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

[-dlc-]

5 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

If you're OK with them calling a goal back because a player was 2" offside, but not ok calling a goal back when a player is tripped up in OT then I don't know what to say.

Yep, they'll look at it for 27 minutes from 92 different angles.

 

But a player goes down taking him out of the play and...."we don't have time for that".

 

I mean, there was a missed offside on us and the play stayed in the zone for several minutes afterward. Yet, if a goal was scored they'd rewind to that point and decide then. Despite so much happening in between. Like that was 2 full minutes ago and somehow it's still relevant enough to change a goal despite it having no direct impact on it.

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

That's the game itself! Just think if we follow the logic through. Anything you do just playing the game could be under the microscope and overturn goals. A battle in the corner. Guys are fighting it out.   They overturn it because one got unfair advantage in body position, maybe a little hold here or there... players crashing into eachother...

 

What wouldn't be on the table to be scrutinized?

 

A review system which calls into question missed calls everywhere calls into question the integrity of the game itself.

 

This is the reality. Hockey is an incredibly hard game to referee. There must be 20-50 missed calls every game if they want to go look for stuff and review every single play.

 

Either accept it the way it is and subject to the referees opinion or have umpires located all around the arena at the blue lines, center line, and behind the goals. Add in multiple video referees and stop every play to scrutinize for missed calls.

 

As Canucks fans we should be happy though all things considered. The season is still going alright.

 

[Johngould21]

15 minutes ago, Messier_Sucks said:

 

Last year alone there were nearly 100 goals overturned due to offside. That's a substantial number. 

 

 

 

I find that hard to believe, 100 challenges maybe?

[Inkidu]

14 minutes ago, stawns said:

Would you feel that way if your team was absolutely dominating play in ot and had all the momentum and they stopped that momentum to check for a call?

 

They don't check it, they just blow the whistle. No review. No change and own zone face off is penalty enough. no time wasted. 

 

For instance last night, the ref didn't call a penalty because doing so would give Vancouver too much of an advantage (remember, that's why they changed the rules to (mostly) eliminate 4 on 3's). But it gave the Rangers a 3 on 1. I think the ref would have called it if it happened in regulation. 

 

It would mean creating a new catagory of call, but overtime is relatively new and might benefit from a few innovations to avoid situations like last night. 

 

 

 

 

[Canuckle]

11 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

If you're OK with them calling a goal back because a player was 2" offside, but not ok calling a goal back when a player is tripped up in OT then I don't know what to say.

In OT....

 

As I stated, [in 3 on 3] how many blatant picks, battles with grabbing, hooking, etc. with all that open ice, similar levels in skill... how do you beat your man without some kind of hard battle that could subjectively be labeled as an infraction?

 

The entire game of hockey is players trying to gain advantage on eachother legally and illegally with things being missed and/or purposefully uncalled. I ask, would it even be NHL hockey if it wasn't?

 

It's not like we're talking an offside or whether a puck crossed a goal line. If we open it up to overturning a goal on anything, it calls into question the game itself and how it's played. I think the reason not to do it kinda speaks for itself.

 

3 on 3 nothing would be able to happen because everything players do to eachother could be basically viewed as infractions calling it 100% by the rulebook.

 

Do you see what happens out there?  Like for real.  Follow the logic through.

 

Damn near every goal in OT could be and likely would be called back. Lol

Edited October 29, 2023 by Canuckle

[Huggy Bear]

1 hour ago, -dlc- said:

So we can't challenge something unless we've reffed an NHL game?

 

Have you?

 

I know an NHL ref and they're not above scrutiny. No matter how tough the job is, the expectation is that you do it well. I'm not sure it's being done well overall.

yeah, I can appreciate perspectives informed by experience, but simply asking ‘have you ever reffed a hockey game’ isn’t a replacement for a solid argument. It’s just edging for credibility. @stawns I’d love to hear your reply to my last post, arguing for OT reviews on GWG. Please explain your position based on your experience reffing. 

