It has long been a major complaint of mine that referees who make no pittance of a salary for officiating the games we watch (and number far too many on the ice and off) are so inconsistent at their application of NHL rules.
Last night, we had to watch an overtime and a shootout, and a loss, because the pair of referees and goodness knows how many people in Toronto missed Thomas Vanek sweeping our goaltender into the net for a goal (an interference call if there ever was one).
Showing posts with label referees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referees. Show all posts
Friday, February 08, 2013
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Shanahan Makes Big Deal of Pacioretty Hit on Letang
Pacioretty will sit 3 games for his colossal hit on Letang Saturday night, despite no penalty being called on the play (if you haven't seen it, you can watch here perjorative-free). Some call it a cheap shot, some a spectacular hockey hit, and maybe some would kind of agree with both. I'm one.
First of all, let's agree that the hit had to be made. Letang was making a potentially dangerous move while in possession of the puck, and Pacioretty had him lined up perfectly. It was very much in the middle of the play, and a solid defensive move for Pacioretty to use his speed and good positioning to deliver some kind of hit to knock Letang off the puck. Just like—and this is a very deliberate comparison—it was a good defensive move for Chara last March to make some kind of play to rub Pacioretty on the boards to do the same.
Pacioretty put it very well himself on TSN : “It's a quick decision there. He's coming across the middle, he's got the puck and is maybe in a scoring opportunity. If I let him go, he could potentially score on us. I knew I had to hit him but I didn't want the result to be like that.” I don't think Pacioretty meant to hurt Letang, but he sure did mean to surprise him with a killer hit and break up the play.
There wasn't a penalty on the hit. I'm not sure that was the right call, because it looks to me like Pacioretty leaves his feet. More importantly, the hit nails Letang right in the head. For better or worse, the refs are supposed to be calling that, partly because of Chara's hit on Pacioretty. I think someone could try making an argument that Letang's head shouldn't have been where it was, but I don't think it's a very strong one for reasons I'll discuss in a moment.
At the same time, it's not like this is the first time someone left their feet do deliver a classic open-ice hockey hit. You know, the kind that guys like Scott Stevens built a whole career around in the pre-lockout and pre-headshot rule era. There was no illegal stickwork involved, no holding or tripping, no running someone's face into a metal pole at full-speed. In many ways, this was little more than a classic open-ice hit that caught Letang unawares, and it was that surprise factor that made the hit as devastating as it was.
At the same time, shots to the head are what we refer to as a “Big Deal” in the NHL right now. There is essentially a crackdown in effect, with Shanahan cast as the new sheriff in town and hopefully handing down the law in a more even-handed way than his predecessor. The rule against head shots is truly to the benefit of the players, the league, and the fans; and it needs to be enforced even if the refs don't call it on the spot.
Pacioretty had this check lined up for what amounts to an eternity in on-ice time. When Chara talked about the game moving too fast to make smart decisions, I found it to be thoughtless and frankly insulting to him and every other world-class hockey player that consistently makes good split-second decisions every moment they're out there. I'm glad Pacioretty didn't try to say the same thing, and I'm proud that he showed the class of approaching Letang pretty quickly afterwards and apologizing rather than insinuating maybe Letang did something ridiculously stupid he clearly didn't do that made the injury happen. I like that Pacioretty took responsibility for a deliberate action on the ice.
The reason I said “some kind of hit” earlier is precisely because of the time that Pacioretty had to line up this hit. Firstly, there was no reason for him to leave his feet to knock a player off the puck. Scott Stevens delivers his most powerful hits in the above video with his feet planted, because the ice provides more leverage and power than hurling himself through the air would. Secondly, Pacioretty didn't have to deliver a high hit. He could have just as easily delivered a wicked hipcheck that would have been equally effective at disrupting the play and knocking Letang out of it without risking the Big Deal that comes with hits to the head. My opinion is that he really did have some time to think about this one, and he made the wrong choice.
Perhaps most importantly, I think that Pacioretty of all people should know better than to make a high-risk play where someone's head even might be in danger. Sure, he's delivered his share of cheap shots in the past while going through the grand tradition of showing enough “grit” for the NHL by logging physical minutes on the third and fourth lines. These days, however, Pacioretty is our top goal–scorer and doesn't need to make high-risk plays in hopes of winning or keeping a roster spot. He's also suffered the consequences of a questionable hit where an opposing player probably could have shown better judgement.
