I think the NHL and its owners would be fools to risk having the public find out officials are tilting the results of the games.
What would become of the sport if it was shown there was systemic tilted officiating? My guess is it would rock the sport to the core. My guess is that a lot of these teams that are already struggling would almost immediately go belly up. My guess is that ratings would fall off the map and corporate sponsorships would go away fast.
Ever heard of Shilling Laws? Its an incredibly hard thing to prove, yet it happens all day, everyday in every major auction house and EBay.
Its so rampant, its suspected that nearly every auction of every piece is under some sort of influence from the seller.
Biased reffing is only slightly more detectable than shilling. If the NBA can have a ref openly admit he gambled on games he officiated and go on record saying he wasnt the only one and that the NBA was aware of such activity, I think the likelihood of such an event being the downfall of a sport is mildly exagerrated.
Its the willing suspension of disbelief. They are in the entertainment business, afterall. So long as the audience is entertained, what really is the problem here?
Its the same reason a complicit MLB wasnt tried in the court of law for condoning the use of illegal drugs by their athletes. So long as the league and teams arent openly selling drugs (or in this instance, specifically instructing complicit referees to "even things out"), there is no real accountability to be had.
In the eyes of the fan, sure, this is near life and death. For owners and the court of law, its just another means to make a lot of money. So what if a few organizations got the market cornered on a few sports.
Lawfully speaking, the NBA and NFL both require time spent in the college ranks for any athlete under a certain age. Its unprosecuted collusion with the NCAA, but again, it cant be proven. So long as both leagues dont say so out loud, no prosecutor in the country who wishes to keep his job takes that case. Yet, its readily apparent the two are in cahoots with one another, limiting the earning potential of professional athletes over the age of 18 and using the popularity of the pro leagues to sell a college game where the athletes arent paid. Its a form of indentured servitude, completely illegal, but wholly happening as we speak.
Sports is a dirty, dirty world. Any athlete, agent, GM or bookie will tell you the same. To think that the leagues arent aware or even in on it strikes me as overtly naive. In my mind, the question isnt whether the league is "in on it", the question is to what extent?
I've shown numbers that show the difference in powerplays awarded in the playoffs isn't much different than the difference in hits or shots on goal.
And that shows nothing. Hits or shot differential are controlled by the players on the ice. Penalties involve the players on the ice and the refs subjective opinion. The two are not even comparable b/c one involves an interplay of refs and players and the others do not. Refs have a good degree of control over PP awarded. They have minimal control over shot differential or hits.
You've admitted that you've done makeup calls in the past. You've admitted that a lot of penalties in a row against a certain team will cause you to pause before calling another penalty against that team (unless its blatant). You may not be aware of it, but these are all forms of "evening it up." What makes you act or think in that way? Is it some unwritten rule? Maybe you don't like that term, but that is just arguing word choice. You've already admitted to some forms of evening it up, and there is a clear trend shown in these playoffs that show exactly what we are talking about. These trends are also seen over time, and I could try to find some old links to articles that explain this phenomenon.
And that shows nothing. Hits or shot differential are controlled by the players on the ice. Penalties involve the players on the ice and the refs subjective opinion. The two are not even comparable b/c one involves an interplay of refs and players and the others do not. Refs have a good degree of control over PP awarded. They have minimal control over shot differential or hits.
You've admitted that you've done makeup calls in the past. You've admitted that a lot of penalties in a row against a certain team will cause you to pause before calling another penalty against that team (unless its blatant). You may not be aware of it, but these are all forms of "evening it up." What makes you act or think in that way? Is it some unwritten rule? Maybe you don't like that term, but that is just arguing word choice. You've already admitted to some forms of evening it up, and there is a clear trend shown in these playoffs that show exactly what we are talking about. These trends are also seen over time, and I could try to find some old links to articles that explain this phenomenon.
What I've said about evening up isn't what you've described.
Not even close.
The decision not to perhaps lighten up on a team after calling them for 8 straight penalties IS NOT the same as trying to even up the number of powerplays.
You're using an extreme to try and prove the norm.
You've described an unwritten rule that, going back to the origin of the conversation, which you use to absolve Draper and Holmstrom for their stupid penalties (because the refs were going to call them anyway.