 

56 minutes ago, -dlc- said:

Also, all this talk of the refs having it tough, too much to watch, play moves fast.

 

Their eyes should be on the guy with the puck and, in 3 on 3 OT, it's a bit easier as there's not so many bodies out there. It's not like this happened away from the play...it WAS the play.

great point

 

27 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

Doesn't matter where and when 'missed calls' are challenged.

 

Missed calls, and even intentionally uncalled subjective penalties are part of the game.

 

You simply aren't following the logic through.... especially for something like overtime.

 

And yes, bolded for your viewing pleasure.

You were claiming everything would be reviewable, when only GWG OT goals were being discussed. Who’s not following logic here? it’s okay to admit you missed something or didn’t actually read the post in question.
 

You keep repeating that more coaches challenges will change the very fabric of hockey. It’s hyperbolic, slippery slope nonsense. The facts are that last year there were 208 challenges last season, and over 2/3rds were overturned. There is no evidence that this removed physicality from the game. Correcting 148 erroneous calls added integrity to the game. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying. What evidence do you have to support your opinion?

 

14 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

That's not a bad idea. Have a secondary team of officials off the ice. Penalty gets called on the ice or off. I'd be open to trying that. 

That’s a fantastic idea @Gawdzukes. Maybe when offsides becomes automated, we can add these jobs to keep linesmen employed. There will always be some subjectivity to calls, even with video reviews. Well done, sir.
 

 

[Messier_Sucks]

6 minutes ago, Johngould21 said:

I find that hard to believe, 100 challenges maybe?

Here's some numbers from the 22-23 season not including the playoffs

 

Total: 208 – 66 upheld, 142 overturned (68%)

Interference: 85 – 43 upheld, 42 overturned (49%)
Offside: 107 – 13 upheld, 94 overturned (88%) 
Stoppage: 16 – 10 upheld, 6 overturned (38%)

 

I find it happens almost daily in the NHL. There were 2 last night just off the top of my head. 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Messier_Sucks
extra info

[Huggy Bear]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The offside is objective.  You can review the film to determine if it was offside or not. 

Goalie interference is often subjective, and offsides (where video footage is inconclusive) can also be subjective.

 

Its not a reason not to consider adding about 60-70 more reviewable goals per year, that directly change the outcome of a game

Edited October 29, 2023 by Huggy Bear
Inconclusive

[Huggy Bear]

11 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

Damn near every goal in OT could be and likely would be called back. Lol

How are unnecessary coaches challenges limited now? They are disincentivized with penalties.

Give each coach one OT challenge per year. If they’re wrong, the lose it. If they were right, a bad call didn’t decide the game.

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[Huggy Bear]

24 minutes ago, Goal_thecup said:

I think the problem is not with getting the call right or bias or really anything like that.

I think that when the goal decides the game, everybody wants to celebrate (or not), and move on: the refs, the teams, the crowd, the media, everybody's going, "That's it."

To call everybody back and review the entrails ruins the experience.

 

Having the game decided by the wrong call ruins the experience. A review last night would vindicate the Rangers win, and satisfy the Canucks, and their fans. 

 

23 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

If you're OK with them calling a goal back because a player was 2" offside, but not ok calling a goal back when a player is tripped up in OT then I don't know what to say.

[Dr. Crossbar]

11 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Good point. Let’s build an argument from there.

 

What wouldn’t be on the table if OT calls/non-calls leading to a goal we’re eligible for review:

• Anything in 60 minutes of regulation for all games
• Anything in the  ~77% of games that don’t go to OT
• Anything in the ~8% of games that end in-shootout
• So, 85% of games are completely unaffected 
• Any non-calls in OT before the last two possessions* that leads to an OT goal
• Any unchallenged penalties that lead to a PP goal (can’t challenge after the fact)

What would be on the table:

• Of the remaining ~15% of games that end in OT, only those with questionable penalties or non-calls leading to goals (maybe a third of games, to be generous?)
• With the pattern of refs ‘putting their whistles away’ in OT, there should be less penalties overall to be challenged
• *Non-call challenges could be limited to the last two possessions leading to the GWG. This accounts for a non-call resulting in turnover, then a goal the other way (like the potential trip on Pettersson
• Of 1312 regular season games per year, that’s about 65 games per year, for an average of two reviews per team, per regular season

To disincentivize superfluous ‘Hail Mary’ challenges, give each coach one challenge per year, that’s taken away if they make an unsuccessful challenge.

