PGT - Canucks-3: NYRefs-4: Shit happens.

[4petesake]

10 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

You dodged the question there. How many do you see each game now, and how much time is it adding to the games?

I can remember one challenge in 8 Canucks games so far this season (goalie interference against Garland in Philly). How long did that take? 2 minutes max? So an average 15 sec per game?
 

To answer your question, I’d like to see them expand it for any call or non-call that results in a goal. 

 

Coaches get 1 per game. If they lose, a penalty, and no more challenges. If they win the challenge, they preserve the right to challenge again. This has been effective so far at limiting superfluous challenges.

 

If it’s a GWG it should be open to review regardless of if you have a challenge left. 

 

My guess is that even if we had video replay for a challenge on that trip is that it wouldn’t have been changed. The best angle that I’ve seen is on Reddit and even though it’s clearly a penalty in my mind I don’t know that it’s conclusive proof enough for Toronto to over-rule the on ice officials. Just my guess but I think we would still have been pissed about it.

 

Glad that the coach and players have moved on and aren’t dwelling on it but nothing wrong at all with us fans venting our frustration and looking for ways to improve the product.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/canucks/s/G4T9oRdj8I

 

 

 

[JayDangles]

4 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Yes, even this small extension of video review into OT would be a good place to start.

 

Refs are human and make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn’t directly impact the outcome of the game. Start with OT, where every goal is a GWG.

 

This is the only rational suggestion on how to address the issue last night moving forward. Makes sense as an easy solution.

Forcing the refs to answer to the media won't change the outcome of a game that already happened.

 

[TheGuardian]

3 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Other leagues have tried and it’s working. 
 

The NHL added video reviews, and it’s working. Has that changed  hockey into a non-contact sport. 
 

Your argument portrays a slippery slope that’s simply not backed by evidence.

How old are you? Most hockey in the regular season now has less hitting than a beer league game.

 

That is WHY the real season, the playoffs are so much better. Not just body contact but body checking.

That is also why big teams succeed more in the playoffs, the hard season.

 

To me that call could have gone either way.

Edited October 29, 2023 by TheGuardian

[Huggy Bear]

Just now, 4petesake said:

 

My guess is that even if we had video replay for a challenge on that trip is that it wouldn’t have been changed. The best angle that I’ve seen is on Reddit and even though it’s clearly a penalty in my mind I don’t know that it’s conclusive proof enough for Toronto to over-rule the on ice officials. Just my guess but I think we would still have been pissed about it.

 

Glad that the coach and players have moved on and aren’t dwelling on it but nothing wrong at all with us fans venting our frustration and looking for ways to improve the product.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/canucks/s/G4T9oRdj8I

 

 

 

I’m not dwelling on the outcome. We played great, and I’m happy with 3/4 points on B2B games.

 

If they reviewed that non-call for 1 minute, then look another minute to explain why it’s not a call, I would have been fine with the Blues win.

 

It would have educated the fans, improved trust in officiating, and avoided a lot of unnecessary frustration. Would probably help the NHL grow the fan base as well.

 

 

[Rekker]

12 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

I hate blaming the refs too. Most of the times its just poor sportsmanship to complain. Especially constant complainers, it looks so petty and childish. You'll get a bad call from time to time. You just have to accept its part of sport and suck it up. Complaining doesn't make it any better and the calls even themselves out if you just keep your nose down and play hard.

 

Hey we got a point out of a tough game. On to the next one.

Yip, venting is good though. Saves me holes in the drywall. Lol.

[PhillipBlunt]

9 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

I hate blaming the refs too. Most of the times its just poor sportsmanship to complain. Especially constant complainers, it looks so petty and childish. You'll get a bad call from time to time. You just have to accept its part of sport and suck it up. Complaining doesn't make it any better and the calls even themselves out if you just keep your nose down and play hard.

 

Hey we got a point out of a tough game. On to the next one.

Thing is prior to this game, I thought the games I’d watched, and not just Canucks games, were pretty evenly officiated. Yeah, there were some missed calls and some phantom calls but for the most part, the flow of the game was maintained and the teams were better off for it. 
 

It’s when such obvious infractions are missed and it results in a win, that officiating should rightfully be under the microscope. 
 

