Bad Reffing Thread (Including Tim Peel Firing)

[RUPERTKBD]

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

[Kragar]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:05 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

The amount of PP time doesn't matter, unless you also take into account the number of times a PP was deserved.

 

I don't remember specifics, but I'm fairly confident that the gaffes by the DOPS and refs go far beyond Rome, Danny/Marchand, and Boychuk going unpenalized for Raymond's broken back.

 

When the PP isn't performing well, that just encourages the Bruins to play tougher, and I don't fault them for that.  But the amount of penalties that are called doesn't give any reasons for changing the officiating style.  If it is deserved, call it.

 

If it is not called fairly, then suspecting bias is a logical next step.

[RUPERTKBD]

6 minutes ago, Kragar said:

The amount of PP time doesn't matter, unless you also take into account the number of times a PP was deserved.

 

I don't remember specifics, but I'm fairly confident that the gaffes by the DOPS and refs go far beyond Rome, Danny/Marchand, and Boychuk going unpenalized for Raymond's broken back.

 

When the PP isn't performing well, that just encourages the Bruins to play tougher, and I don't fault them for that.  But the amount of penalties that are called doesn't give any reasons for changing the officiating style.  If it is deserved, call it.

 

If it is not called fairly, then suspecting bias is a logical next step.

We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I just don't believe that the officiating was biased against the Canucks in that series.

 

As I said, the ruling on the Rome suspension was BS, but that isn't the refs' call.

[King Heffy]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:05 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

Because the Bruins were dirty as hell.  The disparity wasn't nearly high enough when you take into account how many cheapshots they were giving.

[wallstreetamigo]

11 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I just don't believe that the officiating was biased against the Canucks in that series.

 

As I said, the ruling on the Rome suspension was BS, but that isn't the refs' call.

I think it was a bit too lenient toward the Bruins overall but i wouldnt say it was necessarily biased.

 

I think the league office was biased af.

 

But the Canucks had their chances on the PP and couldnt score. They didnt lose the series because of officiating or even goaltending. 8 goals in 7 games. Thats the reason they lost.

[RUPERTKBD]

7 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I think it was a bit too lenient toward the Bruins overall but i wouldnt say it was necessarily biased.

 

I think the league office was biased af.

 

But the Canucks had their chances on the PP and couldnt score. They didnt lose the series because of officiating or even goaltending. 8 goals in 7 games. Thats the reason they lost.

I'll take that thought even further.....

 

I believe they lost because they had so many walking wounded by the time they got to the finals....the team that led the league on the PP all season long, suddenly couldn't score with the extra man. Hank, Kes, Ehrhoff....all playing injured. That's 3/5 of the PP unit. Combine that with Thomas playing out of his mind and it's no surprise that the man advantage was much less an advantage than it was during the regular season....

[Hairy Kneel]

Yes I  was think of taking one ref off the ice and setting him in the penalty box or time keepers area. They get in the way.

[Chickenspear]

How the hell is a thread about bad reffing only 6 pages long after 2 years?

 

Kelly sucks!

[Hairy Kneel]

At least get one ref off the ice. And utilize video replay.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 hours ago, Chickenspear said:

How the hell is a thread about bad reffing only 6 pages long after 2 years?

 

Kelly sucks!

Sad thing is...Kelly still sucks and he's still officiating after 2 years.

[Hairy Kneel]

Sutherland in the playoffs was a sight. Plus' la change plu's la mem chose'

[viking mama]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:05 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

No call on the Johnny Boychuk pitch-fork sending Mason Raymond awkwardly into the boards & breaking his back,…thought that the injury was supposed to lead to greater on & off-ice scrutiny of the call?
 

Rome didn’t “blow-up” Norton with some vindictively premeditated dirty-play. It wasn’t an egregious-hit,…not by a long-shot!
 

Previously concussed, Nathan Horton threw some caution to the wind, & after being stood-up, fell backwards, banged the back of his head on the ice, while wearin’ a loose helmet. He already had his vulnerabilities to begin with & was likely playing, again, a little too soon.
 

Any previous injury was just made worse, by the reckless wearing of his equipment & the optimism that he was 100% when suiting up. I suspect, as his lack of sharpness &/or awareness out there showed… that he wasn’t. 
 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by viking mama

[chon derry]

6 hours ago, viking mama said:

No call on the Johnny Boychuk pitch-fork sending Mason Raymond awkwardly into the boards & breaking his back,…thought that the injury was supposed to lead to greater on & off-ice scrutiny of the call?
 

Rome didn’t “blow-up” Norton with some vindictively premeditated dirty-play. It wasn’t an egregious-hit,…not by a long-shot!
 