I love a good hockey hit as much (maybe more) than most. All I'm saying is that there's way to clean a guy's clock without hitting him in the head. In addition to the NHL, the medical and research communities are asserting that hits to the head are, in fact, a Big Deal. Sidney Crosby has done the right thing by saying and demonstrating that concussions are a Big Deal, and I have to wonder if Eric Lindros might not have played a few more seasons if concussions had been a Big Deal back when he was playing.
In my opinion, 3 games for Pacioretty seems pretty reasonable. It's a clear head hit, intentional or not, and I'm glad to see the NHL doing anything consistent with their rulebook or stated policies on head hits. Let us know how you feel in the comments.
First of all, let's agree that the hit had to be made. Letang was making a potentially dangerous move while in possession of the puck, and Pacioretty had him lined up perfectly. It was very much in the middle of the play, and a solid defensive move for Pacioretty to use his speed and good positioning to deliver some kind of hit to knock Letang off the puck. Just like—and this is a very deliberate comparison—it was a good defensive move for Chara last March to make some kind of play to rub Pacioretty on the boards to do the same.
Pacioretty put it very well himself on TSN : “It's a quick decision there. He's coming across the middle, he's got the puck and is maybe in a scoring opportunity. If I let him go, he could potentially score on us. I knew I had to hit him but I didn't want the result to be like that.” I don't think Pacioretty meant to hurt Letang, but he sure did mean to surprise him with a killer hit and break up the play.
There wasn't a penalty on the hit. I'm not sure that was the right call, because it looks to me like Pacioretty leaves his feet. More importantly, the hit nails Letang right in the head. For better or worse, the refs are supposed to be calling that, partly because of Chara's hit on Pacioretty. I think someone could try making an argument that Letang's head shouldn't have been where it was, but I don't think it's a very strong one for reasons I'll discuss in a moment.
At the same time, it's not like this is the first time someone left their feet do deliver a classic open-ice hockey hit. You know, the kind that guys like Scott Stevens built a whole career around in the pre-lockout and pre-headshot rule era. There was no illegal stickwork involved, no holding or tripping, no running someone's face into a metal pole at full-speed. In many ways, this was little more than a classic open-ice hit that caught Letang unawares, and it was that surprise factor that made the hit as devastating as it was.
At the same time, shots to the head are what we refer to as a “Big Deal” in the NHL right now. There is essentially a crackdown in effect, with Shanahan cast as the new sheriff in town and hopefully handing down the law in a more even-handed way than his predecessor. The rule against head shots is truly to the benefit of the players, the league, and the fans; and it needs to be enforced even if the refs don't call it on the spot.
Pacioretty had this check lined up for what amounts to an eternity in on-ice time. When Chara talked about the game moving too fast to make smart decisions, I found it to be thoughtless and frankly insulting to him and every other world-class hockey player that consistently makes good split-second decisions every moment they're out there. I'm glad Pacioretty didn't try to say the same thing, and I'm proud that he showed the class of approaching Letang pretty quickly afterwards and apologizing rather than insinuating maybe Letang did something ridiculously stupid he clearly didn't do that made the injury happen. I like that Pacioretty took responsibility for a deliberate action on the ice.
The reason I said “some kind of hit” earlier is precisely because of the time that Pacioretty had to line up this hit. Firstly, there was no reason for him to leave his feet to knock a player off the puck. Scott Stevens delivers his most powerful hits in the above video with his feet planted, because the ice provides more leverage and power than hurling himself through the air would. Secondly, Pacioretty didn't have to deliver a high hit. He could have just as easily delivered a wicked hipcheck that would have been equally effective at disrupting the play and knocking Letang out of it without risking the Big Deal that comes with hits to the head. My opinion is that he really did have some time to think about this one, and he made the wrong choice.
Perhaps most importantly, I think that Pacioretty of all people should know better than to make a high-risk play where someone's head even might be in danger. Sure, he's delivered his share of cheap shots in the past while going through the grand tradition of showing enough “grit” for the NHL by logging physical minutes on the third and fourth lines. These days, however, Pacioretty is our top goal–scorer and doesn't need to make high-risk plays in hopes of winning or keeping a roster spot. He's also suffered the consequences of a questionable hit where an opposing player probably could have shown better judgement.
I love a good hockey hit as much (maybe more) than most. All I'm saying is that there's way to clean a guy's clock without hitting him in the head. In addition to the NHL, the medical and research communities are asserting that hits to the head are, in fact, a Big Deal. Sidney Crosby has done the right thing by saying and demonstrating that concussions are a Big Deal, and I have to wonder if Eric Lindros might not have played a few more seasons if concussions had been a Big Deal back when he was playing.