And yes it was a tough game, and the Canucks were the tougher team by a large margin. When Miller went apeshit in front of the Ringers net, I knew this was a great game by a great team. 
 

 

[Canuckle]

10 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Other leagues have tried and it’s working. 
 

The NHL added video reviews, and it’s working. Has that changed  hockey into a non-contact sport. 
 

Your argument portrays a slippery slope that’s simply not backed by evidence.

 

What other leagues. Which sports? Not all sports operate the same way, play the same way ergo it may or may not in fact be a realistic proposition. That's what I'm getting at here.

 

In fact I'd say the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of my argument here. Yes, it is in fact a slippery slope.

 

They aren't doing it for a reason, even though whatever XYZ leagues in other XYZ sports are already doing it.  We have the technology.  We have the means.  So why don't they do it?

 

I see people talking about commercials and game management.  But I think its much bigger than that: It calls into question the entire integrity of the game itself and that's something they do not want to do.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Canuckle

[Optimist Prime]

Being a big fan of tech, and how it has changed the game in National Defense, I wonder if there is a seamless (very little added time to a game broadcast) integration that the league is missing. 

 

Very basic concept: the war room at league HQ's has direct line via earbud to the head ref, backup to the timekeeper obviously for consistency purposes. A situation like OT and late game scoring that define the outcome are monitored in real time by special referee's at the war room: if the ref's miss a penalty like, say, Petey being tripped: they don't make the ref stop the game, but instead keep a flag on it in case of a goal. In the event the control of the puck changes teams, then that flagged event is wiped off the board. Seems simple enough to me: then when the goal happened last night, the war room would have the flagged event noted and a review is automatic.

The war room special refs would instanty start work on deciding if the trip was a penalty or if it was incidental contact, then if a defining moment like a goal occurs, the answer is almost completed in its analysis by the special refs, earbud findings to the head ref on the ice, and carry on like normal.

 

I know that is close to how they do it now, but not exactly. 

 

[Huggy Bear]

3 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

This is the only rational suggestion on how to address the issue last night moving forward. Makes sense as an easy solution.

Forcing the refs to answer to the media won't change the outcome of a game that already happened.

 

Completely agree.

 

1. It’s a small change compared to reviewing all calls that lead to goals (admittedly better than what I suggested. Great call @Alflives)

 

2. It overcomes the challenge that @Canuckle raised about how far you go back (just go back to the last change in possession before the goal).

 

3. It wouldn’t add significant time to games (few games go to OT, and fewer have contentious calls/non-calls in the GWG). Looking at you, @stawns

 

4. It would have added integrity (win or lose) to the outcome of last nights game, educated fans, and helped them, appreciate the nuances of reffing.

 

5. I would have happily accepted the loss if they showed the available footage, and explained it was Petey’s dangle that initiated the contact (thanks @4petesake for sharing that view).
 

Problem solved. Who says no?

 

 

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

[4petesake]

1 minute ago, Huggy Bear said:

I’m not dwelling on the outcome. We played great, and I’m happy with 3/4 points on B2B games.

 

If they reviewed that non-call for 1 minute, then look another minute to explain why it’s not a call, I would have been fine with the Blues win.

 

It would have educated the fans, improved trust in officiating, and avoided a lot of unnecessary frustration. Would probably help the NHL grow the fan base as well.

 

 

 

I agree and I didn’t mean to suggest that you are I’m only saying that in this instance I have doubts that it would have been overturned even it it was made reviewable. I’m also not telling anyone else to move on from it, we are all frustrated and will each move on at our own pace.

 

Anything that improves officiating and fan trust in it needs to be explored.

[Messier_Sucks]

33 minutes ago, stawns said:

How long do you want games to be?  I'd bet the players would rather deal with questionable calls (or non calls), than long stoppages that stop the flow of a game 

I'm with you on that. 

 

IMO the offside reviews are ruining the game. Feels like there's a goal called back almost every game and officials are stopping the flow for 10 minutes trying to determine if somebody's skate was 1mm off or not. 

 

It's a damn shame when somebody scores an absolute beauty goal and it's called back. WHY EVEN LET THE PLAY CONTINUE AND WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME. 

