thema Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 One more thing, for those who think game management doesn't go on, and that refs call the game the same way, I don't think anybody has said that in this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 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? Yes, fans are getting the short end of the stick if the Canucks get the fewest power plays in a first period of hockey of 30 NHL teams when their compete level is above average and the team plays a relatively clean game. Why would I stop watching the Canucks because of the officiating? That's throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater thinking. I'm not saying I've bought into the conspiracy stuff, but stats are stats. We're getting a disproportionately high disadvantage, when first goals in games are so valuable. Would major eastern market teams' fans put up with it? Why should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred65 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 On another forum reference bias ( not Vcr related ) data source Don’t know what data source he used, but was probably similar to what I did, which was go through official box scores for the league and parse out the penalties. When I did so last year it: 1) Showed some gross biases by some referees. 2) Showed a league wide bias that increased as the league had attendance issues, that is a bias that indicated scores were being manipulated to improve revenues. 3) Showed that a handful of officials were above it and bucked the trend. 4) Showed that the league pays attention when these stories are published, because within a week media sources in Edmonton, Ottawa and Philadelphia and several bloggers had run with the story, and NHL offices in Toronto and NY had visited the site. 5) After the stories were published, things changed, with the last 1/4 of the season the home advantage being cut in half. 6) There are some referees, especially two very senior referees, that are very good at covering their bias by calling even up penalties at meaningless times so that these statistical investigations hide it. 7) A more meaningful analysis is the one that was period by period which helps isolate #6, and one that I did not publish, it was calls by score. It showed officials who would pad their numbers after the game was decided. Why would I say the league had anything to do with it? What sells more tickets, the Scruville Weak Sisters of the Poor losing to the Mighty Titans 7-0 at home, or 3-2? What is better for revenues, to have 12 of the 16 playoff spots tied down at Christmas, or 25 teams still alive on April Foolish Fans Day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 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. I'll start with the last paragraph and work my way up. Not really sure what the one ref speaking about the Philly Flyers Cup winning teams is referring to. According to the HBO documentary "Broad Street Bullies", the NHL rulebook was like a 12 page pamphlet at first, and it was only AFTER the Flyers won back-to-back Cups that a new, and much more detailed rulebook was implemented to counter the mockery those Flyer teams had created. Not complaining about officials when they make bad calls, weak calls, or missed calls is not just accepting things as status quo, its called accepting mistakes from human beings. I have to accept a refs mistake in the same manner that I have to accept my goalie will let in weak goals, my defensemen will blow coverages or fail on clearing attempts, my fowards will go offsides or miss wide open nets, etc... I'm sure you accept a players mistake, so why are the refs held to higher standard...cause lets be honest, the players make far more mistakes than the refs do...so does that mean the players in on the conspiracy as well. Tim Donoughy did not get away with fixing basketball games for years. He actually didnt get away with anything, he was caught. And while it may have went on for a portion of two seasons, most of the time he was doing it, the FBI was already watching him and just gathering more evidence and information to use against him. If you read books on that case, you would see just how fast the casinos and sports books were on to him. If you read other books on the topics of match fixing/bookmaking, you'd realize just how improbable continuously fixing hockey games would be. Like I said in a earlier post, these casinos and bookmaking operations arent run by morons, they know exactly what they're looking for. And in hockey, they'd see instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'll start with the last paragraph and work my way up. Not really sure what the one ref speaking about the Philly Flyers Cup winning teams is referring to. According to the HBO documentary "Broad Street Bullies", the NHL rulebook was like a 12 page pamphlet at first, and it was only AFTER the Flyers won back-to-back Cups that a new, and much more detailed rulebook was implemented to counter the mockery those Flyer teams had created. Not complaining about officials when they make bad calls, weak calls, or missed calls is not just accepting things as status quo, its called accepting mistakes from human beings. I have to accept a refs mistake in the same manner that I have to accept my goalie will let in weak goals, my defensemen will blow coverages or fail on clearing attempts, my fowards will go offsides or miss wide open nets, etc... I'm sure you accept a players mistake, so why are the refs held to higher standard...cause lets be honest, the players make far more mistakes than the refs do...so does that mean the players in on the