Van @ Min 10/18 RANTS!!!

jeffbrown
10-18-2003, 05:52 PM
Call me a homer, and maybe I'm exagerating, but there are 3 plays from tonight's game that have me shaking my head:

1. Zholtok's two handed slash on Linden (and then Linden bowled into Cooke). How can the league continue to allow crud like this? If that makes contact on the wrists (between elbow pads and gloves), that's a broken wrist. It was clearly the kind of desperation play that was the last option for Zholtok. We can't have this stuff....leads to injuries.

2. Morrison's non-goal in OT. Don't have too much to say other than how do you kick in a puck, or do a kicking motion when you have only ONE leg on the ice....and you're kicking with the skate that's on the ice! Wow Morrison must've been a figure skater (actually you never know, he may have taken figure skating as a youngster).

3. Brown's hit on May. How is that not a major? That's the kind of play that makes me cringe. May is totally vulnerable and can't protect himself. He gets two minutes. :dunno:

Now that I've ranted, I think #3 is the one play that all hockey fans, no matter who you cheer for, will agree with me. #1 and #2, maybe I'll find some people who think the same.

Let me have it!!!

Thalia
10-18-2003, 06:00 PM
Call me a homer, and maybe I'm exagerating, but there are 3 plays from tonight's game that have me shaking my head:

1. Zholtok's two handed slash on Linden (and then Linden bowled into Cooke). How can the league continue to allow crud like this? If that makes contact on the wrists (between elbow pads and gloves), that's a broken wrist. It was clearly the kind of desperation play that was the last option for Zholtok. We can't have this stuff....leads to injuries.

2. Morrison's non-goal in OT. Don't have too much to say other than how do you kick in a puck, or do a kicking motion when you have only ONE leg on the ice....and you're kicking with the skate that's on the ice! Wow Morrison must've been a figure skater (actually you never know, he may have taken figure skating as a youngster).

3. Brown's hit on May. How is that not a major? That's the kind of play that makes me cringe. May is totally vulnerable and can't protect himself. He gets two minutes. :dunno:

Now that I've ranted, I think #3 is the one play that all hockey fans, no matter who you cheer for, will agree with me. #1 and #2, maybe I'll find some people who think the same.

Let me have it!!!Soooooo, tell us how you 'really' feel. :joker:

The game wasn't available for me to watch so I could only listen to the radio. It's difficult to know what really goes on on the ice when you don't actually see it. I'm assuming that you did watch the game?

I did hear the announcers complaining about the slashing and hacking by Minny though and I know that Shorty & Larsh are 'Nucks homers but I find them to be pretty fair in the way they call the game. So I'm taking their word tonight and they thought that Minny was slashing and hacking.

jeffbrown
10-18-2003, 06:06 PM
Slashing, hacking, holding (of sticks under the arm pits...must infuriating if you've ever played the game yourself you'll understand).

You name it. We've come to expect this from Minnesota.

Have to admit though, it looked the size they have with guys like Johnson, Mitchell, and Brown was used effectively tonight.

And yeah I saw the game here in Toronto....have the Centre Ice package. Woo hoo!

Mr. Canucklehead
10-18-2003, 06:13 PM
I saw this game at the Pub; and may I say, what the hell was with those hits from behind? Johnson and Brown both should have been kicked out of the game, or at least gotten 5 minute majors for hitting from behind. 2 minute MINOR for BOARDING? Jeez, both of them--in particular the hit on May--were malicious checks from BEHIND that could have resulted in serious injury. The officiating in this game blew; the Penalty Shot call was total nonsense. He got the shot away and fell down after he got the shot away.

~Canucklehead~

LaVal
10-18-2003, 06:51 PM
I'm going to agree that is a no-brainer 5 minute. As well on the penalty shot. he was hooked and Salo (i think it was Salo) clearly stopped skating, however Laaksonen got a shot away, and when it didn't go in, he allowed himself to fall. i'll take it in hindsight as it added to Hedberg's perfect record, but still was pretty obvious.

on another related note, Minnesota has to be the "dive-iest" team in the league.

Biggest Canuck Fan
10-18-2003, 07:00 PM
For the Disallowed goal, the fact the decision was made by Toronto head office makes it easier to swallow. They NHL made the decision, not some local guy from Minnesota.

