referees than the ones we have now? To ask that question is to answer it. 

 

Like them or not, the current officials are the very best ones we have. We can train them all we want, but they’re not robots. (That said, MLB is experimenting with robot umpires, but hockey officiating is an entirely different animal. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but it doesn’t work for hockey – at least, until there’s a massive leap forward from AI.)

As far as the idea of allowing referees to review more incidents goes, we’re of a split opinion. 

 

On the one hand, it's worthwhile to give refs the leeway to review more plays, but if it leads to the expectation they're always going to get things right, people are fooling themselves. The subjectivity of the position will always be there, no matter how much help is provided by emerging technologies of the game or increased boundaries of officials’ decisions.

 

Barking at the refs isn’t going to go away. But you’re best advised not to work yourself into a lather over the people in stripes. They’re going to make mistakes, and sometimes it’s going to affect one team more than another team. That’s not on purpose. Good teams, and great players, find a way to thrive in spite of missed or mistaken calls. 

Our referees are the best we have, and the game would be better if we get past this blind hatred of them. 

 

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee officials are perfect, and there’s not going to be a way, either now or down the road, to make them perfect. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules, and that is not going to change.

 

I agree with that article......for better or worse, refs are human and each one is going to interpret every play differently.  There's no escaping that fact.  The only solution would be AI reffing, but would probably be a decade off and do we really want a game where every infraction is called?  That would be unwatchable

[Hammertime]

11 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Wonder if Tocchet is trying figure out how much he can rely on the 3rd pairing v top teams? 
Some how he has to find a way, to ease Hughes ice time, or he'll burn out...

This ^^^^ 

 

Hughes average icetime is 25mins. He's played literally half the game 4 times in the last 10 games. We have to get his ice time down I don't care how good his fitness is. We are putting too many miles on him.