conspiracy as well. Tim Donoughy did not get away with fixing basketball games for years. He actually didnt get away with anything, he was caught. And while it may have went on for a portion of two seasons, most of the time he was doing it, the FBI was already watching him and just gathering more evidence and information to use against him. If you read books on that case, you would see just how fast the casinos and sports books were on to him. If you read other books on the topics of match fixing/bookmaking, you'd realize just how improbable continuously fixing hockey games would be. Like I said in a earlier post, these casinos and bookmaking operations arent run by morons, they know exactly what they're looking for. And in hockey, they'd see instantly. Best post yet on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayinblack Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Best post yet on this subject. But to play devil's advocate.... him getting caught in the 2nd season doesn't help any of the teams he screwed over in the 1st season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'll start with the last paragraph and work my way up.(1)Not really sure what the one ref speaking about the Philly Flyers Cup winning teams is referring to. According to the HBO documentary "Broad Street Bullies", the NHL rulebook was like a 12 page pamphlet at first, and it was only AFTER the Flyers won back-to-back Cups that a new, and much more detailed rulebook was implemented to counter the mockery those Flyer teams had created.(2)Not complaining about officials when they make bad calls, weak calls, or missed calls is not just accepting things as status quo, its called accepting mistakes from human beings. I have to accept a refs mistake in the same manner that I have to accept my goalie will let in weak goals, my defensemen will blow coverages or fail on clearing attempts, my fowards will go offsides or miss wide open nets, etc... I'm sure you accept a players mistake, so why are the refs held to higher standard...cause lets be honest, the players make far more mistakes than the refs do...so does that mean the players in on the conspiracy as well.3)T(im Donoughy did not get away with fixing basketball games for years. He actually didnt get away with anything, he was caught. And while it may have went on for a portion of two seasons, most of the time he was doing it, the FBI was already watching him and just gathering more evidence and information to use against him. If you read books on that case, you would see just how fast the casinos and sports books were on to him. If you read other books on the topics of match fixing/bookmaking, you'd realize just how improbable continuously fixing hockey games would be. Like I said in a earlier post, these casinos and bookmaking operations arent run by morons, they know exactly what they're looking for. And in hockey, they'd see instantly. 1) The Philly example was a simple illustration to show that refs don't call penalties objectively. If they did, every game the Flyers played in those years would have been an 8 hour farce with Philly being 2 men short the entire time. Instead of winning the Cup twice, they would have gone 0-82, or 0-78 a year, whatever the season games played was at the time. There are a slew of other factors that go into why refs don't call games objectively, many but certainly not all of them listed in this thread. And the NHL didn't need an extra 64 pages of penalty categories and sub-sections to call a slash to the hands, a punch in front of the net, or a six-pull farmer-at-the-bale-of-hay hook, against Saleski, Schultz, the Watsons, Clarke, Van Impe, et al. 2) Missing calls is not accepting mistakes, it's calling out brazen incompetence (at best) and bias (at worst). Did you watch the Islanders/Canucks game? How do both refs "miss" the Weber and Dorsett non-calls, both in the thick of the action? As for "players in on the conspiracy", it shows me you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully, so I'll leave it at that. 3( Of course Donaghy was caught. But before he was caught, he affected a whack of NBA contest spreads, and at the time, fans (you and I, in this analogy) didn't know the slightest thing about it. Again, I'm not using the example as a conspiracy argument because the league wasn't in on it, but to show how severe ref shenanigans in calling a game can be "disguised", and for quite a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayinblack Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 1) The Philly example was a simple illustration to show that refs don't call penalties objectively. If they did, every game the Flyers played in those years would have been an 8 hour farce with Philly being 2 men short the entire time. Instead of winning the Cup twice, they would have gone 0-82, or 0-78 a year, whatever the season games played was at the time. There are a slew of other factors that go into why refs don't call games objectively, many but certainly not all of them listed in this thread. And the NHL didn't need an extra 64 pages of penalty categories and sub-sections to call a slash to the hands, a punch in front of the net, or a six-pull farmer-at-the-bale-of-hay hook, against Saleski, Schultz, the Watsons, Clarke, Van Impe, et al. 2) Missing calls is not accepting mistakes, it's calling out brazen incompetence (at best) and bias (at worst). Did you watch the Islanders/Canucks game? How do both refs "miss" the Weber and Dorsett non-calls, both in the thick of the action? As for "players in on the conspiracy", it shows me you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully, so I'll leave