The only game I remember, and that is a vague memory, is game one which was a penalty parade. Koharski was not much of a referee. To wit, he once said Mikael Thelven bit himself to draw blood and draw a major on Torrie Robertson. He must have a serious overbite to get thos 27 stiches on his face.
Because the Soviets felt the American refs were biased against them, and the European refs were both biased and incompetant. Also, he'd already ref'd a few of their round robin games (two I believe), and they felt he'd been fair. So they actually requested him for the finals. This is covered in some detail in the book Gretzky to Lemieux: The Story of the 1987 Canada Cup.
Alan Eagleson was the Executive Director of the Canada Cup, and he ruled in 1984 that European referees could no longer participate in the Medal Round. That was his right, because as Executive Director, he was not bound by IIHL rules, and he could pick and choose whoever he wanted.
I don't want to overemphasize Koharski as a villain, and I want to tamper back on a statement that I made above saying that "Gretzky and Lemieux didn't win the Canada Cup, Koharski did." That overstates the case, since Gretzky and Lemieux are a couple of the greatest players who ever played, and Canada may have won in any case. Koharski was placed in an untenable position by having to ref a game that was viewed in the day as being of epic proportions, to literally determine world hockey supremacy.
Throwing away the whistle, especially on Canadian fouls, was the best option for him. But it clearly gave Canada an edge - and since the margin of victory was literally one goal, it leaves the suggestion that refereeing could have been the difference.
Why did Alan Eagleson declare no European refs in the Canada Cups after 1981? By that, I mean, what was the official reason given?
I think the Russians have a point, but it's one that can easily be made without crying bias. I think it's a well accepted fact that the European style of hockey and standard of refereeing was quite a bit different than the North American one, so consistently using a North American standard of refereeing seems to me as quite obviously a structural advantage for Canada in the Canada Cups, perhaps one every bit as important as the ability of the Soviets to use 5-man units that had trained together all year for the purpose of International Hockey.
I haven't seen the 81' games but in 76' Canada Cup with international refs I thought the games were called quite well.
Because the Soviets felt the American refs were biased against them, and the European refs were both biased and incompetant. Also, he'd already ref'd a few of their round robin games (two I believe), and they felt he'd been fair. So they actually requested him for the finals. This is covered in some detail in the book Gretzky to Lemieux: The Story of the 1987 Canada Cup.
Not sure about bias but the incompetence part I can 100% agree with. Finland suffered numerous times in the 80's from the peculiar calls of Eastern bloc refs. IIHF had as little standard for their refs back then as they do now, it's a big boys club, the best refs don't call the games, the ones that kiss ass the best do. Best Finnish ref at the time and pretty much until the end of his career, Seppo Mäkelä, didn't get jobs as much he should because he din't kiss the bosses arses. Though admittedly he was rather lacking in English skills.
I think the Russians have a point, but it's one that can easily be made without crying bias. I think it's a well accepted fact that the European style of hockey and standard of refereeing was quite a bit different than the North American one
Anyone who has watched the World Juniors over the years can attest to that. It has gotten better recently I will say, but I am sure there are those among us that remember not to long ago when Canada was winning 5 in a row (2000s) where a body check that was literally loud would draw a penalty from a European ref. This always hurt Canada.
Some Canadians don't see this as a problem. However, all one has to do is look at the 2002 Women's Gold Medal final and Canadians will whine about having an American ref, calling the game.
I would not complain about a American ref doing that game so much as I would an incompetent ref doing that game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
From a neutral point of view, that was an incredibly rotten game by the referee. I don't usually pay a lot of attention to the women's game, but I did watch that one live and the penalties against Canada were, what, 12-3 or something like that?
One of the most inexplicable one sided reffed games I can ever recalled watching. The only comparable one I remember would be Super Bowl XL between Seattle, and Pittsburgh and the gold medal game was worse than that which really says a lot.
If I recall the penalties were something like 13-4, in the American`s favor including 8 straight at one point, as well as the American team getting a couple 5 on 3`s. In fact the only 2 goals they scored were both on the PP, otherwise the score likely would not have been as close as it turned out.
I haven't seen the 81' games but in 76' Canada Cup with international refs I thought the games were called quite well.
I've read that the Soviets complained about the officiating in the Canada-Soviet game saying that the ice was titled Canada's way.
I think that could be some basis for that. For instance, Bobby Hull (it seems to me at least) took a dive to draw a penalty and Canada opened the scoring on the subsequent powerplay.
I've read that the Soviets complained about the officiating in the Canada-Soviet game saying that the ice was titled Canada's way.
I think that could be some basis for that. For instance, Bobby Hull (it seems to me at least) took a dive to draw a penalty and Canada opened the scoring on the subsequent powerplay.
Were there any other incidents like that?
Canada didn't need refereeing help in 1976 because there was no one who could compete with them. The Soviets left many of their best players at home (Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Yakushev, Shadrin, Kuzkin, Tsygankov, etc.), and went with a young, inexperienced lineup that would eventually become top players (Golikov brothers, Balderis). Not making an excuse, but that is what the Soviet Federation chose to do. The other countries in the tournament were just there to fill out the field - none of them were even close in challenging Canada at that time.
I'm sorry but I still laugh whenever I think about all those Euro referee's and linesmen in the 70's and 80's falling down and not being able to keep up with the play because they had the foot-speed of Hal Gill in 70's goalie equipment.
Euro hockey was starting to take great strides back then in their hockey programs but their officials were lagging far, far behind their players.
Was there some bias with the NA officials, maybe but it definitely wasn't due to the nationality of the players, it was more in regards to the style of play. Namely, that the NA officials were more lenient and familiar with the physical aspects of the game.