 

For video reviews so far (offsides and goalie interference), this has kept coaches challenges very honest. Last year, there were 208 total coach’s challenges, with 68% being overturned.

 

That’s 142 mistakes that were corrected, improving the consistency in calls, and integrity of the game. 

source: https://scoutingtherefs.com/nhl-coachs-challenge-tracker-2022-23/

 

This is a fantastic post, Huggy. Excellent starting point. I appreciate what you put into that. It really moves things forward into a more solution focused discussion rather than purely emotional. 

 

I like how you've separated regulation and OT.

 

I think it's tremendously important that 85% of games be unaffected. That helps to preserve the integrity of the game or at least address that.

 

The remaining 15% in OT games makes this much more workable and potentially achievable. 

 

Also the fact that you're containing this to calls/non-calls leading to goals and two  possessions makes this fair. 

 

I'd recommend that the non-call challenge be limited once per overtime ... not once per overtime period just for a check and balance. That way it's not unlimited non-call challenges. If a non-call happens after you've already challenged a non-call in OT, you'd have to live with it. That also preserves the human element. 

 

 

[Goal_thecup]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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. 

Same moment for me, and I thought, Deb's gonna love this..

 

Just a thought I'm gonna drop here: RT is getting a lot of love and rightly so, but his assistants all deserve a goodly amount of praise too, I'll bet.

Wouldn't mind a good article about them and how they're all working together with good success.

 

And just cuz I'm Mister Random Right Now, I gotta say, I can't wait to get LetterKenny up on Petey's wing.

I know, I know, let 'em stew in the minors; but Hey Zeus, they're both so smart and forward-thinking it is going to be magic.

The New Sedinery, telepathic communication, and they're both better shots than the twins, who were, well, The Best:

 

[Huggy Bear]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

This is a fantastic post, Huggy. Excellent starting point. I appreciate what you put into that. It really moves things forward into a more solution focused discussion rather than purely emotional. 

 

I like how you've separated regulation and OT.

 

I think it's tremendously important that 85% of games be unaffected. That helps to preserve the integrity of the game or at least address that.

 

The remaining 15% in OT games makes this much more workable and potentially achievable. 

 

Also the fact that you're containing this to calls/non-calls leading to goals and two  possessions makes this fair. 

 

I'd recommend that the non-call challenge be limited once per overtime ... not once per overtime period just for a check and balance. That way it's not unlimited non-call challenges. If a non-call happens after you've already challenged a non-call in OT, you'd have to live with it. That also preserves the human element. 

 

 

Thanks my friend. I vented frustration last night, and have only been exploring solutions today. 

[Huggy Bear]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

I'd recommend that the non-call challenge be limited once per overtime ... not once per overtime period just for a check and balance. 

 

Once for each coach, right? 
 

Given the low estimate of how often this happens, that should be easy.

[Dr. Crossbar]

3 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Once for each coach, right? 
 

Given the low estimate of how often this happens, that should be easy.

 

Yeah, exactly. 100%. 

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

14 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Goalie interference is often subjective, and offsides (where video footage is inconclusive) can also be subjective.

 

Its not a reason not to consider adding about 60-70 more reviewable goals per year, that directly change the outcome of a game

 

Goalie interference is subjective, yes I agree.  However, they have rules in place to determine what goalie interference actually is, and those rules are looked at whenever they are reviewing a goalie interference call.