In my opinion, 3 games for Pacioretty seems pretty reasonable. It's a clear head hit, intentional or not, and I'm glad to see the NHL doing anything consistent with their rulebook or stated policies on head hits. Let us know how you feel in the comments.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Game #13
Remember, Remember The 5th of November, Habs Take Lessons From Rangers Game
Details
Date: 5/11/2011
Opponent: Rangers
Location: New York
Loss: 3-5
Habs Goalie: Price (L)
Opposition Goalie: Lundqvist (W)
Habs goalscorers: Pacioretty, Kostitsyn, Gionta
Opposition goalscorers: Christensen, Girardi, Del Zotto, Richards, Callahan (EN)
Play of the game
Dome hockey team
The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the dome
Forwards
Erik Cole - Game Puck
Bear with me. The Habs found themselves behind by 3 goals about a quarter of the way through the game. They knew by that point, the refs would not be handing their favours to them (penalty for stopping in front of goalie?). This wasn't going to be a normal game where the normal gameplan would unfold as the past four. To me, Cole recognised this first and ended up being one of only a few who looked beyond lucky bounces to get back. He didn't score a goal or get an assist, but he got the two best chances made from nothing that didn't go in.
Max Pacioretty
Besides ideas, a team behind needs opportunism and instinct to claw back such a big lead. Pacioretty played that role again in this one. Gionta's shot was a brilliant read of a goalie, but it took a player in high form to ensure he'd be in the sweet spot to pounce. He did it a few more times in the game too. 7 shots in all.
Brian Gionta
A last gasp goal and an amazing shot pass are enough to get Gionta recognised here. His play in the crease was also pivotal, as his penalty drawn led to the 5-on-3 and probably the play of the game. I'd have liked more creativity from the captain, but it's hard to ask for everything from the guy who essentially prepared all the goals.
Defencemen
Josh GorgesIt wasn't that bad a defensive game for the Habs. But there were a lot of little goofs that ended up costing the team. In general, Josh Gorges looked least likely to give up something too dangerous and made his forays into the offensive zone with the finest calculation.
Hal Gill
Because he was on Gaborik duty, he gets more leeway than others. I should say that generally this year, I think Gill has been worse than last year. I think placing him with Diaz is a big misread of what Gill's role on the team can be. However, in this game, he did well. He wasn't on for any goals against, including 8.5 minutes short-handed. It was a sort of Gill style night on D, lots of battles conceded to control the front of the net area.
Goaltender
Carey Price
We'll call this giving the benefit of the doubt. 4 goals against is not good. First though considering the circumstances it was more like 3 goals, that 5-on-3 would never happen again with semi-competent refs (oh wait, this is still the NHL, I guess it will happen then, probably next game). Then, considering the defence that led to the goals, we could point to a couple of things out of the goalie's control. It was still a plain game from Carey, but I feel that's because the rest of the time he was plainly good in his usual way.
Comments
Lesson 1:
Don't count on the refs. Sometimes the refs are going to miss calls, sometimes they are going to err on the side of the opposition. Once it happens, there's no reason to dwell on it. More importantly, recognise that you'll have to do something other than fall over and await the PP to get back into the game. Also recognise when the refs are touchy and back off on the snowing the goalie.
Lesson 2:
It takes effort to get scoring chances. I'm not really talking about "scoring chances" like the ones defined as any shot weak or strong from a defined area of the ice. But scoring chances, the ones that look like they could go in, even to the opposing goalie. As I mentioned Cole got a few because he poured on effort at the right time, Pacioretty got a goal because Gionta remembered to shoot low. It takes more effort from behind. As it should.
Lesson 3:
The third period is long, but not that long. A third goal did come from some pressure, but far too late. Until that point, the third largely looked like a long wait for a happy bounce. If you're behind by two to start the third, most times you'll lose. With this in mind, the pressure should look to last as long as the twenty minutes.
I'm sure there are more lessons. But to this group of slow learners, I think 3 learning objectives are quite sufficient. Remember how you didn't win and why, remember what worked and how it looked for a time like the come back was on, remember to try not to play the whole first period a man down. Then forget points left on the table and move onto the next task.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Maybe it's too early to deliver a verdict on Brendan Shanahan as VP Discipline. But as he stepped onto the rule-making ice for his first shift, he did very little to distinguish himself from those who came before.
This looks more a waiver wire addition for the NHL change machine than a blockbuster pick up.
It started well enough in August with the re-introduction of the Research, Development and Orientation Camp. At that camp, there were all kinds of things being tested, variations on icing, equipment tweaks, powerplays that last the duration. Changes that could have made significant differences to the game.