What I've said about evening up isn't what you've described.
Not even close.
The decision not to perhaps lighten up on a team after calling them for 8 straight penalties IS NOT the same as trying to even up the number of powerplays.
You're using an extreme to try and prove the norm.
You also talked about "makeup calls." That is a form of evening things up, and its not extreme.
PP's are pretty evenly distributed amongst playoff teams within their specific series. What you choose to make of that is up to you, but I think that assuming that is some random coincidence is very naive. It happens in far too many series for that to be the case. You are entitled to your own opinion, though.
Right. So, I am supposed to believe that somehow, just because people care about the NHL, that officials all of the sudden adhere to an unwritten rule to even things up so that teams always end up with similar numbers of penalties, no matter how many infractions are committed.
Get a grip.
When there is something on the line, behavior changes.
If you are playing poker for buttons with friends, you act one way.
If you are playing poker with your car keys in the center of the table, you act another.
I get that.
But why wouldn't such a major operation have the utmost expectations of their officials?
I don't think fans should assume that because money is involved, it means that the NHL isn't concerned about the integrity of the game.
In fact, I think it's quite likely the opposite is true.
Hey, how about that two man Coyotes advantage in game 7, down 3-1?
Besides, you are once again leaping off into the realm of make-believe extremes. Money on the line does not equal no concern at all about the integrity of the game... because even an idiot knows that showing no concern for the integrity of the game will cost more in the long-run than you'd get in the short term.
It's about 'nudges', Tin. Little bumps here and there to guide things in a certain direction.
FYI, just reffed out ball hockey league championship game.
Triple overtime, Rangers over Reckless abandon 5-4. Never called a penalty. Could have. Probably should have called a trip in the offensive zone, but I could see it wasn't leading to a scoring chance, so why bother. There were also a couple iffy plays that I could have called.
But by letting them go, everyone was able to focus on playing. As soon as you call one, everyone is on you to make the second one.
And the third, and fourth, and fifth.
IMO, the best officiating is the least officiating. When in doubt, let it go and keep the play moving.
When there is something on the line, behavior changes.
If you are playing poker for buttons with friends, you act one way.
If you are playing poker with your car keys in the center of the table, you act another.
This is human nature, Tin.
LOL, you should see the way these people play. This isn't a bunch of 50 year olds getting their exercise. We had a guy carted off on a stretcher last week.
Guys are friendly off the floor. But I've broken up a few skirmishes.
You also talked about "makeup calls." That is a form of evening things up, and its not extreme.
PP's are pretty evenly distributed amongst playoff teams within their specific series. What you choose to make of that is up to you, but I think that assuming that is some random coincidence is very naive. It happens in far too many series for that to be the case. You are entitled to your own opinion, though.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is complete unfounded.
A makeup call is done to "right a wrong." Not to give teams the same number of chances.
FYI, just reffed out ball hockey league championship game.
Triple overtime, Rangers over Reckless abandon 5-4. Never called a penalty. Could have. Probably should have called a trip in the offensive zone, but I could see it wasn't leading to a scoring chance, so why bother. There were also a couple iffy plays that I could have called.
But by letting them go, everyone was able to focus on playing. As soon as you call one, everyone is on you to make the second one.
And the third, and fourth, and fifth.
IMO, the best officiating is the least officiating. When in doubt, let it go and keep the play moving.
Really. I didn't know that.
Thanks for you expert opinion, Doc.
Oh, so you admit that your post was almost irrelevant to the topic at hand?
Yeah, good to know you are attempting to provide actual insight to a discussion instead of give all the readers your insight to ball-hockey officiating.
Oh, so you admit that your post was almost irrelevant to the topic at hand?
Yeah, good to know you are attempting to provide actual insight to a discussion instead of give all the readers your insight to ball-hockey officiating.
Hah. Man, you are a piece of work, Doc.
I'd just gotten back from the best ball hockey game I've reffed, ever, and the second best championship ball hockey game I've ever been important, and I felt pretty good about the way I handled the game, and didn't taint it, as the official.
This thread had turned into a discussion about officiating, and lo-and-behold, since I just reffed again, I thought I'd post a little aside about my thoughts on an officiating experience while it was still fresh in my mind.