Previously concussed, Nathan Horton threw some caution to the wind, & after being stood-up, fell backwards, banged the back of his head on the ice, while wearin’ a loose helmet. He already had his vulnerabilities to begin with & was likely playing, again, a little too soon.
 

Any previous injury was just made worse, by the reckless wearing of his equipment & the optimism that he was 100% when suiting up. I suspect, as his lack of sharpness &/or awareness out there - showed that he wasn’t. 
 

 

Don’t forget this debacle. Wiki. On June 1, 2011, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman made an announcement that Colin Campbell would be stepping down as the league's head disciplinarian to be replaced by former player Brendan Shanahan, though Campbell would continue in his job as director of hockey operations. Mike Murphy, the NHL vice-president of hockey operations, had already been put in charge of disciplinary matters for the Finals, nonetheless there were concerns raised about Campbell's impartiality in handing out discipline since his son, Gregory, was an active player on the Boston Bruins

[RUPERTKBD]

6 hours ago, viking mama said:

No call on the Johnny Boychuk pitch-fork sending Mason Raymond awkwardly into the boards & breaking his back,…thought that the injury was supposed to lead to greater on & off-ice scrutiny of the call?
 

Rome didn’t “blow-up” Norton with some vindictively premeditated dirty-play. It wasn’t an egregious-hit,…not by a long-shot!
 

Previously concussed, Nathan Horton threw some caution to the wind, & after being stood-up, fell backwards, banged the back of his head on the ice, while wearin’ a loose helmet. He already had his vulnerabilities to begin with & was likely playing, again, a little too soon.
 

Any previous injury was just made worse, by the reckless wearing of his equipment & the optimism that he was 100% when suiting up. I suspect, as his lack of sharpness &/or awareness out there - showed that he wasn’t.

Again, the suspension to Rome was a ridiculous decision. Nobody made more noise about it at the time than I did....

 

....but it had nothing to do with reffing. It was a late hit and deserving of a penalty.

 

As far as the Boychuk hit on Raymond goes, I'm unaware of any league policy that states penalties should be called based on whether or not a player is injured. Maybe you can post it?

[Ilunga]

21 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Again, the suspension to Rome was a ridiculous decision. Nobody made more noise about it at the time than I did....

 

....but it had nothing to do with reffing. It was a late hit and deserving of a penalty.

 

As far as the Boychuk hit on Raymond goes, I'm unaware of any league policy that states penalties should be called based on whether or not a player is injured. Maybe you can post it?

This is a big thing in the AFL at the moment.

 

Sling tackles.

If the players head hits the ground they get reported and usually get suspended.

If the player is concussed, it will be a longer suspension. 

 

Then there is this that happened on the weekend

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gary-rohans-accidental-friendly-fire-highlights-afl-inconsistency-angers-footy-world/news-story/de774a957a52359dbd36473d6578ab59

 

Very brutal hit from a team mate, accident, however if a opposition player had accidentally done the same thing he would have been suspended.

 

Injury/ concussion is definitely taken into account in the AFL in regards to suspensions.

 

I can see this permeating into all physical contact team sports.

Liability issues.

[RUPERTKBD]

On 6/28/2023 at 5:14 AM, Ilunga said:

This is a big thing in the AFL at the moment.

 

Sling tackles.

If the players head hits the ground they get reported and usually get suspended.

If the player is concussed, it will be a longer suspension. 

 

Then there is this that happened on the weekend

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gary-rohans-accidental-friendly-fire-highlights-afl-inconsistency-angers-footy-world/news-story/de774a957a52359dbd36473d6578ab59

 

Very brutal hit from a team mate, accident, however if a opposition player had accidentally done the same thing he would have been suspended.

 

Injury/ concussion is definitely taken into account in the AFL in regards to suspensions.

 

I can see this permeating into all physical contact team sports.

Liability issues.

When the Rome hit on Nathan Horton happened, it was obvious that Horton was concussed. He was lying on the ice and twitching.....very bad optics for a league trying to make inroads into the American market and a game in the finals, watched by millions in the US and Canada.

 

It was pretty much inevitable that the league would make an example of AR, but the suspension they handed down was completely out of line with precedent. Similar hits during the season (and the two or three seasons before) had been punished with significantly less severity.

 

The league made a bunch of noise about how they were "setting a new standard", (something that you never do 100 games into a season, IMHO) but although they followed through for the first month of the next season, GMs started making a lot of noise about how ridiculous this new standard was, because now it was their players sitting out for weeks.

