pelti: The Pronger unsportsmanlike call has me pretty disgusted with the NHL. It really shows the abject lack of accountability in officiating. The call was egregiously wrong. All Pronger did was extend his arm for a moment, with his back to the goalie. It doesn't really matter whether he was calling for the puck or screening the goalie, because he was making a hockey play. There is no rule against screening the goalie. The so-called "Avery Rule" which does not appear in the NHL rulebook, doesn't even apply here, because Campbell's clarification of rule 75 specifically says that facing the goalie is what made Avery's stick-wave unsportsmanlike. The two plays are worlds apart. ...
I also find it ridiculous how many people have come out saying the call made sense. It really goes to show the perceptions and reputation the Flyers face in every game. They are guilty until proven innocent in NHL circles. How can pointing left for about a second be called "unsportsmanlike" in a league that repeatedly lets headshots go? Barely 24 hours later, Crosby scored his 200th goal on a play where his teammate, Kunitz, buffaloed Kiprusoff while the shot was being taken. Where's the outrage for that?
brucewaynegretzky: There's a lot of chatter here about the Pronger call. I know you and others have said you think it was the right call. I disagree pretty strongly, but that will happen. What I would really like to hear your thoughts on are whether or not there is a more strict version of the rules applied to the Flyers. It feels like questionable calls always go against them. I'm a Flyers fan, so maybe there is some hometown bias there, but the prevalence really does seem to suggest there's something else going on here. Your thoughts?
My take: That was a quality rant, pelti, even if I disagree.
First of all, it was indeed the right call last Friday afternoon; kudos to young referee Ghislain Hebert for getting it right. Pronger clearly waived his glove in front of Miikka Kiprusoff's face. That's an unsportsmanlike conduct (USC) penalty. It does not matter that Pronger wasn't facing Kiprusoff. The spirit of the rule is the glove being in the face.
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."
As for the league somehow calling the game tighter when the Flyers are involved? I've always said fans see the game with tainted glasses, in this case black and orange.
This play really shows how much the NHL Officiating body is out to glorify players rather than protect the sanctity of the game, and for that matter, their safety.
What is Callahan had gotten a concussion from his head getting slammed on the ice?
If the NHL wanted to make an example of dirty hits to the head and slewfooting it should be Crosby sucker punching Boris Valabik a few years ago, for which he was not disciplined at all.
And hes still at it, as we can see.
What a ****ing load of ****.
Sorry if this was covered in the actual thread since I last perused it, but something that was brought up somewhere (don't remember where) was that, when Pronger's arm went up, you can clearly here "Hey, hey, hey, hey!" If that is the ref, then there's no "intent to blow the whistle" and no alleged delay as the ref assessed the situation.
I don't agree Pronger was trying to direct the play; I'm pretty convinced he knew what he was doing. And I think it was a cheap play that Pronger didn't need to do. That being said, the extent to which the ref seems to have overinterpreted the USC rule is pretty egregious.
I don't agree Pronger was trying to direct the play; I'm pretty convinced he knew what he was doing. And I think it was a cheap play that Pronger didn't need to do. That being said, the extent to which the ref seems to have overinterpreted the USC rule is pretty egregious.
Agree completely. The thing that gets overlooked is that, if Kiprusoff hadn't been poking the back of Pronger's knee, he would have been ready for the shot. It had nothing to do with where Pronger's arm was 5 seconds earlier.
Agree completely. The thing that gets overlooked is that, if Kiprusoff hadn't been poking the back of Pronger's knee, he would have been ready for the shot. It had nothing to do with where Pronger's arm was 5 seconds earlier.
Yep.
The writer of this article...I assume it's Lebrun if it's ESPN?...completely missed the point of the Pronger incident.
The NHL not admitting that there was a mistake here sets a precedent that this sort of play, regardless of intent (whether you interpreted CP to be directing the play, calling for the puck, or intentionally screening the goaltender with his back turned), is NOT acceptable and should be a penalty.
If the director of NHL officiating is not going to come out and say that call was a mistake, misinterpretation, etc. then I expect any player who makes any sort of motion in front of the net with his hands or stick to be guilty of the exact same thing regardless of whether he is facing the goalie or not.
If that's how they're going to interpret the Sean Avery Rule, then I expect it to be enforced league wide.
Last edited by Flyerfan808: 11-30-2010 at 06:32 PM.
It was a BS call. There was nothing Pronger did that was against the rules, and what is most annoying about it is that if they wanted to call something like this unsportsmanlike, they had clarify the rules before doing anything about it in Avery's case, but here they can just make up the rules as they go.
I still maintain that it's screening the goalie. If you are allowed to stand outside the crease in front of the goalie to block his view, you should be allowed to use any part of your body to do so. Either you can block the goaltender's view or not. What body is in the way doesn't matter.
The flyers are the victim stuff Is nonsense, but it's amazing how essentially lifting your arm for 1 second in front of a goalie can be argued by a sane person to be in any way unsportsmanlike
It was a BS call. There was nothing Pronger did that was against the rules, and what is most annoying about it is that if they wanted to call something like this unsportsmanlike, they had clarify the rules before doing anything about it in Avery's case, but here they can just make up the rules as they go.