 

If a referee does not call a tripping penalty, then who is it that will review it to overturn the call?  Toronto?  How would they determine whether it's a tripping penalty or not?  

 

Also, not every penalty results in a goal.  Most don't.  In the case of Petterson, the play couldn't have been stopped as it was continuous.  So, after the goal was scored, they would have had to have a video review to determine whether or not there was a penalty.  The referee on the ice didn't call one, if he reviews it, he could just say the leg was stuck out by accident, or it was a continuous movement while skating.  So, how does the call get reversed?  Does a referee in Toronto determine the intention of the player sticking out the leg?  

 

In regard to offside, if the video footage is inconclusive, then the call isn't overturned, the call on the ice stands, so the subjectively of the call is taken out, they simply keep the call that was made on the ice...

[Goal_thecup]

3 hours ago, BestCanuck said:

But I loved how composed Canucks stayed

Me too, but Petey was spittin' nails with his mouth and laser strikes with his eyes.

Anybody got that clip?

[grumpyone]

imho... there should be unlimited challenges allowed, BUT

the first one costs you your time out, if wrong, any further challenges, if wrong, cost a 2 minute penalty. 

also, did anyone get a ruling or reason as to why, when the rangers cleared the puck off the camera above the netting didn't result in a delay of game penalty?

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

27 minutes ago, Goal_thecup said:

Same moment for me, and I thought, Deb's gonna love this..

 

Just a thought I'm gonna drop here: RT is getting a lot of love and rightly so, but his assistants all deserve a goodly amount of praise too, I'll bet.

Wouldn't mind a good article about them and how they're all working together with good success.

 

And just cuz I'm Mister Random Right Now, I gotta say, I can't wait to get LetterKenny up on Petey's wing.

I know, I know, let 'em stew in the minors; but Hey Zeus, they're both so smart and forward-thinking it is going to be magic.

The New Sedinery, telepathic communication, and they're both better shots than the twins, who were, well, The Best:

 

Miller has been an absolute force out there. I am glad that Alvin chose him over Horvat 100%. It was clearly the right choice. Horvat would never get that aggressive with the opposition in any zone. The whole team played aggressively and the Ringers couldn’t handle it. They were flopping and falling like the turds they are. 
 

Great point about the coaching staff. Foote, Gonchar and Yeo have been clearly supporting Tocchet and the team more than effectively. 
 

 

[Canuckle]

55 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

This is the reality. Hockey is an incredibly hard game to referee. There must be 20-50 missed calls every game if they want to go look for stuff and review every single play.

 

Either accept it the way it is and subject to the referees opinion or have umpires located all around the arena at the blue lines, center line, and behind the goals. Add in multiple video referees and stop every play to scrutinize for missed calls.

 

As Canucks fans we should be happy though all things considered. The season is still going alright.

 

100%.

 

People saying "in the nba..." "in the NFL..." 

 

Hockey is simply not like other games. They simply are not comparables and what works elsewhere does not neccessarily onclude it will work in hockey. By all accounts, just based on how the game functions it be would be impossible to assume it would.

 

I mean unless we want games with zero hitting, zero battles, zero stick work at all because anything could be subjectively viewed as breaking the rules and overturn goals. 100% by the rulebook? What a miserable boring game that would be. The game would end 0-0 or 1-0 most nights lol.

 

That's not a game anybody is going to want to watch.

 

Not to mention the less authority the war room in Toronto has on the outcome of games the better... whether last night would have worked in the Canucks favour or not.  Fuck all that.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Canuckle

[grumpyone]

Friday night before the St Louis game my son and I were watching some 3 on 3 games from the summer, played in Philly.

They had oneinteresting rule difference that I liked.

-once across the center line they were NOT allowed to go back to their own end of the rink unless the opposing team touches the puck. similar to basketball's over and back rule. This prevents teams from wasting time going back all the time. 