Kudos to the new guys for looking at these things in the first place.
It's perhaps not surprising that the more radical ideas on the table are staying there, for now. The game is growing in popularity (or so the book cookers say) and there isn't really a noticeable crisis in the goalscoring department that requires radical action.
But there were certain changes that needed to be made. Foremost among them was to do whatever it takes to eliminate the unnecessary injuries that occur when players hit other players around the side of the head. The action that was thought to be firm last year left us with memories of devastating hits with summer retirements and careers in jeopardy.
So when the announcement that the NHL has changed Rule 48 (the now infamous Illegal hits to the head rule), one could be excused for being underwhelmed with the conviction.
The full explanation of the changes is here. But the gist of it is this:
1) Last year, hits to the head were penalized when they were blindside or lateral. This year, those words have been removed. All hits will be penalized. (One step ahead)
Oh wait, it's actually up to the referee. Couldn't commit that far (step back).
2) Last year, the penalty was at least severe in theory. A major penalty would be assessable. This year, they deemed that too harsh, so it's now a minor call (several steps back?)
The net change is that the penalty is lessened, but the penalizable offence is broader. However, since we know the referees that have been given the freedom of interpretation (heaven forbid they weren't for the sake of safety) we can imagine the cockamamie explanations on the way for the unpenalized hits coming up this year.
It's a very weak response to a very serious issue. A completely unnecessary part of the game could be removed with leadership and conviction and fairly simple penalties, yet the team at the top bottled it.
Now consider their similar superficial changes to the boarding rule where they changed wording (vulnerable to defenseless).
Is anyone else worried that Shanahan might not be bold enough to break the establishment? Does anyone believe he even wants to?
If the real threat of retirement before 25 for the best player to come along in years is not enough to light a fire under these guys, what is? I think we all know the horrible answer to that question.
Let's hope an outcry, or maybe just some good sense from the players themselves (pipe dream), ends this nonsense before that day.
This looks more a waiver wire addition for the NHL change machine than a blockbuster pick up.
It started well enough in August with the re-introduction of the Research, Development and Orientation Camp. At that camp, there were all kinds of things being tested, variations on icing, equipment tweaks, powerplays that last the duration. Changes that could have made significant differences to the game.
Kudos to the new guys for looking at these things in the first place.
It's perhaps not surprising that the more radical ideas on the table are staying there, for now. The game is growing in popularity (or so the book cookers say) and there isn't really a noticeable crisis in the goalscoring department that requires radical action.
But there were certain changes that needed to be made. Foremost among them was to do whatever it takes to eliminate the unnecessary injuries that occur when players hit other players around the side of the head. The action that was thought to be firm last year left us with memories of devastating hits with summer retirements and careers in jeopardy.
So when the announcement that the NHL has changed Rule 48 (the now infamous Illegal hits to the head rule), one could be excused for being underwhelmed with the conviction.
The full explanation of the changes is here. But the gist of it is this:
1) Last year, hits to the head were penalized when they were blindside or lateral. This year, those words have been removed. All hits will be penalized. (One step ahead)
Oh wait, it's actually up to the referee. Couldn't commit that far (step back).
2) Last year, the penalty was at least severe in theory. A major penalty would be assessable. This year, they deemed that too harsh, so it's now a minor call (several steps back?)
The net change is that the penalty is lessened, but the penalizable offence is broader. However, since we know the referees that have been given the freedom of interpretation (heaven forbid they weren't for the sake of safety) we can imagine the cockamamie explanations on the way for the unpenalized hits coming up this year.
It's a very weak response to a very serious issue. A completely unnecessary part of the game could be removed with leadership and conviction and fairly simple penalties, yet the team at the top bottled it.
Now consider their similar superficial changes to the boarding rule where they changed wording (vulnerable to defenseless).
Is anyone else worried that Shanahan might not be bold enough to break the establishment? Does anyone believe he even wants to?
If the real threat of retirement before 25 for the best player to come along in years is not enough to light a fire under these guys, what is? I think we all know the horrible answer to that question.
Let's hope an outcry, or maybe just some good sense from the players themselves (pipe dream), ends this nonsense before that day.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back
In the wake of announcements made by Gary Bettman about the seriousness that the NHL is going to start ascribing to head hits, this week the NHL Wheel of Justice assessed Dany Heatley 2 games for a deliberate (if not very injurious) elbow to the head of Steve Ott, Lecavalier was handed a game misconduct for a deliberate high-stick to PK Subban’s head, and even Bruin Brad Marchand is getting a suspension for an unpenalized play. Given that the GMs have just finished a meeting specifically addressing concussions and head hits (among other things), it’s worth asking whether the league has done enough to address what a lot of hockey minds seem to think is a key issue facing the game today?
Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.
This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.
One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.
The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.
The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.
Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.
What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.
My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.
I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.
Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.
This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.
One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.
The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.
The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.
Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.
What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.
My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.
I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Game #44
Montreal Outclassed By Pens And Bylsma
Details
Date: 12/1/2011
Opponent: Penguins
Location: Montreal
Loss: 2-5
Habs Goalie: Price (L)
Opposition Goalie: Fleury (W)
Habs goalscorers: Plekanec, Desharnais
Opposition goalscorers: Goligoski (2), Kennedy, Staal, Letang
Play of the game
When the game was still within reach Price made a very good save on Malkin. It was the type of goal that you would expect a superstar to score which made the save even better. Malkin was uncovered on Price's left and received a great pass. The next step was to put it into the open net, but with a quick slide over Carey denied him that privilege.
Dome hockey team
The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the domeDavid Desharnais
Scoring on a tip-in isn't normally enough for recognition, but on a bad night like tonight when that goal happens to be your first ever you get cut some slack. He wasn't bad the rest of the way, but aside from that goal I don't remember much, good or bad.
Jeff Halpern
I noticed quite a few good moments and no real bad ones from Jeff tonight. It is becoming more unclear with each shift what his role is, but at least he is taking it all in his stride. Obviously the PK is to forget, but I was happy with his 83% face-off winning percentage.
Tomas Plekanec - Game Puck
I felt that Tom was the only player who actually played well tonight. Had his teammates followed then we probably would have won. He scored a nice goal (a quick answer to the Pens' first) and also did well in the face-off circle. As I suggested last night Darche is a band-aid and I think, even though it may hurt sometimes, Pleks needs regular linemates that remain as his linemates for more than 6 minutes at a time.
Defencemen
Yannick Weber
With the most attempted shots on the team and no major miscues (eh Hammer, Spacek, Wis and Subban?) Weber gets the nod. He, for the most part, stayed out of trouble in his own end and wasn't on the ice for any of Pittsburgh's goal (not his fault that he doesn't play on the PK).
Hal Gill
5:38 of PK time and no goals were scored while he was on. Not bad considering that the Habs let in 4. His beer-league like offence and shot were noticed tonight, but at least that meant he was involved. As usual, though, his strong defensive and PK play earned him this dome..
Goaltender
Alex Auld
Carey has to be better than that. It is unfortunate that there were so many PPs, but 4 PP goals against in a 27-minute stretch will kill you every single time. At least two goals were soft and were goals that we all know he can save (defensive miscue or not). His puckhandling was again bad and actually directly led to the insignificant 5th goal. A night to forget, for sure, as it was Fleury doing the super-lame pose tonight, six nights after Price made a bit of a fool of himself crossing his arms against the Pens.
Comments
After the first period the game was tied, but more significantly we had 2 PPs and they had had none. Now, to a regular observer of sport there is no real problem with this, but with an NHL coach there is. That is because the NHL is meant to hand-out penalties at an even rate and is supposed to allow all teams an equal chance on the PP. So after the first Bylsma had a long chat with the refs (to no doubt complain about this). I, by the way, am not making this up as Pierre Houde commented on it at the start of the 2nd. Well, they always say that arguing will get you nowhere, but I know from playing, coaching and reffing that that is bull. Yes, a ref will never change his mind (the rules simply don't allow for it), but he can certainly change the way he calls the rest of the game. So, an argument is generally worth it. We'll never know what was said and what the ref was thinking, but if a ref (french ref to boot; Justin St. Pierre) wants to prove to the visitors that he is unbiased and that he isn't calling in favour of his boyhood team then he may just start to see things a bit differently. In fact, the best way to prove that you aren't punishing one team unfairly is to punish the other team (unfairly).
What followed after Bylsma made his point were 6 calls against the Habs and none against the Pens. Now, everything, as usual, was a callable offense, but these were calls that don't usually get called and were things no worse (for the most part) than what Pittsburgh was doing. The refs, therefore, haven't not called a penalty correctly (so they are safe some review time), they just have failed to be consistent (surprise, surprise) and have used their 'discretion' differently than they usually do. So, well done Bylsma you got what you wanted and did exactly what I would have done or what I wish we would do more often. Arguing a call is the best way to get the next call. It may not always pay off, but if you can get 6 PPs to the opposition's 0 then you may just end that losing streak. To the refs: I thought that you didn't like effecting the outcome? I thought that a slash was a slash was a slash? Sure Pouliot slashed a Pen, but did you even notice the bigger 2-handed retaliation?
