HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Islanders (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   TSN: Fraser Answers Question on the Hamonic Ejection (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1053277)

crashthenet 12-12-2011 05:12 PM

Fraser Answers Question on the Hamonic Ejection
 
If you're interested:

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=382567

Homeland Security 12-12-2011 05:34 PM

He makes some valid points.

IslesFanatic 12-12-2011 05:54 PM

Look at the comments at the bottom. What a ****ing *********. I want to beat that ******* with a bat.

nystromshairstylist 12-12-2011 07:10 PM

As someone relatively new to hockey (took 20 years off following it), I was wondering why video replay challenges don't exist in a game that is so much faster than any other sport.

2 or 3 allowed challenges per game per team would seem reasonable, and would give the refs some breathing room to avoid game-changing mistakes. Given that most NHL games now have 3 or more cameras trained on the action, it would seem a no-brainer to be able to review a play across different viewing angles.

I don't fault the refs, the game is played at hyper speed with a tiny black puck, it is enough to make someone's head spin.

Bauer Warrior* 12-12-2011 07:20 PM

The problem I have is that eight important eyes missed this. But Fraser is absolutely right, an official CANNOT make a make-up call. It's a cardinal sin and just begging to lose control of the game. I was a baseball umpire for 15 years, and that sport, to me, is infamous for, "You owe us one." - Well no, we really don't. Make-up calls are disasterous. It may not be a five minute major, but there will be a call that the Islanders get in their favor that is a little weak. I know people think that the officials hate us, but they really don't. I can tell you honestly, when I watch an Islander game, regardless of what feed I get, I'm seeing what the Islander players are doing. I don't play as close attention to what the other team is doing away from the puck. After living in three different markets that have hockey teams, they all think that the refs hate the local team.

JKP 12-12-2011 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesFanatic (Post 40846619)
Look at the comments at the bottom. What a ****ing *********. I want to beat that ******* with a bat.

Yeah. That's why I never read what a bunch of faceless people say on the Internet. Oh wait... ;)

Islanders1932 12-12-2011 07:37 PM

I think that a major penalty that leads to ejection should be subject for review. If there is enough evidence to overturn a major penalty that leads to an ejection it should be overturned and issued as a either a 2, 4, or 5 minute penalty.

Bauer Warrior* 12-12-2011 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islanders1932 (Post 40851655)
I think that a major penalty that leads to ejection should be subject for review. If there is enough evidence to overturn a major penalty that leads to an ejection it should be overturned and issued as a either a 2, 4, or 5 minute penalty.

I partially agree. But what I do wish they would do is make player ejections more discretionary. There are two many automatic game misconducts. What really pisses me off about this particular one is that the ref, no on ice officials, even saw it. He guessed and guessed wrong. That's unforgivable in my view.

Islanders1932 12-12-2011 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bauer Warrior (Post 40852779)
I partially agree. But what I do wish they would do is make player ejections more discretionary. There are two many automatic game misconducts. What really pisses me off about this particular one is that the ref, no on ice officials, even saw it. He guessed and guessed wrong. That's unforgivable in my view.

Yeah agreed. I think they should have one of the off ice officials look at any play which is ejection worthy and ultimately have the last say.