it at that. 3( Of course Donaghy was caught. But before he was caught, he affected a whack of NBA contest spreads, and at the time, fans (you and I, in this analogy) didn't know the slightest thing about it. Again, I'm not using the example as a conspiracy argument because the league wasn't in on it, but to show how severe ref shenanigans in calling a game can be "disguised", and for quite a long time. God forbid they changed the face of the Broad Street Bullies and simply called their goonery. The net result would have simply been Philly adapting. Makes you think about last year.... the only two times in history I've seen 7min 5 on 3's.... and both against us in the same season. I can understand Sestito getting reeled in to some extent, but they called Hansen of all people on the other one. You'll never convince me out of that bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayinblack Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 1) The Philly example was a simple illustration to show that refs don't call penalties objectively. If they did, every game the Flyers played in those years would have been an 8 hour farce with Philly being 2 men short the entire time. Instead of winning the Cup twice, they would have gone 0-82, or 0-78 a year, whatever the season games played was at the time. There are a slew of other factors that go into why refs don't call games objectively, many but certainly not all of them listed in this thread. And the NHL didn't need an extra 64 pages of penalty categories and sub-sections to call a slash to the hands, a punch in front of the net, or a six-pull farmer-at-the-bale-of-hay hook, against Saleski, Schultz, the Watsons, Clarke, Van Impe, et al. 2) Missing calls is not accepting mistakes, it's calling out brazen incompetence (at best) and bias (at worst). Did you watch the Islanders/Canucks game? How do both refs "miss" the Weber and Dorsett non-calls, both in the thick of the action? As for "players in on the conspiracy", it shows me you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully, so I'll leave it at that. 3( Of course Donaghy was caught. But before he was caught, he affected a whack of NBA contest spreads, and at the time, fans (you and I, in this analogy) didn't know the slightest thing about it. Again, I'm not using the example as a conspiracy argument because the league wasn't in on it, but to show how severe ref shenanigans in calling a game can be "disguised", and for quite a long time. Or the trip on Burrows in the last minute... a very obvious and easy call, unless of course you don't want to infuence NYI's chances to tie it up in the last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 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. 1.) It may well be human error when officials miss something. It may also be that the officials believe that sometimes they just have to let some calls go, otherwise they would be blowing their whistle every minute (as per your Flyers example). This is not a new concept. Game management has been around forever, however, this does not mean that a referee is fixing a game. There's been a number of times I've heard commentators for football games mention that a holding penalty could be called on 99% (if not 100%) of every down played. Hopefully the most significant fouls are caught, and a call is made. And yes, sometimes refs just miss a call. There's a lot going on for even two pairs of eyes to see it all. Having a second set of eyes doesn't always mean every call is made, or that every call which is made is a good one. I've noticed a number of times where it is mentioned that the 2nd official, at the far end of the ice, is the guy who calls a penalty while the guy right on top of the play shows no intent at all of blowing down the play. Is the guy who is closer making the correct call by not calling a penalty, or is the guy at center ice making the right call even though he's that much farther away? Is the guy who is closer trying to fix the game by not making a call, or is the guy further away the suspect for making a call? I suppose it depends on whether the play at the time of the penalty is in the Canucks' zone or the opposition's, doesn't it? There also may be variety in what is called by an official, but the desirable thing is that the calls are consistent throughout a game. There's a great scene at the end of the film, "A League of Their Own" where a baseball game is being played. A batter takes a pitch and gets a called strike. The batter yells at the umpire, "Hey, yesterday that was a ball!" The umpire replies, "Yesterday that may have been a ball, and tomorrow that may be a ball, but today it's a strike!" 2.) My call to quit watching is valid. People who do believe that there is a conspiracy (at any level), and believe that they have "evidence" of this plot are doing nothing to resolve this situation by continuing to support the NHL. If it is a high level conspiracy of some sort, then the owners don't care how much you scream as long as you continue to put money into their pockets. Write a nasty letter to the NHL. They may well read it. Have fans in large numbers withdraw their financial support and the NHL head office will sit up and take notice. I believe I made a valid point regarding low level types of conspiracies. There is a wide array of video and audio recordings which occur at any game. The performance of on ice officials are under scrutiny. Extreme bias would be very obvious, but a lesser bias may indeed be more difficult to discover. Now, if a certain official has had a number of complaints levelled at him, wouldn't the guys at the head office perhaps watch his games a bit more closely over a period of time? And if they did notice a bias, even if it was unintentional on of the official's part, I believe some action would be taken on the part of the NHL to correct the situation. This could take the form of additional training, or a change in the official's schedule, or if it turns out to be very bad, then the guy could be dismissed. What I get from the things which have been written in this thread, is that people are of the opinion that the league and some officials are in cahoots to fix games, or, the NHL is incompetent when it comes assessing the work of a few of their own employees so these officials continue to screw over the Canucks. Or, maybe the NHL just doesn't care what we think. There really isn't a lot of in between here, is there? 