Barry_Wilkins Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 But doesn't all that really mean that the Canucks are undisciplined in the first period? As I said in my first post, the Canucks aren't exactly chopped liver as a team this year. I've watched every 1st period this year save one, and on many nights they've been ready to play, some nights not so much. But I haven't detected any skewed effort/readiness as opposed to many other teams, certainly not so much to suggest that kind of penalty distortion. Again, a penalty called in a 0-0 game ten minutes in is far more punitive than one (in almost any scenario) called in the third period. It's just one more reason why ALL stats have to be viewed in a much larger context, which is why you'll never hear me say anything pro or con in reference to the too-frequent misconstrued deductions made from plus/minus, hits, blocked shots, and even in many cases, total shots stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ^You're only able to represent your knowledge of just 1 NHL referee. If you dig, there are several issues that divide the NHLOA ,. ..."carry-over justice" & "game management"..... being only 2 of those issues. The NHLOA have attempted to hide & bury their scandals,. of personal gambling, vulnerable indebtedness, union-busting, and the progressives vs the more tradtional slant to refereeing-styles. I give full props to some of those younger referees who call a penalty that they SEE,...when a senior, "old-school" :biased" r "ingratiated" official - won't. We SEE this & I appreciate that. But - we can also see the 'slant' in points-of-view - in So-Cal,... & when these crews circulate thru VAN. It's a problem we have with with individuals who THINK they are above public-scrutiny because they have no names on their backs. Bull-crap....we know who they are,...and they should be outted & shamed until the Director of Officiating deals with them properly,..by either moving 'em out or along,...or more surprisingly - if they elect to repent & change more of their "old-school" ways. Who is this "we" that you refer to? Your vision is uniquely yours I fear. Certainly it is not something I subscribe to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Again, a penalty called in a 0-0 game ten minutes in is far more punitive than one (in almost any scenario) called in the third period. What about a penalty called in the last ten minutes of a tie game? Seems rather more punitive to me. Nu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 of course there isn't, but I suppose I understand your need to hold onto something must be nice to live in fantasy land where money and greed don't control every facet of the world we live in. but there's no way it could affect the nhl.. only in fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What about a penalty called in the last ten minutes of a tie game? Seems rather more punitive to me. Nu? That depends. Is it only tied because the opponents were given power plays throughout the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 That depends. Is it only tied because the opponents were given power plays throughout the first? I give up. You are a hoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cuporbust2 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 At the bottom of the league in power plays Washington . Bostonl , New York Rangers , Carolina Hurricanes , Chicago. Florida ........ If the league hated Canada And want to make American teams more successful wouldn't these teams be at the top? Get a clue. There is no "conspiracy". Stephan auger is not even employed in the NHL anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 must be nice to live in fantasy land where money and greed don't control every facet of the world we live in. but there's no way it could affect the nhl.. only in fantasy land. I thought you had me on ignore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I give up. You are a hoot. Actually, his point is valid. The score during the third period can't be viewed in isolation. A tie in the 3rd likely wouldn't have come about if a PP goal from a dodgy penalty hadn't been called, say, in the 1st. Also, refs tend to stuff their whistles up their posteriors in a tie game in the 3rd out of a protecting-those-posteriors from getting singled out as game changers. So while a PP in a tie 3rd is potentially more meaningful, it's not as numerous and depends on what has happened in the more important 1st and ( to a lesser extent) 2nd periods. I let the above sit untiI just finishing research on every Canucks game's 3rd period this year when they and their opponents were tied at the time of each penalty. The results shocked even me as to how game management makes refs afraid to call penalties in those situations. In 38 games this year -- almost half the season! -- Vancouver has been penalized 6 times when both teams were tied in the 3rd, and got the benefit of 2 , that's right, 2, calls when the same situation arose, and one of those was a puck-over- glass. So the Canucks got one the benefit of (1) discretionary call when the teams were tied in the 3rd at time of call (against Wash). It's a small sample size, so I wouldn't put much stock in the 6 vs 2, but it just shows what a non-issue are penalties in the 3rd in a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yet another everyone is out to get us thread. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yet another short, snarky, misrepresentative, empty post. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, sorry about that. I dont disagree with your breakdown, it explains why an owner might spend to the cap, wthout the expectation of necessarily winning the cup. I dont think owners have any expectaions as to how much other owners should spend. The anti canuck bias could be turned around if we had a media here that would hold the NHL accountable. Maybe do a little research, maybe be a little braver, maybe not worry about their next job in T.O. And sorry, but I honestly cant believe the fans on this board that deny the bias. Do they really watch games ...or do they just wait for radio announcers or HNIC to tell them what to think? kek regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yet another everyone is out to get us thread. Sweet. Yet another short, snarky, misrepresentative, empty post. Sweet. Nope, it pretty much does represent what this thread is all about. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Nope, it pretty much does represent what this thread is all about. regards, G. At least there is some actual data to back up the theories. Why do we the fans need to put up with constantly getting the short end of the stick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Actually, his point is valid. The score during the third period can't be viewed in isolation. A tie in the 3rd likely wouldn't have come about if a PP goal from a dodgy penalty hadn't been called, say, in the 1st. Also, refs tend to stuff their whistles up their posteriors in a tie game in the 3rd out of a protecting-those-posteriors from getting singled out as game changers. So while a PP in a tie 3rd is potentially more meaningful, it's not as numerous and depends on what has happened in the more important 1st and ( to a lesser extent) 2nd periods. I let the above sit untiI just finishing research on every Canucks game's 3rd period this year when they and their opponents were tied at the time of each penalty. The results shocked even me as to how game management makes refs afraid to call penalties in those situations. In 38 games this year -- almost half the season! -- Vancouver has been penalized 6 times when both teams were tied in the 3rd, and got the benefit of 2 , that's right, 2, calls when the same situation arose, and one of those was a puck-over- glass. So the Canucks got one the benefit of (1) discretionary call when the teams were tied in the 3rd at time of call (against Wash). It's a small sample size, so I wouldn't put much stock in the 6 vs 2, but it just shows what a non-issue are penalties in the 3rd in a tie. Nice work . Six times as likely to get called when it matters, that would have been my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm actually curious to know if anyone has been keeping cumulative & per-game stats of: What penalties are called and against who Who the refs & linesmen were for each game Who called which penalty What potential penalties were "missed" I would think that a quick analysis of those stats would provide some interesting findings. I would be interested in that myself. Not that I buy into the 'refs are against us' stuff but it would be interesting to know which referees call the most penalties, calls against teams home vs away, etc. Stats can reveal a lot of information. Which, in turn, can be used by the CDC as a tool to condemn them to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 At least there is some actual data to back up the theories. Why do we the fans need to put up with constantly getting the short end of the stick? Fans are getting the short end of the stick? Well, as another poster asked yet another poster, if the NHL is so corrupt (whether you believe it's just a few on ice officials or something that goes all the way up to the league head office and ownership), why do you bother to watch the Canucks and NHL hockey? "Because I like hockey!", isn't a valid answer. No... it isn't. All that you are doing is supporting a corrupt system (as some see it). Hockey is supposedly a contest where two teams of variable talent/ability and spirit meet to see who wins after a set period of time, on a particular day. If the fix is in (as some believe) then you aren't watching a contest, you are watching the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. Their "game" is an exposition, a demonstration, an entertainment meant to amuse but without any real merit or value beyond that which you get during the time in the arena. There certainly isn't any kind of end of season championship. What would be the point? Do you like the Globetrotters? I do, but I don't want to go see them "play" 82 times a season. Owners may like providing these types of shows, but why should fans care if the outcome is already known? With all of the audio/video technology that is about, continued bias by some officials would be difficult to hide over a season. If it is