 

Eventually the league caved and reverted back to the "Pre-Rome" standard for suspending late hits and Aaron Rome will forever be a scapegoat.

 

Now, over a decade later, (and after lawsuits in several sports) CTE is being taken much more seriously across the big 4 leagues. There are spotters, who can have a player removed from the game and tested. There are also penalties for "hits to the head" in hockey and football.

 

As you say, it's permeating all of sports and if it's evenly handled, it's a good thing....

Edited July 3, 2023 by RUPERTKBD

[King Heffy]

4 hours ago, Ilunga said:

This is a big thing in the AFL at the moment.

 

Sling tackles.

If the players head hits the ground they get reported and usually get suspended.

If the player is concussed, it will be a longer suspension. 

 

Then there is this that happened on the weekend

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gary-rohans-accidental-friendly-fire-highlights-afl-inconsistency-angers-footy-world/news-story/de774a957a52359dbd36473d6578ab59

 

Very brutal hit from a team mate, accident, however if a opposition player had accidentally done the same thing he would have been suspended.

 

Injury/ concussion is definitely taken into account in the AFL in regards to suspensions.

 

I can see this permeating into all physical contact team sports.

Liability issues.

I think there's definitely a case to be made that the NHL is liable for negligence due to their refusal to hold problem refs accountable.  Allowing scum like Sutherland to openly rig games at the expense of player safety is going to be the downfall of the league.  The league also has proven that it can't be trusted to handle supplemental discipline.  This needs to be put in the hands of an honest, independent third party due to the corruption in the DOPS.

[Ilunga]

15 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

When the Rome hit on Nathan Horton happened, it was obvious that Horton was concussed. He was lying on the ice and twitching.....very bad optics for a league trying to make inroads into the American market and a game in the finals, watched by millions in the US and Canada.

 

It was pretty much inevitable that the league make an example of AR, but the suspension they handed down was completed out of line with precedent. Similar hits during the season (and the two or three seasons before) had been punished with significantly less severity.

 

The league made a bunch of noise about how they were "setting a new standard", (something that you never do 100 games into a season, IMHO) but although they followed through for the first month of the next season, GMs started making a lot of noise about how ridiculous this new standard was, because now it was their players sitting out for weeks.

 

Eventually the league caved and reverted back to the "Pre-Rome" standard for suspending late hits and Aaron Rome will forever be a scapegoat.

 

Now, over a decade later, (and after lawsuits in several sports) CTE is being taken much more seriously across the big 4 leagues. There are spotters, who can have a player removed from the game and tested. There are also penalties for "hits to the head" in hockey and football.

 

As you say, it's permeating all of sports and if it's evenly handled, it's a good thing....

Same in Rugby league.

There are so many HIA's, head injury assessments, each weekends round of games. 

 

A few prominent AFL players from a few decades ago, when the game was far more " physical " have taken their own lives.

This is being linked to concussions they experienced through their career.

 

As someone who has had a lot of serious concussions, I am aware of the impact it has on both ones cognitive functions, and mental health.

[Gurn]

8 hours ago, Ilunga said:

As someone who has had a lot of serious concussions, I am aware of the impact it has on both ones cognitive functions, and mental health

^ This, is why I retired as soon as I could

I've had 3 severe concussions, the last one had me off work for over half a year. Sitting in the dark, unable to even listen to music, as it was too much input.

[viking mama]

Thomas was also permitted by the O’Rourke/crew to take-down H. Sedin with impunity, in game 3. 

 

As a goalie, who has the advantage of wearing large pieces of equipment that other players do not, like a blocker, heavier lumber & a more configured helmet, Thomas should not have been allowed to  head-butt, or thrust his blocker & stick at an opposing player to impede their progress.
 

There was some generous Bruins’ entitlement here - instead of the standard roughing, interference or cross-checking penalty being called. This is just another small example of the ways in which Canucks’ scoring-opportunities were robbed…in the moment & via another unawarded-penalty situation.  
 

Nobody on the broadcast feed below, thought to mention, the high possibility of yet another serious injury being sustained by a  signifigant & impactful Canucks’ player, in this moment, either.
 

Thomas’ choices were to make the save &/or play the puck, but he chose a 3rd option,..which was to bank upon the gratuitous good will of this gaggle of enabling referees, instead and - voila! It worked out for him, but the hockey-gods all know that Henrik Sedin wouldn’t have been allowed to interfere with Timmy T! If goalies are so easily permitted to cross-check & use their equipment is such a way,…player injuries would most surely go up around the league & be just as imminent. 
 

BTW: This commentary is via a Bruins feed.

Edited July 3, 2023 by viking mama