 

[-dlc-]

8 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Miller has been an absolute force out there. I am glad that Alvin chose him over Horvat 100%. It was clearly the right choice. Horvat would never get that aggressive with the opposition in any zone. The whole team played aggressively and the Ringers couldn’t handle it. They were flopping and falling like the turds they are. 
 

Great point about the coaching staff. Foote, Gonchar and Yeo have been clearly supporting Tocchet and the team more than effectively. 
 

 

I always felt that, with Miller, he'd change the tone of things. I saw that snarl in him.

 

He wears his heart on his sleeve and can be a grumpy bear...but we needed that. Someone who could growl and swing when he's angry. Slam gates and sticks and...yeah. For all the right reasons...because he's a fierce competitor. People who called him lazy and said he didn't care weren't watching closely enough. We've had guys like that....mailing it in. He's the opposite.

 

He was criticized for being "lazy" but I still stand by the fact that it wasn't laziness...it was deflation. He takes winning SO seriously that yes, at times, it got the better of him. He didn't give up on the play so much as he was still processing the play in a GD it way.

 

I loved Bo but if you have too many guys who are polite and courteous, that's the theme. JT doesn't give a sh and some of that is necessary.

 

He spoke out on behalf of the team early on. He isn't here to please anyone...on social media, the press, whoever. He's here to win. And that's the kind of attitude we need, even if some find him abrasive. He's a winner.

[Huggy Bear]

14 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Goalie interference is subjective, yes I agree.  However, they have rules in place to determine what goalie interference actually is, and those rules are looked at whenever they are reviewing a goalie interference call.

 

If a referee does not call a tripping penalty, then who is it that will review it to overturn the call?  Toronto?  How would they determine whether it's a tripping penalty or not?  

 

Also, not every penalty results in a goal.  Most don't.  In the case of Petterson, the play couldn't have been stopped as it was continuous.  So, after the goal was scored, they would have had to have a video review to determine whether or not there was a penalty.  The referee on the ice didn't call one, if he reviews it, he could just say the leg was stuck out by accident, or it was a continuous movement while skating.  So, how does the call get reversed?  Does a referee in Toronto determine the intention of the player sticking out the leg?  

 

In regard to offside, if the video footage is inconclusive, then the call isn't overturned, the call on the ice stands, so the subjectively of the call is taken out, they simply keep the call that was made on the ice...

There are rules and guidelines for each infraction, no? For subjective calls, maybe a mix of the game officials and a couple Toronto could vote based on those guidelines and consensus wins?

 

As someone mentioned, maybe add a video review or additional referee that watches from above ice level?
 

good point on offside. I didn’t know that.
 

 

 

[-dlc-]

6 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

I mean unless we want games with zero hitting, zero battles, zero stick work at all because anything could be subjectively viewed as breaking the rules and overturn goals. 100% by the rulebook? What a miserable boring game that would be. The game would end 0-0 or 1-0 most nights lol.

 

This is a total exaggeration though.

 

No one's saying that. Hitting and battles that fall within the boundaries would be fine...it's the stuff that crosses the line. You're making a scenario that just isn't so...boring? I find it boring when a play ends on a note like it did rather than an exciting battle where the best team wins. Not the one that gets an advantage.

 

There's a happy medium to be struck between what you're portraying and what some are suggesting would help the league with credibility and fairness.

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, -dlc- said:

My guess is they thought it wasn't enough.

However, in a game that they thought issuing two 5 on 3 pp's was warranted, they really were setting a tone there. Then...crickets.

 

I think that's a bit misleading....

 

The first 2 man advantage happened because of a puck over the glass, while the second was because of too many men on the ice. Both of those are automatic calls. Refs are generally reluctant to put a team down two men, but in these cases, they had no choice....

 

Also, I'm going to disagree with questioning the integrity of the refs. doing so means that you believe they're deliberately favoring the opposition. I don't believe this is the case. It's worth noting that the Canucks had one more PP than the Rangers did)

 

I think they missed the call in OT as well (or decided it wasn't worth a penalty in OT) but that would be characterized as questioning their competence, not their integrity...