 

With modern technology how hard would it be to implement an automated system for tracking offsides instead of leaving it up to human linesman. They make so many mistakes as we can see from the ridiculous amount of goals called back. 

[spook007]

39 minutes ago, stawns said:

Maybe an ot rule for review, but they can't have multiple stoppages in a game.......games are already far too long with reviews, commercial breaks etc.

That I do agree on...

 

That's the main issue I have with VAR, the time it takes to make decisions... for goals in particular.

 

But I find it disappointing at a time where 'next goal wins the game' a refereeing decision (a call so blatant) is missed... They only have 3 players to pay attention to at the time, so it should really be easier to make the right calls at O/T...

 

Yes I think you should be able to make at least 1 refereeing challenge in O/T, it could be limited to the play that results in a goal....

[4petesake]

2 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

 

All hyped up for the Heritage Classic!

 

 

[-dlc-]

25 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

I hate blaming the refs too. Most of the times its just poor sportsmanship to complain. Especially constant complainers, it looks so petty and childish. You'll get a bad call from time to time. You just have to accept its part of sport and suck it up. Complaining doesn't make it any better and the calls even themselves out if you just keep your nose down and play hard.

 

Hey we got a point out of a tough game. On to the next one.

While this is very pc I think name calling also falls under the petty and childish umbrella. People are allowed to express their opinion and vent and none of us is better than the rest. 

 

Some people don't believe that you have to "suck" stuff up and accept it...change doesn't happen that way. 

 

Has nothing to do with sportsmanship. The fact that you state "calls even themselves out" sort of makes my point and a matter of the refs aiming for that. That's not how it should be done. And, if so, one team got two 5 on 3's. They also got away with an uncalled too many men. And a pick. Both things the other team got called for. "Uneven".

 

So the evening out should've happened by the call being made in OT. Whether it was ill timed or not. I'm sick of asterisks beside calls....make them even if it's one team doing 10 things in a row. That's on them.

[BestCanuck]

Playoffs this would be complete horse poop…. 
 

 

I was so angry watching. But I loved how composed Canucks stayed, how they stuck with it and kept working. These little things will pay off. No matter how hard refs tried, the guys pushed to OT. Postives outta crap performance from refs. 
 

Myers played his best game lol was happy for him to score that shorty, almost had heart attack. 

[Canuckle]

2 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Completely agree.

 

1. It’s a small change compared to reviewing all calls that lead to goals (admittedly better than what I suggested. Great call @Alflives)

 

2. It overcomes the challenge that @Canuckle raised about how far you go back (just go back to the last change in possession before the goal).

 

3. It wouldn’t add significant time to games (few games go to OT, and fewer have contentious calls/non-calls in the GWG). Looking at you, @stawns

 

4. It would have added integrity (win or lose) to the outcome of last nights game, educated fans, and helped them, appreciate the nuances of reffing.

 

5. I would have happily accepted the loss if they showed the available footage, and explained it was Petey’s dangle that initiated the contact (thanks @4petesake for sharing that view).
 

Problem solved. Who says no?

 

 

I say no.

 

A review process for missed calls everywhere with the potential to overturn goals challenges the entire intregity of the game itself.

 

Bad idea.

[Goal_thecup]

1 hour ago, -dlc- said:

I wish he'd ask Ron questions with a Superman.

 

Ron is such a flounder...he tries to pretend he likes the Canucks to be cool at times but will never really side with this team. The Burr stuff was enough to tell me all I needed to know about Ron of The Dead.

 

Such a scum bag.  He always leans into the group; so insecure, so clingy, a cloying simp desperate for approval. Taking fashion tips from Friedman like a teenager.  Memo to Ron: you are not cool and nobody likes you.

 

Even cringey George is grossed out: 

 

 

The Old Crotch Watcher:

Spoiler

 

 

Can somebody do a morph of Lil Ronnie with Mr Burns from The Simpsons?

 

 

 

 

 

"I am a professional referee and I know that no referee would ever target a player."

Enter tape of crooked referee telling Dragon Slayer Alex Burrows he would "get him".

