It is in response to a question of whether or not referees have license to change calls after they are made.
Quote:
In a game involving Terry Murray and his L.A. Kings I raised my arm and stopped play to call a tripping penalty but reversed that decision when I received new evidence following the blowing of my whistle. Here's what happened on the play. As the Kings were attacking with speed through the neutral zone a forward carried the puck over the blue line. The puck carrier was a good eight to 10 feet inside the zone when a defenceman stuck his stick in the skates of the Kings center man, tripped him and gained possession of the puck. All in one motion I raised my arm signaling the infraction and blew the whistle stopping play. A split second after blowing my whistle I heard a second whistle blow. It came from the lips of the linesman signaling an off side at the blue line. I immediately consulted with the linesman who said he had been bumped as players crossed the line and wasn't able to get the whistle to his mouth quickly enough to stop play. Since the trip became inconsequential due to the off side which should have stopped play, I chose not to call the penalty.
I approached Coach Murray at his bench and explained why his team was not going on the power play, even though everyone in the Staples Center had seen me raise my arm to call the obvious trip. As a result of the offside play I appealed to Terry explaining that if the role was reversed he wouldn't want the penalty assessed to his team. He agreed as I modified an announcement used by my NFL colleagues when a flag is thrown in error. I said, "Terry, it was just an inadvertent ARM." Coach Murray nodded with a grin.
It is just interesting hearing about the dialogue and reactions
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
I know Fraser wasn't very well liked by many fans, but I liked his officiating style and considered him one of the better officials, simply because he was consistent. You knew how he'd call the game, unlike others like Mick McGough.
While Frasor is probably a good and fair ref he brings a lot of his bad image on himself. Some of the calls or lack of calls are so blatantly unfair and at the worst of times. He is consistantly bizare in the his interpetation of plays. If he was just consistant with the average refs calls he wouldn't be so hated by all fan bases.
While Frasor is probably a good and fair ref he brings a lot of his bad image on himself. Some of the calls or lack of calls are so blatantly unfair and at the worst of times. He is consistantly bizare in the his interpetation of plays. If he was just consistant with the average refs calls he wouldn't be so hated by all fan bases.
He wasn't a bad ref but sadly, as a ginger, we all know he was born without a soul and therefore will die and become one of the undead legions that are preparing as you read this to one day rise up and overthrow the soul possessing living with the intention of eating our brains.
Take a look at Terry Murray if you don't believe me. There isn't any way you can argue that it hasn't already happened to him.
I have noticed more and more that teams killing a delayed penalty pretty much get away with anything they want, especially of the hooking and holding variety.
Obviously, with the amount of games you have officiated you must have noticed this from time to time. It is quite rare that I have seen an extra penalty called on the team killing the delayed penalty despite the infractions that may and usually do occur. Why do referees shy away from making that extra call?
I know Fraser wasn't very well liked by many fans, but I liked his officiating style and considered him one of the better officials, simply because he was consistent. You knew how he'd call the game, unlike others like Mick McGough.
Both were terrible refs IMO and I'm glad both are out of the game.
Guys what is going on with your hate for ref's.......
These guys doing nothing else than calling penaltys when they see it.
If they didn't they don't call someone out.
There is nothing like bias or dislike for teams.
If you want to win a game score more goals than the opponent. Plain and simple.
If the refs make a wrong descission just take it an keep on playing.
A goal is when the refs gives a goal. Doesn't matetr the puck crosses the line or not.
The only thing i'm concerned about is the famous slam the attacker into the own goalie to draw a penalty.
That is the most rediculous rule i've ever seen.
If the league is concerned about low scoring take this rule out.
That would increase scoring a lot
I rather have Fraser reffing the games than Stephan Auger, now that guy is an inconsistent ******.. How he is still reffing in the NHL is far beyond my understanding..
I guess the NHL does allow the disabled to participate in the officiating.,.
I think the story about the linesman who stole the Stanley Cup winning puck is very disturbing.
I just wish that referees had to fight for their next contract just like the players do. Let the players, coaches, and GM's vote every year on how the officials are doing and adjust accordingly. There is so much at stake in every game that we cannot afford to allow even the slightest inconsistancy let alone corruption.
I think the story about the linesman who stole the Stanley Cup winning puck is very disturbing.
I just wish that referees had to fight for their next contract just like the players do. Let the players, coaches, and GM's vote every year on how the officials are doing and adjust accordingly. There is so much at stake in every game that we cannot afford to allow even the slightest inconsistancy let alone corruption.
They don't know for sure if the linesmen stole the puck.
Your 2nd paragraph is actually what does happen for the refs. I don't think the players have as much say as the coaches and GM's do.