mitchy22 12-12-2011 09:51 PM

Mitch's Unofficial Rules for Officials

Rule #1: You do not talk about Fight Club.
  • Feel free to ignore the instigator rule. It should literally only be called when an offending action causes a player to defend himself for no reason whatsoever. (Call the instigator when a player starts unloading on another player without provocation of any kind. If you can think of a legitimate reason for the fight, then you do not call the instigator.)
  • Only call the 3rd man in when two players are fighting one player at the same time! (Let a star player or non-fighter excuse themselves!)
Rule #2: Consistently call the game with the same level of scrutiny for the entire game.
  • If you're going to let some stuff go, then do it throughout the game.
  • If you're going to call every single thing in sight, then do it throughout the game. If you're going to change how you call things in front of the net on a PP/PK scenario, communicate with the players what the limits are.
  • Otherwise, DO NOT pick an arbitrary point to change how you referee. *Exception: When a call gives an extra advantage (5-on-3, game is in overtime), then you may wish to side with caution on less egregious infractions (such as a slight hold/hook that didn't immediately stop a scoring chance.)
  • With 2 refs currently in use, communicate to each other how you're going to call the game as it progresses (once you both get a feel for it.)
Rule #3: Call what you see, not what you think you saw or assume what happened by the resulting player positioning (downed, bleeding, etc.)
  • You're welcome to ask for help, but if no official has their hand up, or it isn't a call that the linesman are allowed to help with, then better luck next time.
  • If you're too far away to know for sure, then don't assume you saw what you thought you saw (especially when the ref closer to the play has their hands down and is looking right at the play!)
Rule #4: Communicate with the players and the coaches during play and throughout the game.
  • If you're calling a game loosely, then let the players know when they're getting close to going too far when battling it out with each other (especially in combative areas of the ice.) Unless a foul is egregious, let them play.
  • Take both players in a scrum unless it's obvious that one has done nothing wrong and you saw the entire engagement. (This doesn't include something earlier in a shift that you missed.)
  • If there's a scrum, and you see both participants going at it, chances are that you probably missed the first infraction that caused it. Take both off and discuss about an extra two/manpower changing calls with the other officials. Excessive uses of force should always be called (stick fouls, punching players that aren't truly engaged, etc.)
Rule #5: Makeup calls are completely justifiable and can, do and should happen.
  • Don't read anything into the ******** in the article. Don't call a phantom penalty, but for the next call, you can break the consistency rule if you truly missed one and it cost the unjustly infracted upon team on the ice.
  • No harm? No makeup call needed. It's up to the referee to figure out if a change in momentum from a poor or missed call justifies calling the makeup penalty. A goal scored after the change in momentum or an important player missing for any length of time could justify a makeup call.
Closing Thoughts

Needless to say (but I'm obviously not afraid of adding needless things to say), try to be as unbiased as possible.
This is much easier to do when you actually call what you see and don't presume to know what you missed. If you interpreted the data wrong, then so be it, to err is human.

Final notes to players: Star players with always receive preferential treatment when it comes to certain kinds of infractions being called. If the player you took down has a greater chance of scoring or creating a scoring opportunity, then the referee is no different from any other fan - they're looking at the guy who has the puck and demands attention. When a star player gets away with retaliating, everyone understands that they are often targeted throughout a game; the refs understand this and may give star players some extra leeway - be advised.

Goons, players who have been known to dive, and known to be "dirty players" will all receive negative attention from refs. Again, refs are only human. Since there will always be calls that are subjective (such as diving), don't be shocked when you get the extra penalty on a slight embellishment or an extra whack of the stick after all is said and done. Want to change the opinions that the refs have of you? Keep your nose clean for a very long period of time, or gain some skill.

:),
Mitch

LeapOnOver 12-13-2011 09:39 AM

Blown call... ish happens. I am more annoyed with the one that cost the Isles the game against the sharks. That was ridiculous.

LOVE the Fraser articles though!

KrisBeKreame 12-13-2011 09:45 AM

I want Shannaban to give out one game Bans for ultra embelishments.

Kevin27nyi 12-13-2011 10:17 AM

I wish refs held players more accountable in terms of diving and embellishing.

DoggyOnDown 12-13-2011 10:26 AM

i get the fact that refs are human and make mistakes but i my judgement when you give 5 and a game one of the 4 blind mice should be darn sure they saw something. in this case it is clear that they saw blood and lowered the boom. ...... all that being said shame on the islanders for not digging deep stepping it up a notch and pulling one out for Hammer. This team has no heart.

frankthefrowner 12-13-2011 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisBeKreame (Post 40870597)
I want Shannaban to give out one game Bans for ultra embelishments.

I dont think it was an embellishment, I mean it clearly wasnt Hamonic's fault but his own stick hit him in the face and he went down. A Stick is a stick and it hurts. Just because he reacted doesnt mean he was trying to draw a penalty.

Chapin Landvogt 12-13-2011 03:50 PM

I'm a bit busy at a tournament right now, so I only just watched the game against PIT in a condensed version.

Nonetheless, I saw what happened with Hamonic lightly swiping Brooks, Brooks' stick clipping his own face and then the ensuing penalty. In short, I thought the penalty was A DISGRACE!!!!

I cannot describe how disappointed I am in some of the officiating that has involved not so much non-calls, but calls that have been made although it's OBVIOUS and directly proven on video that the ref could not possibly have known what H E double hockey stick he was deciding on at that point.

rikker 12-13-2011 05:19 PM

another example of woeful officiating. i can't think of another professional sport in which the officiating is so inconsistent. sure, the sport is faster than most, but in this time of technology, they should be better at it.

it is the reason that i rarely watch hockey anymore...

Ziggy16 12-13-2011 05:46 PM

#Isles announce that Travis Hamonic's game misconduct (elbowing) vs. Pitt Dec 10 has been rescinded.

http://twitter.com/#!/KatieStrangESP...36666051215360


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.