 

TOCW (the old crotch watcher) dancing after burying Burr under a barrage of bullshit:

 

Et cetera, et cetera.  Please FO Ronzo!

[Huggy Bear]

3 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

What other leagues. Which sports? Not all sports operate the same way, play the same way ergo it may or may not in fact be a realistic proposition. That's what I'm getting at here.

 

In fact I'd say the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of my argument here. Yes, it is in fact a slippery slope.

 

They aren't doing it for a reason, even though whatever XYZ leagues in other XYZ sports are already doing it.  We have the technology.  We have the means.  So why don't they do it?

 

I see people talking about commercials and game management.  But I think its much bigger than that: It calls into question the entire integrity of the game itself and that's something they do not want to do.

 

The NBA. Basketball is getting it right IMO. Hasn’t changed the physicality - the last Raptors game, a player was clotheslined on a drive, and crashed into the camera crew out of bounds. They reviewed the call, and it improved the game for me. Didn't seem to rob the game of contact/physicality.

 

It sounds like you’ve made up your mind, and slippery slope is a weakness in an argument, not a strength. They didn’t do video reviews in the NHL ten years ago for a reason too. And they have since improved the product. Have they made the sport any less physical? You seem to have avoided that question.

 

You made a good point about how far back to review a call/non-call. Alf made a great suggestion about reviewing calls or non-calls in OT only. 
 

If you’re suggesting that would degrade the physicality of the sport, than I’ll just agree to disagree. 

 

 

[JayDangles]

6 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Completely agree.

 

1. It’s a small change compared to reviewing all calls that lead to goals (admittedly better than what I suggested. Great call @Alflives)

 

2. It overcomes the challenge that @Canuckle raised about how far you go back (just go back to the last change in possession before the goal).

 

3. It wouldn’t add significant time to games (few games go to OT, and fewer have contentious calls/non-calls in the GWG). Looking at you, @stawns

 

4. It would have added integrity (win or lose) to the outcome of last nights game, educated fans, and helped them, appreciate the nuances of reffing.

 

5. I would have happily accepted the loss if they showed the available footage, and explained it was Petey’s dangle that initiated the contact (thanks @4petesake for sharing that view).
 

Problem solved. Who says no?

 

 

Im in! 

If they can review offsides, goalie interference, puck over glass, high sticking majors then for sure they should be able to review an infraction that directly led to a GWG.

 

Well said Huggy!

[Inkidu]

6 hours ago, AmyTheGma said:

That was one of the best games I have watched in a long time.  It felt like a movie and reminded me of the 94 playoffs.  We would have won if. Or for some horrific officiating.  The 4 min minor was what it was, but after Myers(who had another strong game) scored the shorty, the refs were doing all they could to get the rags back into it.

 

OT was a thing of beauty, but sometimes the refs just decide to put the whistles away.  If they were ever concerned about gambling fraud I would be looking closely at any mysterious bank account deposits into tonight’s refs accounts that’s for sure.

 

Too radical, but maybe in 3 on 3 give the refs the option of just calling the play dead without sending anyone to the penalty box. Kind of like a yellow card. 

 

[-dlc-]

Just now, Canuckle said:

 

I say no.

 

A review process for missed calls everywhere with the potential to overturn goals challenges the entire intregity of the game itself.

 

Bad idea.

I wouldn't say it challenges the "integrity"....it would help prove it.

 

Challenges the flow? The status quo? Sure.

 

I mean, they do that with offsides and GI calls, etc. 

[JayDangles]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

 

I say no.

 

A review process for missed calls everywhere with the potential to overturn goals challenges the entire intregity of the game itself.

 

Bad idea.

I think he is saying ONLY in OT, and only if it directly led to a gwg

[Huggy Bear]

9 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

I agree and I didn’t mean to suggest that you are I’m only saying that in this instance I have doubts that it would have been overturned even it it was made reviewable. I’m also not telling anyone else to move on from it, we are all frustrated and will each move on at our own pace.

 

Anything that improves officiating and fan trust in it needs to be explored.

Appreciated, and I didn’t think you were. 
 

Love the perspective you shared on Petey initiating contact and completely agree with the bolded.

[JayDangles]

10 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

Only downside is someone has to win today.. everyone else will lose, including the fans