Every night in the NHL is a joke so it is a shock that any night stands out, but tonight does. It really makes you wonder why we all tolerate our favourite game being played and officiated like this? If it weren't for the Habs retaining my devotion to hockey I don't know if I could tolerate this farce as much as I do.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
NHL Goes All FIFA On Florida
Last night, the Florida Panthers scored a goal to tie the game late in the third period. The replay showed the goal was in. The most entertaining bit being that the puck was lodged in the net, so the evidence was not fleeting, but lasting for the refs to see.
The pig-headed team of four (still 4 to deliver this standard? Really?) ignored the protests of the adamant Panthers, took the puck retrieved from the net by Pavelec and started play without calling TO. I can forgive the refs for a lot in a fast moving game, but refusing to check the validity of goals is not one of those things.
Disallowed goals are fun to rewatch. So to mark the occasion, here are a few big ones:
Last night:
Calgary for the Cup?
Calgary's goal not in?
FIFA's big miss:
The good news for the Habs is that this wasn't a three-point game. In all likelihood both Atlanta and Florida will be figuring in where the Canadiens place this season.
The pig-headed team of four (still 4 to deliver this standard? Really?) ignored the protests of the adamant Panthers, took the puck retrieved from the net by Pavelec and started play without calling TO. I can forgive the refs for a lot in a fast moving game, but refusing to check the validity of goals is not one of those things.
Disallowed goals are fun to rewatch. So to mark the occasion, here are a few big ones:
Last night:
Calgary for the Cup?
Calgary's goal not in?
FIFA's big miss:
The good news for the Habs is that this wasn't a three-point game. In all likelihood both Atlanta and Florida will be figuring in where the Canadiens place this season.
Monday, November 15, 2010
It's Amazing What Gets Written
If you haven't heard already, you'll be hearing from elsewhere soon. Blogger mc79 of the Edmonton Oilers stats fraternity has written an expose on Colin Campbell and his favourite and least favourite NHL players.
The piece may be interesting if it's picked up by the media (or even if it isn't) because of the answers Mr. Campbell will have to provide. We'll keep an eye.
Anyway, I am not qualified to pick up that ball and run with, so I leave you in mc79's able hands if you so wish. But as always, I like to take a sidelong glance at these issues and see if there's anything else.
Our investigative blogger friend mentioned as his source the Canadian Legal Information Institute (or CanLII). Not news to lawyers, (I'm sure, but to the rest of us perhaps. Searching the engine for "NHL" turns up quite a bit, seaching for "Campbell" and "Walkom" turns up this case and a couple of others.
It's an interesting read. I didn't read through the whole file, but there were a few things that jumped out for in this "Warren v. National Hockey League" case.
Now, we astute observers already know that NHL officiating is an interesting case study. We think we can see instances where rules are clearly ignored because one team just had 3 penalties, or is on the PK, or maybe close to putting the game into OT. Some might have dismissed this as fanciful fans seeing games through their own prism.
Guess what, though? We're right. And they write it down here.
"59. There are many aspects to being a good referee. Referees must call penalties correctly and be in the proper location on the ice to make the right call. This is true of all officials in all professional sports. Apart from the speed of the game, where NHL officials may differ from officials in other professional sports is in the exercise of discretion. Historically referees have been expected to “take the flow and characteristics of the game” and the effect of the infraction on the game into account in assessing whether to call a penalty. A penalty in the first period may not be a penalty in the second or third period. It appears that a penalty in the regular season may not always be a penalty in the playoffs. Mr. Gregson noted that if the referees called all the penalties the entertainment would be taken out of the game because, given the speed and physical nature of hockey, a penalty could be called on virtually every play. An assessment of whether a referee is good at making the right calls at the right time is extremely subjective."
OK, pretty obvious stuff here. The pandering to the Don Cherrys of the world who don't think players could adapt to any rule thrown at them. Guess that's why hockey players all throw body checks on golf courses...
Anyway, in addition to this, it seems that Mr. Warren's very tendency to call games by the rulebook -- the way the fans that I know want the game to be called -- got him fired:
How the league expects consistent and fair results when they isnsist on applying the rules differently in different situations is mind boggling. How is a GM supposed to build a team?
And as to the notion apllication of the rules would undermine the entertainment in the game, I suggest only that if that is the case then it is the rules and not the application of them that needs to be addressed.
I leave you to enjoy the impending debacle now.
The piece may be interesting if it's picked up by the media (or even if it isn't) because of the answers Mr. Campbell will have to provide. We'll keep an eye.
Anyway, I am not qualified to pick up that ball and run with, so I leave you in mc79's able hands if you so wish. But as always, I like to take a sidelong glance at these issues and see if there's anything else.
Our investigative blogger friend mentioned as his source the Canadian Legal Information Institute (or CanLII). Not news to lawyers, (I'm sure, but to the rest of us perhaps. Searching the engine for "NHL" turns up quite a bit, seaching for "Campbell" and "Walkom" turns up this case and a couple of others.
It's an interesting read. I didn't read through the whole file, but there were a few things that jumped out for in this "Warren v. National Hockey League" case.
Now, we astute observers already know that NHL officiating is an interesting case study. We think we can see instances where rules are clearly ignored because one team just had 3 penalties, or is on the PK, or maybe close to putting the game into OT. Some might have dismissed this as fanciful fans seeing games through their own prism.
Guess what, though? We're right. And they write it down here.
"59. There are many aspects to being a good referee. Referees must call penalties correctly and be in the proper location on the ice to make the right call. This is true of all officials in all professional sports. Apart from the speed of the game, where NHL officials may differ from officials in other professional sports is in the exercise of discretion. Historically referees have been expected to “take the flow and characteristics of the game” and the effect of the infraction on the game into account in assessing whether to call a penalty. A penalty in the first period may not be a penalty in the second or third period. It appears that a penalty in the regular season may not always be a penalty in the playoffs. Mr. Gregson noted that if the referees called all the penalties the entertainment would be taken out of the game because, given the speed and physical nature of hockey, a penalty could be called on virtually every play. An assessment of whether a referee is good at making the right calls at the right time is extremely subjective."
OK, pretty obvious stuff here. The pandering to the Don Cherrys of the world who don't think players could adapt to any rule thrown at them. Guess that's why hockey players all throw body checks on golf courses...
Anyway, in addition to this, it seems that Mr. Warren's very tendency to call games by the rulebook -- the way the fans that I know want the game to be called -- got him fired:
"90. In 2005/2006, Mr. Warren was selected to work the playoffs. The reason for his selection to the playoffs was clearly that he was in the top half of the League’s officials. Mr. Walkom testified that in that year, the first year after the lock-out, Mr. Warren was successful because there was no judgement in the officiating of games. There was only black and white. The League expected that all penalties would be called to the letter of the rule regardless of the game situation. In Mr. Walkom’s view, Mr. Warren excelled in the circumstances which were in place during the regular season. However, Mr. Walkom’s assessment of his performance during the playoffs was not good.This is by no means a scandal, as it was plain for all to see anyway. But for me it cheapens a lot of what goes on.
How the league expects consistent and fair results when they isnsist on applying the rules differently in different situations is mind boggling. How is a GM supposed to build a team?
And as to the notion apllication of the rules would undermine the entertainment in the game, I suggest only that if that is the case then it is the rules and not the application of them that needs to be addressed.
I leave you to enjoy the impending debacle now.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Game #62
Flyers Interfere With Canadiens Winning Plans
Details
Date: 12/02/10
Opponent: Flyers
Location: Philadelphia
Loss: 2-3
Habs Goalie: Price (L)
Opposition Goalie: Leighton (W)
Habs goalscorers: Metropolit, Moore
Opposition goalscorers: Carter (2), Carle
Play of the game
This was indeed a strange game. Our new players added some zest to the lineup as some of the incumbents struggled to adjust. After watching and re-watching the goals, I can't really say that either was worthy of play of the game (save perhaps the instigating Subban rush). For me the play of the game was a composite. The Habs had just turned the puck over and a race developed between a slightly flat-footed O'Byrne and a speedier Flyer. The Flyer with a burst easily sped past Ryan and was closing on a half-breakaway. However, given the close scoreline, Ryan never gave up the race and in maintaining proximity was able to risk a dive and sweep to prevent a shot. In the end, he timed it to perfection and the puck was sent to the corner. The player, however was sent right into the net. Price, with a win in grasp and a an obstacle in the way leapt over the Flyers player (who not surprisingly decided getting up during his fall would be a better way to obstruct). The net result was a defence back in the game and a goalie on his feet -- the play being diffused by a good gamble and perserverance to the cause.