Nice to see the Canucks finally get their emotions together and look like they are a team. You cannot afford any slumps in the western confrence.

aylib
10-18-2003, 07:13 PM
I'm going to agree that is a no-brainer 5 minute. As well on the penalty shot. he was hooked and Salo (i think it was Salo) clearly stopped skating, however Laaksonen got a shot away, and when it didn't go in, he allowed himself to fall. i'll take it in hindsight as it added to Hedberg's perfect record, but still was pretty obvious.

on another related note, Minnesota has to be the "dive-iest" team in the league.
Who was diving tonight? Its probably the lack of skating skill. Do your homework. :lol:

Mr. Canucklehead
10-18-2003, 07:30 PM
The non-goal was definitely a non-goal; I don't think Morrison intended to kick the puck, but there was definitely a distinct kicking motion. The penalty shot and the two hits from behind were my major grievances in the game. Dirty ****, that was...

~Canucklehead~

Red
10-18-2003, 08:09 PM
The penalty shot call was BS. Laaksonen decided to fall backwards on his butt only after he got a nice and clean shot away.

The non-call was iffy because Morrison was doing a ballerina act being hooked from behind and I don't think he could have possibly kicked it in being contorted like that. I don't mind the call though as it was definitely iffy.

ehc73
10-18-2003, 09:11 PM
Only got to see highlights, so that was a bummer. The refs are being pretty liberal about the penalty shot this season. I think there were a few complaints from last season of there not being penalty shots when there should've been. Still, he did get a half decent shot off so I guess it's borderline call.
As for the Morrison OT call, I'm not sure how he could've kicked it purposely the way he was being hooked. More like he was trying to keep from falling on his ass more than going for the puck. Another borderline call I guess.

JOCA
10-18-2003, 10:03 PM
[QUOTE=mecca13]God was that a boring game tonight. [QUOTE]

So true. It's funny though as I was watching the broadcast on Fox Sports Net Minnesota and one of the annoucers says something like "Well that was an entertaining game". I think they need to be following another team, there were only 20 shots for both teams after two periods.

Anywho, I agree with everyone here about the Brown hit on May. Should have been a major for sure.

incawg
10-18-2003, 10:16 PM
God was that a boring game tonight.
I think they need to be following another team, there were only 20 shots for both teams after two periods.

lol, they are following another team. these guys have to suffer through minnesota trapfests every night. you can only imagine how bad the other games must be if this one was exciting :rolleyes:

Sideshow
10-18-2003, 10:32 PM
lol, they are following another team. these guys have to suffer through minnesota trapfests every night. you can only imagine how bad the other games must be if this one was exciting :rolleyes:

I try to tell these simpletons here that the Wild are excruciatingly boring...same old response - "you're just bitter cause we beat you last year!"

And to that, I never have a good comeback, aside from the fact that the league is in shambles when a team that hacks and grabs and clutters can advance to the conference finals.

It's contagious too...our D1 team plays almost the same trap style, but at least they can and will pump up the offense on occasion.

BCCHL inactive
10-18-2003, 11:15 PM
Johnson and Brown both should have been kicked out of the game, or at least gotten 5 minute majors for hitting from behind. 2 minute MINOR for BOARDING? Jeez, both of them--in particular the hit on May--were malicious checks from BEHIND that could have resulted in serious injury.

Key words here: "could have". The hits did not cause injury, therefore a major penalty was not warranted. Referees cannot make calls based on "what ifs".



the Penalty Shot call was total nonsense. He got the shot away and fell down after he got the shot away.


It doesn't matter if Laaksonen got the shot off on the play. The scoring opportunity he had was severely affected by being pulled down from behind with nobody in between him and Hedberg.

aylib
10-19-2003, 04:43 AM
I try to tell these simpletons here that the Wild are excruciatingly boring...same old response - "you're just bitter cause we beat you last year!"

And to that, I never have a good comeback, aside from the fact that the league is in shambles when a team that hacks and grabs and clutters can advance to the conference finals.

It's contagious too...our D1 team plays almost the same trap style, but at least they can and will pump up the offense on occasion.
Who did you hear "you re just bitter..."from? Someone on HF boards? Doubt it.

