Paul Stewart: Bad Replay Angles Can Deceive

To me, this was deliberate deception geared ONLY toward riling up the crowd. It had nothing to do with actual replay procedures, which involve looking at multiple angles to find a definitive one. In this case, that was not hard to find. The puck being on top of the net was so clear-cut, in fact, that it made the Penguins-employed "game presentation" folks look like jackasses to viewers across the world.

Honestly, I had this same thought as I was following the game... wasn't it a couple years ago when the Penguins home arena staff somehow withheld one crucial replay view in a game against the Flyers that led to an important call going the Pens' way? So, if I am not mistaken, last night wouldn't be the first time they did shenanigans with the replays.

Just wondering your take on the play. If the puck had gone in the net, and with Kessel initiating contact with Anderson before the puck was in the crease, would you (after video review) have called that a good goal?

Guess Kerry Fraser has something differant to say

https://www.hockeyfeed.co...ing-the-playoffs/?ref=seb

Guess Kerry Fraser has something differant to say

https://www.hockeyfeed.co...ing-the-playoffs/?ref=seb
- sparky

Nope. We are on the same page. I referred to last night only and to last night's crew. I stand by what I wrote. In the bigger picture, Fraser isn't wrong.

Understand this, though: Officials are like mailman. They deliver what they are told to deliver by their bosses. If they don't, they don't work.

Nope. We are on the same page. I referred to last night only and to last night's crew. I stand by what I wrote. In the bigger picture, Fraser isn't wrong.

Understand this, though: Officials are like mailman. They deliver what they are told to deliver by their bosses. If they don't, they don't work.
- Paul Stewart

You said fraser wasn't wrong. You have always stood by the official, I have never heard you ever say anything negative or something like boy the refs were terrible last night etc. Regardless what you might think in print you defend them.

Curious though Paul, what you said about mailman and told to deliver. Haven't heard you mention this even though lots of outsiders like me figure as such. Can you dwell more on this please. Are the refs told to ignore certain infractions? I find this interesting and would love to hear more on that subject. Also the reasoning why the bossess make the decisions they make for the official.

You said fraser wasn't wrong. You have always stood by the official, I have never heard you ever say anything negative or something like boy the refs were terrible last night etc. Regardless what you might think in print you defend them.

Curious though Paul, what you said about mailman and told to deliver. Haven't heard you mention this even though lots of outsiders like me figure as such. Can you dwell more on this please. Are the refs told to ignore certain infractions? I find this interesting and would love to hear more on that subject. Also the reasoning why the bossess make the decisions they make for the official.
- sparky

Respectfully, I will suggest you read a little more closely. I point out errors of positioning (often due to poor coaching and Hockey Ops preferences) frequently. I have devoted entire blogs to what I think are misguided directives and procedures dictated by Hockey Opsand obediently implemented by the officiating director who answer to him. I have also blogged about the very real recruitment crisis that exists.

Understand this, though: Officials are like mailman. They deliver what they are told to deliver by their bosses. If they don't, they don't work.

Thanks for verifying that. I've always been under the impression that the officials would probably call games closer to the rule book regardless of situation if the NHL simply allowed them to, or enforced the direction to do so. Some of the calls and non-calls that happen are mind boggling and can only be summed up with the logic that the governing body wants it that way. The allowance of shots to the head with little recourse when supposedly this is an area of concern among other things just emphasizes this.

The whole: "put the rule book and whistle away and let the players play" is a stupid thing for people to suggest as well, because the only way you can fairly let the players play and decide the game themselves is by strict enforcement of the rules. This is something that I feel the NHL and some of it's fans with the throwback mentality just doesn't get and when they occasionally do try to crack down on rules violations in a "by the book" way - like they did in 2006 - it's sorta like trying to teach a 6-year old, set in it's ways dog to all of a sudden stop peeing on the carpet. What's worse is when it looked like they finally got the dog properly trained, they then said it's ok to pee on the carpet again.

Also, I see you made no mention of the obvious non-call on the too many men penalty the Senators should have been hit with. Everyone in the media booths saw it and commented. Did they blatantly miss/let that one go, or were they the only one's in the arena who didn't see it?

Just wondering your take on the play. If the puck had gone in the net, and with Kessel initiating contact with Anderson before the puck was in the crease, would you (after video review) have called that a good goal?
- powerenforcer

Well, considering the Sens were already gifted a no goal in the game prior, I'd like to think the officials were not going to consider writing them an even bigger welfare check in a Game 7 too.

Paul, I thought the interference was a bit of a ticky tacky call. What was your take on the slash to give the Sens their first power play. I thought it was a bit weak as well.

Wouldn't Kessel have beat out the icing and that's why Phaneuf stepped in front of him? So it being icing anyway is moot, because it probably wouldn't have been had Dion not gotten in his way.

I was rooting for the Sens, but I thought that it, while a bit of a soft call, was a stupid thing for Phaneuf to do. If it can be called a penalty, don't be surprised when it is actually called.

Great article Stewcat. I thought the Penguin replay people wer being ridiculous in charging up the crowd like that. But I freakin' love that last story about your broken finger. Painful at the time, I'm sure...But hilarious now.

Respectfully, I will suggest you read a little more closely. I point out errors of positioning (often due to poor coaching and Hockey Ops preferences) frequently. I have devoted entire blogs to what I think are misguided directives and procedures dictated by Hockey Opsand obediently implemented by the officiating director who answer to him. I have also blogged about the very real recruitment crisis that exists.
- Paul Stewart

This is a prime example of what you tend to do. Even on the rare occasion you say an official makes a mistake, you make excuses for the official himself, and blame Hockey Ops or the head of officiating, and use it as an opportunity to gripe about higher ups in the officiating world, instead of just admitting that some nights officials just suck at doing their job and leaving it at that.

This is a prime example of what you tend to do. Even on the rare occasion you say an official makes a mistake, you make excuses for the official himself, and blame Hockey Ops or the head of officiating, and use it as an opportunity to gripe about higher ups in the officiating world, instead of just admitting that some nights officials just suck at doing their job and leaving it at that.
- Antilles

He says officials make mistakes all the time without saying something about higher ups. I'm pretty sure that's been the thesis of a few of his blogs in the last month even.