just a few officials who are screwing around, and the NHL has done nothing about it, then knowledeable fans who are aware of this situation, and are continuing to watch NHL games, do nothing to resolve the situation and are wasting their time and money. If it is a top-down conspiracy, then why do fans who know that the fix is in continue to put money into the pockets of NHL owners? Do you like them so much that you are willing to finance them getting a big TV network payday? If you want to make a statement to the NHL as to how you feel about how they run their business, then do not watch. In either case of possible conspiracy in the NHL to fix results, the best way to show your displeasure is to not spend money on anything NHL related and refrain from watching games. It also means that you should not look at this website, or any NHL related site as you are supporting the league via advertising revenue. If you do like hockey, then go watch the Giants or any of the other junior teams around the Lower Mainland. You may be happier at the end of the day. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Did you fail to read the part where Monty said the evil So-Cal teams are more penalized than the Canucks are penalized? ^ NOT when the So-Cal teams & Canucks are playing - each other. I also presume most of the officiating done when the So-Cal teams play one another wasn't as slanted,..just like the O-6 bias is cancelled-out when the O-6's play one another. The Burkie factor is huge. He's is very tight with the kingpins and was on the pay-roll as an "advisor" to both ANA & SJ for years. Burkie only popped VAN into his bad-books after Nonis was canned & he had cultivated a very ripe vendetta against Gillis and had pissing contests with him ,...over everything. It's hard for some of these officials to break their acquired habits? And - how do ANA & SJ fare in LA's building now - btw...infront of all of their celebrity pals,...post championships? Riddle me that? The results are not surprisng.....just one more strategy for growing & stablizing the game down south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Nope, it pretty much does represent what this thread is all about. regards, G. I've read the entire thread. The more challenging posts have come from people who aren't maintaining a conspiracy mindset but who are instead putting up contextual stats and citing human flaws as factors in poor reffing. poetica, oldnews, viking. Those posts are nuanced, detailed, and consider the issue from both sides without resorting to overemotional conspiracy rhetoric. I don't think it can be proven (reference my NBA aside below) that there's some grand, nefarious plan out to get us. It's more than likely just human weakness and procedural bungling. One cross-sport example: the NBA ref who was tossed a few years back for betting for years on games wasn't involved in a top-down manipulation of the score spread. He apparently acted alone, out of greed. And he did it for years without anyone having a clue what was going on, though they frequently complained about his (and others') suspicious pattern of game-calling. I'm not suggesting any type of correlation, I'm just using it as one extreme example of how human greed (in his case), or revenge, or pettiness, or incompetence, or careerism can (and in many cases does) interfere with the legitimacy of rule enforcement. Your call to just quit watching if we think the game's fixed (your overgeneralization) is too pat. There doesn't have to be a league-wide conspiracy in order for games to be affected unfairly in all kinds of ways. I accept unfairness every day and in every aspect in life, otherwise I wouldn't be in a relationship, wouldn't ever have an employer, or wouldn't participate in capitalism at all. Life is unfair. But accepting it without even questioning aspects which can change seems to me, as it does with the more mundane problem of NHL officiating, a little too passive, even happy, with the status quo. Even those who do see a problem frequently shrug and say "It is what it is", and leave it at that. That's something I don't understand. I've complained my entire life about all kinds of things. Some people just say "settle down, it's not so bad" or "you can't do anything". About the second point, maybe they're right. But at least I try, by, in this case, typing my specific complaints to the NHL's site, and b!tching and whining here. The game should have been two times easier to call the past 5-10 years or so, whenever the big officiating change was implemented (four eyes instead of two). One more thing, for those who think game management doesn't go on, and that refs call the game the same way, no matter the situation. Long time ago, but the Philly Flyers, the Broadstreet Bullies, when they won their back-to-back Cups -- one ref answered a reporter's question by saying that if we (they) called the game the way it should have been called, there'd be a penalty every five seconds on the Flyers. Think about that a bit, the advantage that that gives teams with that line-up and philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ^Awesome & astute post - BW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.