LaVal
10-19-2003, 07:42 AM
Key words here: "could have". The hits did not cause injury, therefore a major penalty was not warranted. Referees cannot make calls based on "what ifs".

A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

now you tell me where in there it says they have to be injured for a major to be called? it was a VERY violent hit and collision... extremely worthy of major.

It doesn't matter if Laaksonen got the shot off on the play. The scoring opportunity he had was severely affected by being pulled down from behind with nobody in between him and Hedberg.

When a player, in control of the puck on the opponent's side of the center red line and having no other opponent to pass than the goalkeeper, is tripped or otherwise fouled from behind, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending side.

and you tell me where he didn't have a good scoring opportunity? the fact that he only decided to fall AFTER he got a good shot away should be a prime indicator.

i don't understand why everybody who refs has to defend all the boneheaded calls :dunno:

Mr. Canucklehead
10-19-2003, 09:17 AM
^Agree with everything LaVal just said to you, Van. Those hits from behind, whether they resulted in injury or not, were deliberate and with intent to injure--in particular the hit on Brad May. That was simply ugly, and May WAS shaken up after that one. If we let everyone who threw a hit from behind off easy just because nobody was seriously injured, how long would it be before someone who was already taking liberties went out and really DID hurt someone?

The Laaksonen call was bull. The Canuck defender did not prevent a scoring opportunity. The call should have been hooking, as Laaksonen did not fall down before getting off a good shot. Laaksonen fell down after the fact, and the scoring opportunity was still there. Hooking, mayhaps. Penalty shot, not in your dreams.

~Canucklehead~

Jbcraig1883
10-19-2003, 09:42 AM
The Wild don't clutch and grab more than any other team in the NHL. If you don't realize this, take off your homer glasses. The statements about the Wild being boring are funny. There has been flow to every game so far except with the Canucks. No one seemed to want to skate last night. Even in previous meetings, the Canucks have never shown to be an exciting team to watch. The Oilers skate much better against the Wild, and so do the Avalanche. The Wild-Canucks games are fun to watch because they hate each other but other than your first line, there is nothing else. And I would add that Morrison and Naslund are the ones fun to watch. Bertuzzi just skates along the blue line, takes a pass, drives in, gives it back to the D and then stands on the crease. He was totally ineffective last night. So, is it all the Wild, no. It goes both ways.

DiggerDan
10-19-2003, 10:52 AM
A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

now you tell me where in there it says they have to be injured for a major to be called? it was a VERY violent hit and collision... extremely worthy of major.



When a player, in control of the puck on the opponent's side of the center red line and having no other opponent to pass than the goalkeeper, is tripped or otherwise fouled from behind, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending side.

and you tell me where he didn't have a good scoring opportunity? the fact that he only decided to fall AFTER he got a good shot away should be a prime indicator.

i don't understand why everybody who refs has to defend all the boneheaded calls :dunno:


Thank you for posting that so I didn't have to! :handclap:

BCCHL inactive
10-19-2003, 04:57 PM
A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

now you tell me where in there it says they have to be injured for a major to be called? it was a VERY violent hit and collision... extremely worthy of major.

You should have highlited, "at the discretion of the Referee". The rule does not state that all violent hits should be called. It states that if the referee feels a penalty is worthy for the violent hit, that he may assess a minor or major penalty.



When a player, in control of the puck on the opponent's side of the center red line and having no other opponent to pass than the goalkeeper, is tripped or otherwise fouled from behind, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending side.

and you tell me where he didn't have a good scoring opportunity? the fact that he only decided to fall AFTER he got a good shot away should be a prime indicator.


Laaksonen did have a scoring opportunity, but if not hooked, he would have had a better scoring opportunity. This call is also based on the referee's judgment. I don't think the shot that he got off was a great scoring chance by any means, and I agree with the penalty shot call.

LaVal
10-19-2003, 05:19 PM
You should have highlited, "at the discretion of the Referee". The rule does not state that all violent hits should be called. It states that if the referee feels a penalty is worthy for the violent hit, that he may assess a minor or major penalty.

exactly. which is why it was boneheaded not to assess a major.