I think it's an absolute joke that anyone can come on here and talk about bias by NA officials compared to what Canadian and American teams had to deal with for decades in international play.
Don't make me laugh.
NA officials were the best in the world and even if they did show a bit of a bias towards a more physical game, they were still a hundred times better than any Euro official in both bias and ability to be in any reasonable position to call a game.
The other countries in the tournament were just there to fill out the field - none of them were even close in challenging Canada at that time.
Tell that to the Czechs who beat Canada once in the prelims, and lost the final game in OT. Other than game 1 of the final, they gave Canada all they could handle. They were also tough on the Soviets in the WC's during that era.
Tell that to the Czechs who beat Canada once in the prelims, and lost the final game in OT. Other than game 1 of the final, they gave Canada all they could handle. They were also tough on the Soviets in the WC's during that era.
I forgot about the Czechs performance in 1976. They were extremely inconsistent over the years, but occasionally they came up with a great effort (e.g., 1985 World Championship).
I forgot about the Czechs performance in 1976. They were extremely inconsistent over the years, but occasionally they came up with a great effort (e.g., 1985 World Championship).
Also the 1972, 1976, and 1977 World Championships.
In the '87 Canada Cup, the Soviet team was use to officiating that was probably comparable to today's NHL. Not in competence, but in terms of what is legal and what is not. Canada was used to playing the NHL game of the 80s in terms of legal plays. You know, hooking, hacking, holding, interference, cheap shots, etc.
Koharski calling the game as he would any other, even if viewed by NHL standards as a competent job, was still unfairly biased against the Soviets.
Watching those games there were more than several times I felt the Soviets were getting jobbed. If played under today's NHL guidelines, I think the outcome would have been different.
Also the 1972, 1976, and 1977 World Championships.
True, but compare that to the record of the Soviets in the Olympics and the World Championships. If you look at the Olympics and World Championships between 1956 and 1992, the Soviets were dominant. Their second place finish in the Canada Cup in 1976 was a huge moral victory for the Czechs, one that they were never able to duplicate. Their overall record in the Canada Cup was 8 wins, 16 losses.
Their second place finish in the Canada Cup in 1976 was a huge moral victory for the Czechs, one that they were never able to duplicate. Their overall record in the Canada Cup was 8 wins, 16 losses.
A bit misleading as the disasters of 1984 & 1991 skew the record. In the other years they competed quite well
In the '87 Canada Cup, the Soviet team was use to officiating that was probably comparable to today's NHL. Not in competence, but in terms of what is legal and what is not. Canada was used to playing the NHL game of the 80s in terms of legal plays. You know, hooking, hacking, holding, interference, cheap shots, etc.
Koharski calling the game as he would any other, even if viewed by NHL standards as a competent job, was still unfairly biased against the Soviets.
Watching those games there were more than several times I felt the Soviets were getting jobbed. If played under today's NHL guidelines, I think the outcome would have been different.
this whole post is intelligent. i think that it's the most sensible way of looking at the situation. Not that Koharski or the Canadians were cheating, only that they were playing/calling OUR version of the game. Everything was stacked against the Soviets, for this reason - especially if Eagleson really wasn't giving a chance for a Euro ref.
I was just thinking the other day how oftentimes the American posters on here tend to be the most level-headed, and less likely to aggressively pick a side. The Swedes, too.
I was just thinking the other day how oftentimes the American posters on here tend to be the most level-headed, and less likely to aggressively pick a side. The Swedes, too.
Fittingly, the Soviets refused a Canadian referee in the 1981 Canada Cup Finale and demanded either an American or a Swedish referee. And so the circle is complete.
Watching those games there were more than several times I felt the Soviets were getting jobbed. If played under today's NHL guidelines, I think the outcome would have been different.
I agree with most of your post although I think this last bit is a loaded statement. Are you saying that the Soviets win the series if today's officiating standards were used? I'm assuming that is under the assumption that Team Canada plays exactly as they did in 87 and does not adjust their game for said officiating?
I just have a hard time seeing a world where a prime Gretzky and prime Lemieux aren't enough to get the job done no matter what the circumstances.
I agree with most of your post although I think this last bit is a loaded statement. Are you saying that the Soviets win the series if today's officiating standards were used? I'm assuming that is under the assumption that Team Canada plays exactly as they did in 87 and does not adjust their game for said officiating?
I just have a hard time seeing a world where a prime Gretzky and prime Lemieux aren't enough to get the job done no matter what the circumstances.
Of course Gretzky and Lemieux were capable of settling the matter themselves. In '87, Lemieux was the difference for Canada, IMHO. The Soviets came within a hair of ending the series twice in the double overtime of Game 2. Krutov and Makarov both had chances when Fuhr was down and out, and they had a virtually empty net to shoot at (maybe you could say they choked). It was Lemieux who scored clutch game-winning goals in Games 2 and 3 to seal it for Canada.
Refereeing becomes an issue when a series is that close (in four games between the Soviets and Canada, the difference between the two teams came down to the last goal of the last game, with 1:26 remaining in the tournament), and only one team has the authority to determine who is eligible to referee the game. If there are seemingly questionable calls, or non-calls, during the course of the game, it only serves to fuel doubt as to whether conditions are level for both teams.
I agree with most of your post although I think this last bit is a loaded statement. Are you saying that the Soviets win the series if today's officiating standards were used? I'm assuming that is under the assumption that Team Canada plays exactly as they did in 87 and does not adjust their game for said officiating?
I just have a hard time seeing a world where a prime Gretzky and prime Lemieux aren't enough to get the job done no matter what the circumstances.
Well, Canada did barely squeak by with Gretzky & Lemieux as it was. Neither of them had much to do with defending against the Soviets.
I don't think in a 3 game series Canada could have adjusted quickly enough to win.
Biting your own face.