Dome hockey team
The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the dome
Forwards
Scott Gomez
Benoit Brunet is an annoying character. I can't count the times he singled out Gomez as the problem man on the Habs. With each comment I hollered at the screen, "Well who else Ben?" In my opinion, Gomez was by head and shoulders the best Canadiens forward on the night. He gained the zone, passed with that second sense he has and charged into danger areas. Yes he had some giveaways, but show me someone who contributed at the other end and didn't. In fact, had Pouliot been there, Gomez might have come away with 2 or 3 assists. And you know what else? Even if that hadn't happened all night, the simple fact he jumped and then pummeled Kimmo Timonen (with a punching display BGL hasn't seen in his own highlights for near 6 years) was enough for a dome on this night.
Dominic Moore
Moore was plenty maligned before the contest by fans who are bigger dreamers than they are analysts. I think a game in the bank showed us two things. First, he is a pro player both in the way he came completely prepared to play and in the way he instantly eclipsed the Bulldogs forwards. Second, we've been missing someone who can protect the puck with determination that Moore does, as Max Lapierre and several others are still searching for their way.
Travis Moen
Moen rarely gets the chance to make a dome. That's largely because the way he plays, with consistency, is good, but perhaps not enough to surpass people who bring something more special to the table. This game was one of those games where the consistent effort of one player surpassed the many because the many all took a dip at once. Still, Moen deserves the praise when he finds himself here. Against the Flyers he made room for himself, outwitted their D and even got an assist on an ugly goal. He led the team in shots, led forwards in blocked shots and kept the game close by being a steady penalty killer again. You know what you're getting with Travis, and that's good.
Defencemen
Roman Hamrlik
Is it just me? Or has Roman Hamrlik grown into quite a player these past 3 years? I would never mean to suggest he's eliminated mistakes from his game -- he makes enough -- but on a team of panicky D playing hot potato, he's the beacon of calm. This game, Roman played that same style. Though he was on the ice for two goals (one real one), he diffused many more scoring situations by simply waiting, by carrying the puck instead of dumping backhand to the blueline, etc. And, once again, he chipped in up front with many rushes and a critical assist during a rare Habs barrage.
PK Subban - Game Puck
Could I be more impressed? A rookie, playing in his first NHL game, on defence, against the Flyers, in Philadelphia... We'd have been happy if he made himself scarce, played the puck safely and played to get through. But PK (I can say that this one time, he played on a PK, albeit reluctantly) took charge after mere minutes. It took him minutes to discover Gill would be content to simply pass the puck to the Flyer in the neutral zone and get off on a change, and he didn't like it. Instead, he played hockey the way he'd always done and didn't seem to think that was a very strange thing to do. One highlight of his game was a spinorama that sent RDS into a tizzy, but it was an intelligent play as the Flyer had no stick. Another was a rush that ended in goal #1. At game end, the rookie D had 3 shots, 6 attempts on goal and quite nearly a fight with a goalie. Am I raving too much? He deserves the plaudits as player of the game.
Goaltender
Carey Price
Carey had a very unusual game, even by his standards. You see, in his usual way he got thrown by misfortune (a shocking ref's call with no review) and lost the plot for a period. During that time, he was brazenly handling the puck, even at times playing it away from his D -- it looked the classic sulk. But in what may be the first bout of veteran composure from the 3-season player yet, he completely banished that Carey. Whereas Carey (Katie) Price would conspire to lose the game, Carey (Carey) Price was determined to win, and gave his team the chance to pull out points right to the final whistle. After he regained himself, the saves were both straighforward and spectacular, the stuff of a true top goalie. He rescued a dome from the clutches of a bench, and for that I applaud him.
Comments
What can one really say about this game? The Flyers came out hard, and then harder. Each shift they tested the limit of the refs and their fellow black, white and orange felt the brotherhood. The stand-out example of the interference allowed to pass was that goal -- which I thought Carey had every right to throw a fit about. However, the rule-bending happened all game long. While Canadiens were called while Critiano Ronaldo (oh, sorry, Mike Richards) did what an Olympian vying for a synchronized diving medal does best, the Flyers were subsequently allowed to block non-puck carriers. The refs had a shocker if your standard is a rulebook.
Now, I could go on for days like a first-year Caps fan (is there any other sort?) about the refs, but really I'm done. I'm more annoyed with the Canadiens. When you see your opponent getting away with blue murder, this isn't a signal to put tail between the legs and accept the fate being handed down, it is a signpost to go and play to the same standard. The Habs had many opportunities to obstruct, hold Flyers on the boards, and, yes (horror of horrors) dive. When the Canadiens take to the ice against the Flyers again, I hope they get a better and quicker read on the refs and find the South American in them, before the Flyers parlay another fashion coincidence into more prolonged 9-on-5 situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)