Laaksonen did have a scoring opportunity, but if not hooked, he would have had a better scoring opportunity. This call is also based on the referee's judgment. I don't think the shot that he got off was a great scoring chance by any means, and I agree with the penalty shot call.

yes he would have had a better scoring opportunity. but the rule states it's to be awarded if he was robbed of a REASONABLE scoring opportunity. his chance was a pretty damn good one which required a good save. was it a penalty? damn right. penalty shot? not a chance.

again based on judgement... and the ref displayed poor judgement.

quat
10-19-2003, 05:24 PM
The Wild don't clutch and grab more than any other team in the NHL. If you don't realize this, take off your homer glasses. The statements about the Wild being boring are funny. There has been flow to every game so far except with the Canucks. No one seemed to want to skate last night. Even in previous meetings, the Canucks have never shown to be an exciting team to watch. The Oilers skate much better against the Wild, and so do the Avalanche. The Wild-Canucks games are fun to watch because they hate each other but other than your first line, there is nothing else. And I would add that Morrison and Naslund are the ones fun to watch. Bertuzzi just skates along the blue line, takes a pass, drives in, gives it back to the D and then stands on the crease. He was totally ineffective last night. So, is it all the Wild, no. It goes both ways.

Let me get this straight... If someone is critical of the Wild's style of play, a style of clutch and grab that is pretty well held across all of the NHL (this taken from a reading a wide variety of mostly sports writers and hockey boards), they are homers? That isn't even logical at it's most exreme.

You should spend more time watching a variety of other teams if you can't see how the Wild play. I mean really! The Coach is freakin Lemaire after all. There are different styles of hockey played in the league, and some are more interesting than others. However, I must add that the Wild are extremely successful and won't be changing anytime soon. Until the league really does stop all the hooking and holding, the Wild will continue to use it to win games. It's no accident that a team composed mostly of castoffs has been able to be so successful.

As for there being flow in every Wild/ Canucks tilt, I can't agree. They are all fine when the CAnucks play an extremely open attacking game, cause then there are lot's of turn overs and the Wild get great odd man chances and there's tons of movement on the ice. But if the Canucks dont' play that way, then we get games like last nights or like the third game (I think it was #3) off their playoff series, which had even Minny fans complaining about how boring it was... how exciting the series with the Avs had been. Trapping teams are only exciting if they are playing teams that really press hard. Tell us how exciting the series was against the Ducks?

I don't know if you are a Wild fan or not, but I really doubt you'll have much luck finding anyone who isn't a Minny fan that agrees with you on this.

BCCHL inactive
10-19-2003, 06:18 PM
again based on judgement... and the ref displayed poor judgement.

In YOUR opinion.

Waveburner
10-19-2003, 07:31 PM
It really is pointless to argue with Van about referees-he never admits to poor calls...I gave up after last years playoffs :)

BCCHL inactive
10-19-2003, 07:36 PM
It really is pointless to argue with Van about referees-he never admits to poor calls...I gave up after last years playoffs :)
:rolleyes:

Waveburner
10-19-2003, 08:03 PM
:rolleyes:

What, you mean you do admit to poor calls being made? Okay I take it back then, but to be perfectly honest, EVERY time someone critisizes a call-there you are, backing up the refs. Not trying to be mean or anything Van, I respect your opinion plenty, but when it comes to referees, I guess I just think you are very biased.

BCCHL inactive
10-20-2003, 12:28 AM
What, you mean you do admit to poor calls being made? Okay I take it back then, but to be perfectly honest, EVERY time someone critisizes a call-there you are, backing up the refs. Not trying to be mean or anything Van, I respect your opinion plenty, but when it comes to referees, I guess I just think you are very biased.

I have never, ever said that referees don't make mistakes.

Think of the officials as a team. When you see a guy like Brent Sopel cough up the puck in his own zone and cost the Canucks a goal, his teammates, coach and/or manager will admit a mistake but they will be there to back him up in some way, shape or form (unless your name is Bobby Clarke).

The officials are the third team on the ice. The difference is that when an official makes a mistake, 18,000 people in the building and a hell of a lot more watching on TV thinks he should be fired on the spot (a generalization, not everybody falls into this category). All I try to do when I backup the officials, is let people know what it is like to be in their position. How many people who ***** about a call here and there had the same view as the referee of the play in question, saw it just once at full speed and had a split second to decide whether or not to fire their arm in the air?

