NHL Playoff Discussion Thread

[Guynemer]

Okay.

I've had all night to cool off after last night. I recognize the facts of the rules, that as soon as the ref loses sight of the puck and has the intention to whistle the play dead, the play is dead.

However, if the puck ends up in the net before the ref actually blows his whistle, they should be able to review the play to confirm that the puck was never in possession of the goalie.


The Wings got robbed of a chance to win, not by a bad ref (though I wonder how he lost sight of the puck), but by a bad rule. The rule should be changed.

[Asher]

I agree. I didn't see it, mind you. But there's nothing wrong with reviewing MORE plays.

BTW, is Holmstrom going to get suspended?

[Guynemer]

I actually didn't see the elbow, so I don't know. All the replays I saw focused on the slapshot he took to the chest.

[notyoueither]

I'm not sure they should change that rule.

No matter what, you are going to have a point where the play is dead. It may as well be the point the official decides it is dead and avoid a lot more debate over whether the whistle was in time, the ref fumbling for his whistle, etc.

[Asher]

I'm not sure they should change that rule.

No matter what, you are going to have a point where the play is dead. It may as well be the point the official decides it is dead and avoid a lot more debate over whether the whistle was in time, the ref fumbling for his whistle, etc.

The problem as I see it is it is not a practical way to find out when the ref "intended" to do something. He does, or he doesn't. Play continues until he does, so the play that occurs should count.

I've seen this "intended to blow a whistle" thing a way for the refs to save face. They **** up, it's protested, they go "well I intended to blow it anyway!" and that's that. I found it ridiculous.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Canucks had a goal waived off against St. Louis that way too. St. Louis shoved Luongo's leg backwards, and the replay showed that the puck was across the line, after they shoved his leg back. There was no way the ref could have seen the puck in that scrum, and neither did the goal judge.

IMO, if the ref didn't see it and the goal judge didn't see it because they had no way to see the puck, it's not a goal. If the ref suspects it might be a goal, he should call for a review. It's all up to the judgement call of the ref as to whether the play ought to be reviewed or not.

[-Jrabbit]

Okay.

I recognize the facts of the rules, that as soon as the ref loses sight of the puck and has the intention to whistle the play dead, the play is dead.

WTF, can't they operate a whistle? That sure seems to leave a lot of room for revisionist history.

No wonder there are so many complaints.

[Guynemer]

I'm not sure they should change that rule.

No matter what, you are going to have a point where the play is dead. It may as well be the point the official decides it is dead and avoid a lot more debate over whether the whistle was in time, the ref fumbling for his whistle, etc.

Dude, if the puck is in the net before the whistle is blown, they should at least be able to review the play.

Seriously, for a playoff game to turn on something like that? Weak sauce.

[notyoueither]

Why? The NHL bases these calls on the referee's intent. How is a replay supposed to over-rule that?

Review is used to catch things the refs did not. Not to over-rule what they did.

[Asher]

That's why the rules need to remove this bull**** about the ref's intent.

[Guynemer]

That's the thing, NYE.

By the time the puck was in the net, the ref had not done anything. The whistle was blown after the goal had been scored. There is no reason not to review that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rypian!

1-0 Canucks!

[Ben Kenobi]

Damn Hawks fans missing out on this one.

[Asher]

They're out drinking it and watching.

[Ben Kenobi]

Glad you get to see some real hockey being played