3.) There is also supposed to be a difference between "life" and a sporting event. The sporting event is supposed to represent an ideal which is not found in everyday life, no? So, I go back to the start of my 2nd point, yelling makes some waves, withdrawing your attention and dollars does get attention from the league. If you continue to support a system which you believe to be corrupt, all the while you are complaining about that corruption, then you are only screwing yourself. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 1) The Philly example was a simple illustration to show that refs don't call penalties objectively. If they did, every game the Flyers played in those years would have been an 8 hour farce with Philly being 2 men short the entire time. Instead of winning the Cup twice, they would have gone 0-82, or 0-78 a year, whatever the season games played was at the time. There are a slew of other factors that go into why refs don't call games objectively, many but certainly not all of them listed in this thread. And the NHL didn't need an extra 64 pages of penalty categories and sub-sections to call a slash to the hands, a punch in front of the net, or a six-pull farmer-at-the-bale-of-hay hook, against Saleski, Schultz, the Watsons, Clarke, Van Impe, et al. 2) Missing calls is not accepting mistakes, it's calling out brazen incompetence (at best) and bias (at worst). Did you watch the Islanders/Canucks game? How do both refs "miss" the Weber and Dorsett non-calls, both in the thick of the action? As for "players in on the conspiracy", it shows me you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully, so I'll leave it at that. 3( Of course Donaghy was caught. But before he was caught, he affected a whack of NBA contest spreads, and at the time, fans (you and I, in this analogy) didn't know the slightest thing about it. Again, I'm not using the example as a conspiracy argument because the league wasn't in on it, but to show how severe ref shenanigans in calling a game can be "disguised", and for quite a long time. No, i didnt watch the Islanders/Canucks game. But i did just go to the Islanders message board and read the GDT for that game. By page 5 they're b****ing about the refs, making claims like "thats 4 blatant penalties the Canucks have gotten away with" and "how many slashes is Tavares gonna take this game" yada yada yada. Weird, huh? Apparently the game WAS being managed by the refs, but it was in the Canucks favor, not the other way around. Shouldnt the Canucks be thanking the refs as some Islanders fans suggest, and not be complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 1) The Philly example was a simple illustration to show that refs don't call penalties objectively. If they did, every game the Flyers played in those years would have been an 8 hour farce with Philly being 2 men short the entire time. Instead of winning the Cup twice, they would have gone 0-82, or 0-78 a year, whatever the season games played was at the time. There are a slew of other factors that go into why refs don't call games objectively, many but certainly not all of them listed in this thread. And the NHL didn't need an extra 64 pages of penalty categories and sub-sections to call a slash to the hands, a punch in front of the net, or a six-pull farmer-at-the-bale-of-hay hook, against Saleski, Schultz, the Watsons, Clarke, Van Impe, et al. 2) Missing calls is not accepting mistakes, it's calling out brazen incompetence (at best) and bias (at worst). Did you watch the Islanders/Canucks game? How do both refs "miss" the Weber and Dorsett non-calls, both in the thick of the action? As for "players in on the conspiracy", it shows me you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully, so I'll leave it at that. 3( Of course Donaghy was caught. But before he was caught, he affected a whack of NBA contest spreads, and at the time, fans (you and I, in this analogy) didn't know the slightest thing about it. Again, I'm not using the example as a conspiracy argument because the league wasn't in on it, but to show how severe ref shenanigans in calling a game can be "disguised", and for quite a long time. So, is the NHL incompetent because they allow these kind of officials to ref their games and do nothing to correct , or is the NHL involved in a conspiracy to fix games, or is it that the league just doesn't care as long as you keep giving them money? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, i didnt watch the Islanders/Canucks game. But i did just go to the Islanders message board and read the GDT for that game. By page 5 they're b****ing about the refs, making claims like "thats 4 blatant penalties the Canucks have gotten away with" and "how many slashes is Tavares gonna take this game" yada yada yada. Weird, huh? Apparently the game WAS being managed by the refs, but it was in the Canucks favor, not the other way around. Shouldnt the Canucks be thanking the refs as some Islanders fans suggest, and not be complaining? On a similar, but different note of how the other side sees things, I was reading some stuff on the Leafs' forums and they were screaming about the "toxic" nature of the media in Toronto. I guess it's nice to see that Vancouver isn't the only place where (some of) the fans hate the local sports writers. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 1.) It may well be human error when officials miss something. It may also be that the officials believe that sometimes they just have to let some calls go, otherwise they would be blowing their whistle every minute (as per your Flyers example). This is not a new concept. Game management has been around forever, however, this does not mean that a referee is fixing a game. There's been a number of times I've heard commentators for football games mention that a holding penalty could be called on 99% (if not 100%) of every down played. Hopefully the most significant fouls are caught, and a call is made. And yes, sometimes refs just miss a call. There's a lot going on for even two pairs of eyes to see it all. Having a second set of eyes doesn't always mean every call is made, or that every call which is made is a good one. I've noticed a number of times where it is mentioned that the 2nd official, at the far end of the ice, is the guy who calls a penalty while the guy right on top of the play shows no intent at all of blowing down the play. Is the guy who is closer making the correct call by not calling a penalty, or is the guy at center ice making the right call even though he's that much farther away? Is the guy who is closer trying to fix the game by not making a call, or is the guy further away the suspect for making a call? I suppose it depends on whether the play at the time of the penalty is in the Canucks' zone or the opposition's, doesn't it? There also may be variety in what is called by an official, but the desirable thing is that the calls are consistent throughout a game. There's a great scene at the end of the film, "A League of Their Own" where a baseball game is being played. A batter takes a pitch and gets a called strike. The batter yells at the umpire, "Hey, yesterday that was a ball!" The umpire replies, "Yesterday that may have been a ball, and tomorrow that may be a ball, but today it's a strike!" 2.) My call to quit watching is valid. People who do believe that there is a conspiracy (at any level), and believe that they have "evidence" of this plot are doing nothing to resolve this situation by continuing to support the NHL. If it is a high level conspiracy of some sort, then the owners don't care how much you scream as long as you continue to put money into their pockets. Write a nasty letter to the NHL. They may well read it. Have fans in large numbers withdraw their financial support and the NHL head office will sit up and take notice. I believe I made a valid point regarding low level types of conspiracies. There is a wide array of video and audio recordings which occur at any game. The performance of on ice officials are under scrutiny. Extreme bias would be very obvious, but a lesser bias may indeed be more difficult to discover. Now, if a certain official has had a number of complaints levelled at him, wouldn't the guys at the head office perhaps watch his games a bit more closely over a period of time? And if they did notice a bias, even if it was unintentional on of the official's part, I believe some action would be taken on the part of the NHL to correct the situation. This could take the form of additional training, or a change in the official's schedule, or if it turns out to be very bad, then the guy could be dismissed. What I get from the things which have been written in this thread, is that people are of the opinion that the league and some officials are in cahoots to fix games, or, the NHL is incompetent when it comes assessing the work of a few of their own employees so these officials continue to screw over the Canucks. Or, maybe the NHL just doesn't care what we think. There really isn't a lot of in between here, is there? 3.) There is also supposed to be a difference between "life" and a sporting event. The sporting event is supposed to represent an ideal which is not found in everyday life, no? So, I go back to the start of my 2nd point, yelling makes some waves, withdrawing your attention and dollars does get attention from the league. If you continue to support a system which you believe to be corrupt, all the while you are complaining about that corruption, then you are only screwing yourself. regards, G. 1) Of course the refs couldn't call every penalty against the Flyers during those games without the NHL becoming a laughing stock (and then having to come up with an intelligent proactive plan to counteract the goonery, just one example of how they've never bothered instituting policy before an issue arises, preferring the reactionary mode like any large organization), but the refs could very well have made things mighty uncomfortable for Philly by even calling a large fraction of them. But the game management garbage -- worrying about not being too "one-sided" by having a 10 calls to 2 discrepancy -- is just one reason, though a big one, for the refs being either (a) too incompetent, or (2) too chicken sh!t. Your example of refs calling things from centre ice for a play behind the net or in the corner actually proves my point. Why do we need an extra ref when the close one can't even "see" the call to be made? To me, it means refs often have either a