I still maintain that it's screening the goalie. If you are allowed to stand outside the crease in front of the goalie to block his view, you should be allowed to use any part of your body to do so. Either you can block the goaltender's view or not. What body is in the way doesn't matter.
Pronger just wanted "The Avery Rule" renamed for himself. End of story.
I am certain that Pronger knew what he was doing but there is NO WAY outside of reading his mind that it should have been interpreted as anything other than trying to direct the play.
I mean, seriously, if he says that he is merely directing the play and Richards confirmed that that's what they practice... is there any evidence to adequately refute that? Absolutely not.
Conceding the point that Pronger most likely was trying to mess with Kipper on this play (though the two second hand raise hardly could have done that much), my question is what happens in the next game when Pronger, or any other player now is in front of the net and tries to direct the play? If this call is used as precedent, you can't do that because raising your arm up for a moment is USC and you either have to ban the raising of the arm all together or have the ref interpret whether or not he is directing the play or being unsportsmanlike, the latter of which will lead to incredibly inconsistent calls, and the former is a ridiculous interpretation of the rule. That was a Busch League call and people defending it don't seem to understand the implications (or potential implications) by doing so.
Also that Crosby play is a joke. There was a thread on the Pens board earlier (which I'm sure is still there) talking about how that is the right call, i.e. Callahan getting 2 and Crosby getting nothing. This league is really getting silly with a lot of its calls, non-calls, suspensions, and non-suspensions. There has to be some consistency. If you want to make calls all one way, do it. But don't do it sometimes and not others. Same thing with suspensions. If head shots are illegal, fine. Then suspend everyone. And so forth, and so on.
It's par for the course but what really upset me is that clubs and players can't explicitly call out league hackery because they will get massively fined.
It's par for the course but what really upset me is that clubs and players can't explicitly call out league hackery because they will get massively fined.
I think if it was a bigger game someone would have said something. If anyone read Jonesy's book he talks about an incident in the playoffs when there was a bad call. Ed Snider came into the locker room and basically told Jonesy to say whatever he wanted to after the game and he'd pay whatever fine the league handed down to him. Something like that would be great, but I don't think that this was a big enough deal.
I think if it was a bigger game someone would have said something. If anyone read Jonesy's book he talks about an incident in the playoffs when there was a bad call. Ed Snider came into the locker room and basically told Jonesy to say whatever he wanted to after the game and he'd pay whatever fine the league handed down to him. Something like that would be great, but I don't think that this was a big enough deal.
Was that Staal holding Carter's stick and Carter getting called for hooking in game 2 of 2008-09?
That call cost the Flyers victory in the game, and if the Flyers have it tied 1-1 going back to home ice, who knows how that series ends. The Penguins go on to win the Stanley Cup, but if they lose that series, they can't win the Cup. How's that for cause and effect?
People think, "Oh, it's only one game or it's only one point."
How many points less would it have caused us to miss the playoffs last year?
All I'm saying is that I concur officiating will always have an element of human error, but there are definitely some things that need to be looked at.
There are problems within the officiating core of the NHL that dive way beyond the realm of human error.
the whole "the calls even out" theory pisses me off, especially when it's the same players getting away with incredibly dirty ****, with no consequence. for instance, when was the last time anything like this happened for the Flyers, in their favor? I don't remember.
Was that Staal holding Carter's stick and Carter getting called for hooking in game 2 of 2008-09?
That call cost the Flyers victory in the game, and if the Flyers have it tied 1-1 going back to home ice, who knows how that series ends. The Penguins go on to win the Stanley Cup, but if they lose that series, they can't win the Cup. How's that for cause and effect?
People think, "Oh, it's only one game or it's only one point."
How many points less would it have caused us to miss the playoffs last year?
All I'm saying is that I concur officiating will always have an element of human error, but there are definitely some things that need to be looked at.
There are problems within the officiating core of the NHL that dive way beyond the realm of human error.
No it wasn't that recent, it was when Jonesy was a player. I don't have the book in front of me, but I want to say it was a call on John LeClair in the 2000 playoffs in OT. Don't quote me on that, but anyone with the book can prob look it up real quick, the book is like 100 pages.
the whole "the calls even out" theory pisses me off, especially when it's the same players getting away with incredibly dirty ****, with no consequence. for instance, when was the last time anything like this happened for the Flyers, in their favor? I don't remember.
I can't either, but we must get 2-3 goals called back a year on nonsense, let alone the drama that unfolds every time we play the Penguins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
No it wasn't that recent, it was when Jonesy was a player. I don't have the book in front of me, but I want to say it was a call on John LeClair in the 2000 playoffs in OT. Don't quote me on that, but anyone with the book can prob look it up real quick, the book is like 100 pages.
Also, the ref that called it, is also a fulltime AHL ref and only part time with the NHL, so yeah, I think the choice of refs that the NHL has are really, really horrible. Seriously, I think we should replace all the newbie refs and hell, try to bring some good ones out of retirement to stop the ********. This much of the game being in the hands of the ref, especially when it's down to the wire, I think it should be taken out of their hands and taken upstairs to help against **** like this. If I had one request of the use of instant replay, it would have to be an understanding of the call on the ice, see if it's right or not, if it is wrong (this all leads to a goal) then the ref's call should be overturned and be considered a good goal.
