Officiating

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8243
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Officiating

Post by Cornuck » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:15 am

You also have to consider that this team is put together to play within the rules and defined style of play the NHL is "promoting". They changed the rules to provide more power plays, so we put together an awesome power play unit. The NHL is promoting fast, skilled hockey, so we put together a fast, skilled team. If anything, the Canucks should be the poster boys for this 'new' NHL.

Of course, in the past (and I don't see it as much this year) we've had an earned reputation for embellishment. That (and as Meds mentioned, Burrows and Kesler are still shaking their earlier reputations) didn't earn us any favours with the refs . Maybe a Selke will help that?

Meanwhile, we end up as pariahs in the mind of the media (not the fans, I believe) and will likely end up with another President's trophy. I also predict similar reffing in the playoffs will favor a large market US team. Not a conspiracy theory, just a prediction.
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Officiating

Post by tantalum » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:21 am

In the last 20 years players have improved sooo much. THe game is faster. There is far more skill on display throughout the lineup. Players are smarter and know how to draw a penalty, chicken wing the stick etc etc.

The big problem is that the officials have not gotten any better than they were 20 years ago. The NHL needs to invest in it's officiating going forward or it is going to continue to fall behind. THe officials quite simply can not keep up with how fast the game is. THey need proper training instead of "well that guy does that all the time it must be a penalty (or not)".

Last night the Hansen goal was 100% fine, but if that was Bertuzzi I can't but think it is called back. Even though intentionally going into the goaltender while down a man in a one goal game wouldn't make any sense.

I don't believe there was a league directive for the officials to all of a sudden let things go, once game 7 of the third round hit (they were not letting anything go in the previous rounds as the Shark parade to the box can attest to), I think the officials just quite simply don't have the balls to make a call. And that's because they know that they often make the wrong call and fear they will turn the game for one team or another. Which again is stupid because if there is a penalty to be called it is the team committing the penalty turning the game NOT the official.

Zebras....man the fuck up and do what's right.

User avatar
Rayxor
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Tiger country

Re: Officiating

Post by Rayxor » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:12 am

ukcanuck wrote: if one admits that the cup was handed to the Bruins then one has to admit that the league is nothing more than another WWE...
Thats not going to make one very popular in hockey circles
yup, nobody wants to break the code. Call everything and the refs are just "keeping the players honest" and "going by the book". Call nothing and the refs are "letting them play". Call out the refs and you get a fine and are making excuses. Your top players are hacked up and you cant mention it because citing injuries is making excuses.

No matter what happens you have to just sit there and take it because anything else is whining.

Consistency in interpretation of the writen rules and consistency in following them makes the game less frustrating to watch and *easier for the new fan to understand*. It doesn't cater to the cheap shot artist or goon who can have free reign when the whistles get put away.

It always struck me as odd that the league would pursue new markets and better TV coverage all while ignoring the problems in officiating, and often defending the bad practices. How can the world take you seriously if you don't even take yourself seriously?

Sticky
CC Veteran
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by Sticky » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:45 am

Nevermind... It's early, I'm a little hung over, and that was ridiculous.

Flame out.

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by Fred » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:12 pm

Cornuck wrote:You know that you can bet the farm that next year's Final will be called totally different.

That's THE question next play-offs.

GM's set their roster and I suppose read the game and how it's going until near the deadline and at that point have to decide how the game will be called....there's no going back. Last season MG put his faith in the officials and was made a fool of by the same officials and league. He can't put the whole bundle on red this year and spin the wheel like he did last season he MUST have a plan "B" IMHO.

To his credit I'm sure the brains trust had a review after the end of the play-offs and recognized the flaws and want to correct them but loosing Bitz and Pizzano before the season started did not help. Can he replace them will he find the pieces before the dead line who knows. It's my belief he should at least give Duco a try before end of the deadline . Just like the Hansens of Slapshot fame "OK boys show us what you got " :D :D
cheers

Waffle
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

Re: Officiating

Post by Waffle » Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:05 am

Last year, especially during the playoffs, someone, and I forget who, was doing an excellent penalty analysis. That is, not looking at just the total number, but also the significance of the penalties (like the time of game they were called and the game situation at the time).

If I was the GM of the Canucks, I would ask the owner to fund a statistician and research staff to analyze penalties in this manner or all teams for the last 4 or 5 years for both regular season and play offs (to get a large enough sample size). It should be possible to break it down by referee to look for any obvious biases.

I am willing to bet that at some point, Vancouver started getting less penalties called on other teams and more on themselves, at the most important times in games, whether or not their total number per game has declined.

There may be other teams in the same boat, while there are teams that definitely benefit from referee inequality.

I would give that information to the NHL (who should be doing such analysis themselves but if they are they are keeping it pretty quiet) and the media and ask for explanations for any obvious statistical differences.

We don’t want special treatment, but we should be demanding equal treatment.

By the way, there was an analysis of penalties done for Stanley Cup Final Series for 1980 through 1997 and the results published. It could be criticized as assuming that the refereeing standards stayed the same during that era, though they probably did. But not everyone believes that refereeing plays a role in the outcomes of the games.


Tex Med. 1999 Apr;95(4):66-9.
Winning the Stanley Cup Final Series is related to incurring fewer penalties for violent behavior.
McCaw ST, Walker JD.
Source: Department of Health, Physical Education & Recreation, Illinois State University, USA.
Abstract
Catastrophic and disabling injuries are being reported more frequently in ice hockey. Within the science of injury prevention, all possible avenues are being explored to address this devastating problem, especially in the areas of protective equipment playing rules, teaching techniques, and awareness programs. Ice hockey injuries are in many cases caused by violent player behavior, which may be supported by coaches who believe that such behavior contributes to winning. To determine whether a relationship existed between violent player behavior and game outcome, 1462 recorded penalties from all 18 Stanley Cup Final Series from 1980 through 1997 were analyzed with a 2 x 2 chi-square analysis. A statistically significant association (chi-square = 7.111, P = .008) was found between violent player behavior and series outcome, with the team drawing fewer violent penalty minutes being the winner of 13 of the 18 series. A period-by-period analysis of violent penalties incurred by the losing teams revealed a statistically significant difference between the first and third periods, with losing teams demonstrating more violent player behavior in the first period than in the third period. The results suggest that violent player behavior may be counterproductive to a favorable game outcome. Coaches at the highest level of competition may wish to adjust their team policies and recruiting practices to benefit from the plausible strategic advantage of reducing violent player behavior. This research was presented at the 1998 Ice Hockey World Championship International Symposium on Medicine and Science in Ice Hockey in Zurich, Switzerland, on Saturday, May 9, 1998, and published in the symposium's supplement, "Safety in Ice Hockey IIHF 1998."
Comment in Tex Med. 1999 Apr;95(4):70.

International Business Times
June 18, 2011 3:40 PM EDT
Vancouver Canucks GM continues to blame others for Vancouver's collapse, cites officiating
By Bob Bahr

Vancouver Canucks general manager Mike Gillis told reporters that the better team won the Stanley Cup--the team better suited to play the way the referees called the games.

"I think in that series--and you guys watched it--there were points where it may have reflected a different era in hockey," Gillis said. "But it is what it is and we have to learn to compete. This is a process for us; we have to learn to be better. The better team at using absolutely everything won the series."

The implication is that Vancouver was a team built on finesse and current hockey styles, while the Boston Bruins were built for bruising the other team and playing an outdated form of the game.

"We designed our team around the current rule book, around the current method of playing games," Gillis continued. "We were the best team in the league this year. I'm not going to plan a team around competing against one specific team in this league. I'm not going to build the team around one set of circumstances. At some point, if you keep knocking on the door, you're going to break through and face a different set of circumstances."

Gillis' complaint is one that can't be objectively examined. More penalty minutes were assessed to Boston than to Vancouver in the Stanley Cup Finals. And, in the Canucks playoff series against San Jose, more penalties were assigned overall. But Gillis is saying that the Bruins played rougher and the referees called less in the Finals--a subjective assessment.
What is not subjective is the margin by which Boston outscored Vancouver: 23 goals to Vancouver's 8, and 21 to Vancouver's 4 goals in the last five games of the series. Can officiating skew a series that much?

Gillis' analysis also ignores the contribution of Boston goaltender Tim Thomas. Thomas had the most saves ever in a Stanley Cup Finals series at 238, the most saves in a playoff run with 798, and this capped a regular season with the highest save percentage in history, at .938. His save percentage in the finals was .967, and Thomas completely shut out the opposing team in the Bruins' win-or-go-home scenario of the Stanley Cup Finals' last two games. He was the first goalie to blank an opponent in a Stanley Cup Game 7 on the road.

Lax officiating is not what stopped those 238 shots on goal.

ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by ESQ » Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:36 pm

Interesting article. I think the author would agree that the Ducks and Bruins are definitely the outliers in terms of violent PIMs but still winning the Cup. I looked at regular season PIMs, regular season fighting majors, post-season Pims and fighting majors, and every other champion has been in the bottom third of the league in those categories, except for the Ducks and Bruins.

Bryan Murray said it best after the Ducks-Senators finals. If the Ducks commit four times as many fouls as the Sens, there is no ref on earth that will call four times more penalties, so even if you end up with a couple more penalties you're coming out ahead with unpenalized dirty play.

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by Fred » Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:52 pm

ESQ wrote: Bryan Murray said it best after the Ducks-Senators finals. If the Ducks commit four times as many fouls as the Sens, there is no ref on earth that will call four times more penalties, so even if you end up with a couple more penalties you're coming out ahead with unpenalized dirty play.
Thats was Fred Shero's contention with the Broad Street Bullies keep playing it rough and tuff and the refs just can't keep calling every thing. It worked very well for Shero.
cheers

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by Fred » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:01 pm

I was sent this quote today from a friend...don't know which article it came from but....at last....an admition by Chiarelli
Boston GM Peter Chiarelli said he knew going into the season that the league may watch the Bruins a bit more closely. Boston used its physical play last season to beat Vancouver in the Stanley Cup finals.

"We went into the year with the new rule changes thinking that we were going to be a little more scrutinized," he said. "We might have even played a heavier game in the playoffs, and, again, people were clamoring that we got away with stuff, and maybe we did and maybe we didn't."
cheers

Waffle
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

Re: Officiating

Post by Waffle » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:04 pm

Hey Fred

I think that quote came from an article in the Globe and Mail about Lucic's one game suspension:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hoc ... ice=mobile

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Officiating

Post by Fred » Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:50 pm

I was told NHL.com but I couldn't find it. Where ever it was it confirm for me and the none believers that this was the Boston tactic.

The question is not that it happened it's history but what can we expect in the next play-offs and how do we fashion the team at the dead line ?
cheers

Post Reply