very different way of calling a particular game, a problem on several fronts, or it brings home the point that refs are appalling incompetent since, by the very fact of the play, a ref is trying to see play unfolding from an unadvantageous position (far away, possibly screened) and thinks he has a handle on it, and the other ref is OK with it. This brings up a bigger problem with the league itself. If there are gonna be 2 refs (and I don't think there should be), why don't they have their own, specific zones of authority on the ice? In the NBA, for example, the centre court ref (in this comparison) wouldn't be able to make that call -- it's strictly up to the deep zone/base line ref, as it should be. The NHL, though, creates the extra ref, then doen't think through how they should operate in the flow of the game. 2) I've gone over the conspiracy angle enough, so I won't keep belabouring the point. I've never said there was a conspiracy, so you'd best take that argument elsewhere, or to others on this board. I agree with you -- if I thought Bettman and a cohort of the old boy owners were conspiring to fix things for themselves at all cost, I'd be out and watching the NBA or doing any number of other things with my time. That I'm passionate about the reffing issue (and it IS an issue) means I think it's something that can get better since it's not endemic or multi-level in how it plays out. You're correct in that the head official, the one in charge of the refs, their scheduling and deployment and ranking, should be involved, and they are. One way is that the best refs and linesmen, in that person's estimate, get to call playoff games -- it's not just based on seniority, so that's good. But here's the thing. Refs are paid very well. I'm sure it's not exactly a harsh penalty for a ref who doesn't make the playoff cut to get a rest for one to months while still making good coin for working half the year. And that's the only real so-called disincentive refs are under. Any internal "discipline" is never publicized, same in any sport. As a fan that p!sses me off. We should know the penalties for screwing up. Then again, when the league doubled the refs in one go, how was that fair to the players and fans? Were there suddenly twice as many competent refs available from the year before? What would the quality of NHL play look like if there were suddenly 60 teams in the league '15-'16? I think you might see a few seasons-tickets abstainers at that point. Call in the international league and wake up the retired players! 3) You've repeated points you've made in (2), which I've addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, i didnt watch the Islanders/Canucks game. But i did just go to the Islanders message board and read the GDT for that game. By page 5 they're b****ing about the refs, making claims like "thats 4 blatant penalties the Canucks have gotten away with" and "how many slashes is Tavares gonna take this game" yada yada yada. Weird, huh? Apparently the game WAS being managed by the refs, but it was in the Canucks favor, not the other way around. Shouldnt the Canucks be thanking the refs as some Islanders fans suggest, and not be complaining? Thats exactly why islanders and other American teams will never get screwed cuz they dont put up with no $&!#e. Not like many Van fans and media. And now we got a 5on 3 against florida!! Because of this thread!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Thats exactly why islanders and other American teams will never get screwed cuz they dont put up with no crape. Not like many Van fans and media. And now we got a 5on 3 against florida!! Because of this thread!!! You see?!! Whining sometimes works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliesStache14 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 yeah those 6 powerplays we got tonight sure helped eh? i want more ref bias so we get less powerplays if we keep doing that with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 yeah those 6 powerplays we got tonight sure helped eh? i want more ref bias so we get less powerplays if we keep doing that with them Yeah, one game is more important than taking all 39 games together, eh? I want more one game representations of a long trend, if that's how we keep score on these things. 52 times times shorthanded in the 1st - 33 times times pp in the 1st becomes 53 times shorthanded in the 1st - 35 times pp in the 1st Such a dramatic difference that one game made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yeah, one game is more important than taking all 39 games together, eh? I want more one game representations of a long trend, if that's how we keep score on these things. 52 times times shorthanded in the 1st - 33 times times pp in the 1st becomes 53 times shorthanded in the 1st - 35 times pp in the 1st Such a dramatic difference that one game made! I'm not actually surprised at those numbers given the number of times the team has come out flat in the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yeah, one game is more important than taking all 39 games together, eh? I want more one game representations of a long trend, if that's how we keep score on these things. 52 times times shorthanded in the 1st - 33 times times pp in the 1st becomes 53 times shorthanded in the 1st - 35 times pp in the 1st Such a dramatic difference that one game made! Is the lack of first period PP opportunities a yearly occurrence? Does this happen every year to the Canucks? Because I hear about a conspiracy against the Canucks every year, but I've never heard this complaint until now. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.