It looked like a penalty. It fits the rulebook's description of a penalty. Wait, what period is it? Oh, late in the third and the game is close. No, never mind the blood, the game is on the line.
Enough is enough already. Rules are rules and penalties are penalties, and they should be called as such.
We hear all kinds of things about why the games are called the way they are this time of year, from "they're just letting them play" to "the officials don't want to make a call that could determine the outcome of the game."
Well, isn't that their job? Not to determine the outcome but to make the calls. The official calling a penalty is not what could determine the outcome of the game; it was the player who committed the penalty.
Game Six of the Stars-Sharks series is a good example of how the officials in trying not to impact the outcome in fact did just the opposite. From the middle of the second period until the early in the third overtime, there was not a single penalty called.
Basically, what this did was change the way the players were playing. The further along the game went, the nastier the scraps and later the hits. Now, there is nothing wrong with big hits, but three and four strides after the puck is gone is just late.
The penalty on Campbell that led to the Stars winning goal was a penalty. However, after all of the non-calls before it, everyone was stunned that it was called. Campbell may have even thought he could get away with it. After all it was just a little trip.
Don't get me wrong, even with four guys calling the game, things do simply get missed when none of them are looking that way. But there is a huge difference between a couple of missed calls and shoving the whistle in their pocket for 70 minutes.
In Game One of the Western Conference Finals between Dallas and Detroit, a call was made that put the Red Wings on a two-man advantage. That call has been heavily criticized. The argument is that while it could have been a penalty, it wasn't a bad one and to put a team on a five-on-three for that kind of call just isn't right.
Well, why not? Why isn't it right? Did the penalty occur or not? If it did, then what difference does it make if the team was already on a power play?
The players are professionals. They know the rules. If they break those rules, then call the penalty. To do otherwise, especially in an inconsistent way, is what really impacts the outcome of the games.
comments (5) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Normally, being a Ref my self i would defend them, but so far this year in the playoffs they have been terrible. Great Article.
from about 1 month ago
Bingo......
The notion that calling a penalty itself means the referee influences the game is one of the most ridiculous concepts in sports I've ever known. An infraction on the rules is just that - a penalty. If not then why bothe with a set of pertinent rules? But hockey people persist in this notion, and it is the only sport that continues to ignore the rules of the game, and even more so in the latter stages of a game(with the exception of pro basketball and its' lack of interest in calling dribbling or double dribble infractions.)
In fact hockey's brain trust misses the fact altogether that officials absolutely are influencing the game already by not calling all infractions. Or even worse are so inconsistent in enforcing them that players are baffled by what to expect. A great example of this was Steve Begin's late hit penalty in game 4 of the Montreal-Philadelphia series that led to a Flyers victory. Philadelphia had been living off those type of hits all series long without being penalized, and suddenly it is called with less than 5 minutes left in a crucial game? I have no problem with the call, but where is the consistency or the reason behind such a call if you just want to let them play....
Ken Dryden spoke of this foolish notion is his epic hockey book 'the Game' and I agree 100% with what he put forth.
Either call the game from start to end by the book, or just throw it out before you even drop the puck.
This has become a travesty to watch!
about 1 month ago
very well written bill. i agree with you 100% on this, and it was a very good way to complain about the officiating without sounding like you are whining or wanting your team to win, as most complainers are. this article was very well written and very well thought out.
about 1 month ago
And that's the biggest problem...if you question the referring you are labelled a complainer and dismissed.
Well I'm a Sens fan, and with no vested interest in any of the games played in the last month or so I can say the reffing has been atrocious.
It isn't that the last minute penalties they call aren't penalties, they usually are, it is that they weren't penalties for the 58 previous minutes.
Do the refs not get paid for overtime or something because it seems like they are in a hurry to leave.
about 1 month ago
So on point! I understand taking the game into account only to the degree that you better make sure it is a penalty before calling it. For instance, if a guy recoils from getting hit in the face with a stick but you did not see whose stick it was, don't make the call. Often it is a teammate's stick, and had the Sharks or Stars lost on that in OT that would be reprehensible. But the two penalties that WERE called in OT were absolutely penalties, as were about a half dozen not called.
A rule is a rule, and it is this type of officiating that helps thug teams like the Ducks and Flames in the post-season--and before anyone rails on me for not being a real hockey fan just because I used the word "thug", spare me any comments from your subjective biases of those teams. I am an enforcer, but I'm the kind that protects my teammates (or friends in bars when I used to hang out in them) from thugs. If Pronger stepped on my teammate's leg (Kesler, 2008) or delivered a blow to the head against the boards (Holmstrom was it, 2007 playoffs?), he's got more than a gap between his teeth, he's missing several. And so would the Flames have been with their antics in last year's series with Detroit.
Yeah, I gues I'm a bit defensive now that I read that rant...
write a new comment