I do defend officials because I am an official myself. If anybody thinks there will be perfect robot-like officiating and 100% consistency, they are living in a dream world.

quat
10-20-2003, 01:24 AM
I have never, ever said that referees don't make mistakes.

Think of the officials as a team. When you see a guy like Brent Sopel cough up the puck in his own zone and cost the Canucks a goal, his teammates, coach and/or manager will admit a mistake but they will be there to back him up in some way, shape or form (unless your name is Bobby Clarke).

The officials are the third team on the ice. The difference is that when an official makes a mistake, 18,000 people in the building and a hell of a lot more watching on TV thinks he should be fired on the spot (a generalization, not everybody falls into this category). All I try to do when I backup the officials, is let people know what it is like to be in their position. How many people who ***** about a call here and there had the same view as the referee of the play in question, saw it just once at full speed and had a split second to decide whether or not to fire their arm in the air?

I do defend officials because I am an official myself. If anybody thinks there will be perfect robot-like officiating and 100% consistency, they are living in a dream world.

Personally, I would rather hope you would just address a call on it's own merit, rather than try and bolster the officiating fan base. Calling a bad call good because you happen to be in the same fraternity doesn't help at all. Admitting it was a bad call, but then explaining that from where the official was on the ice, it's very difficult to get things right all the time, goes a whole lot further to convince fans of the difficulty of officiating. By denying that any of these refs have made mistakes, you are infact, acting as if they are machines. Kind of ironical eh? :rolly: :dunno:

StilesBC
10-20-2003, 02:17 PM
I, myself, have been an official for nearly 10 years now. And as being part of that "third team" I like seeing my bretheren defended. Especially at the amatuer, where we have even more factors working against us. However, when I am watching professional officials work professional hockey games I am not nearly as forgiving. These men are getting paid very good money for their judgement. And of course when you have that type of job you are going to make mistakes. Almost to the point where it is impossible to have a flawless game. And just as in any other job where you get paid to make split second judgement decisions (police officers, armed forces, athletes, pilots, surgeons, etc) you will be criticized when you make mistakes, because you have been trained to make the right decision.

So although I appreciate your kindness towards officials, I do not agree with the fassion that you give it. The only way for anybody to get better at what they do is to learn from their mistakes, and by defending their every move they are not going to get better.

That being said, don't even try to tell us we are wrong when we are on the ice, because we are always in the right, and that will never change :p

BCCHL inactive
10-20-2003, 04:50 PM
Admitting it was a bad call, but then explaining that from where the official was on the ice, it's very difficult to get things right all the time, goes a whole lot further to convince fans of the difficulty of officiating.

Here is the interesting part.....this is what I do whenever there is a call I too, do not agree with.

And there are also calls that fans might think are bad calls, and I can explain why they are good....but those explanations are never taken seriously.

Thalia
10-20-2003, 04:54 PM
Here is the interesting part.....this is what I do whenever there is a call I too, do not agree with.

And there are also calls that fans might think are bad calls, and I can explain why they are good....but those explanations are never taken seriously.
Van: Have you ever been abused (yeah, obviously if you're a ref you have but I don't want to assume anything) by the players or fans and if so, what was the worst incident that you've had reffing?

BCCHL inactive
10-20-2003, 07:57 PM
Van: Have you ever been abused (yeah, obviously if you're a ref you have but I don't want to assume anything) by the players or fans and if so, what was the worst incident that you've had reffing?

The worst always comes at the annual native tournaments (not trying to be racist here)...I've needed plenty of security escorts from the building at these tourneys. There have been countless incidents and threats...too many to tell.

The worst I have experienced was last season when one coach waited for me in the parking lot. Nothing came of it because I told him as I was walking what would happen to him if he even tried to touch me (I would press charges and he would likely be banned for life by Hockey Canada)...but I was ready to defend myself none the less.

I did write that on the game report when I got home before I faxed it off, and the coach got suspended.

quat
10-20-2003, 10:27 PM
Here is the interesting part.....this is what I do whenever there is a call I too, do not agree with.

And there are also calls that fans might think are bad calls, and I can explain why they are good....but those explanations are never taken seriously.

Well if that's the case, then by all means keep it up! :handclap: