Hockey refs are the scum of the earth

Called off goal followed by opponent scoring two quick ones and momentum shifting.

I thought Holmstrom was in the crease before the puck and bumped the goalie (even if lightly), so I had no problem with the call. But I find it funny, however, that THAT doesn't result in goalie interference. However, when Anderson does a total flop, that DOES result in goalie interference. Explain that one, refs.

I bet any other player in front of the net other than Holmstrom and that goalie interference call isn't made. It's unfortunate that he has to battle the refs on top of the other team every friggin' game. The dude's unfairly got a target on his back every time he camps in front of the net. All you gotta do is fall down and he's getting a penalty just for being there.

that the goal by the Avs on the other end, Galliardi's, was similar. Except that it was Stastny bumping Howard instead of Galliardi bumping Howard, and they allowed that goal.

If they're going to call ticky shit on one end, they need to call it on both.

I went to bed after the interference penalty on Holmstrom because I figured the refs had already decided who was going to win last night.

The last goal I remember seeing waived off to one of my teams' benefit was when Michigan was playing Minnesota St. Cloud (the cheerleaders-on-skates team) and St. Cloud had a goal waived off which helped us hold off their attempt at a rally. I was in the stands, so I'm not sure if the call was good or not. There's probably been one to the Wings/Wolverines benefit since then, but I can't remember.

I think that he signed up with VS after Detroit waived/released/no-resigned him. I saw him early this season and i too was pleased to see him working "in hockey" still. Really a good story if you don't know his background/story it is an interesting story to read about.

No kidding! Everyone in the arena was watching Datsyuk set up, and no one but Pavel himself saw Lidstrom sneaking in the back door. :)

BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE INTERNETS

Where's the line between mistakes and too many mistakes? Or do we just accept every mistake a ref makes because their job is "difficult and thankless"? I think I've lowered my standards to if I think half the calls (on both sides) have some merit, the refs didn't lose complete control of the game, called the same types of things on both sides throughout the entire game (were consistent in their calls, ie. not the Camp Randall game), and didn't have a ridiculous amount of really obvious penalties that didn't get called, it was a good night. Admittedly, that means most games I watch are reffed well, but I wouldn't say that I have high standards.

I have NO tolerance for called off goals that were good and good goals that were called off. There's too much at stake, both straight score and momentum-wise to get those wrong and especially with video replay, it's mostly inexcusable. I guess a lot of goal/no-goals calls are from Toronto, but some aren't and the call on the ice matters in the end result.

I've made it known that I think this way before, but difficult and thankless do not excuse incompetence.

The League(s) coddle officials enough as it is, they don't need our help. For the most part, no matter what happens, the organization will protect them and if someone is to complain, legitimate or not, they're immediately slapped with a fine. There's a line, of course, but the less ref's receive legitimate negative feedback the more inclined they are to think they're doing a good job. And in some cases, they simply aren't and reinforcing them is the exact wrong thing to do.

I have nothing against refs as people, I'm not going to assume corruption, conspiracy (except Gary Bettman of course, who doesn't count because he's sub-human, ref's are at least people too) without some pretty major and convincing evidence to the contrary, but I refuse to accept excuses of the difficulty of the job for poor performance. Maybe I have too high of standards, it's just a game. But if we're going to play the game at all, play it with the player's, not the officials.

/endrant#2

:) Fair point! Great win for the Wings. Hopefully this will help spark a little run to get us a solid spot in the playoffs. We may not be Cup favorites this year, but any time you put Franzen, Z, Datsyuk, Homer, Lidstrom, Kronwall, and the rest of the gang on the ice together, you have to feel pretty good about your chances.

Also, winning tonight makes the blown calls against Homer more funny than evil.

make a basketball call, or no-call for that matter, for the life of me, so I'm not going to complain about them. I'll complain good-naturedly at calls against my team and cheer for calls against the other team, but I'm not going to make arguments against their competence, when I can't understand the rules for the life of me.

Hockey, those rules I understand. I know what hooking/interference/slashing/holding the stick/etc. look like. I also know what goals look like and what must transpire for them to be considered good or why they would be bad. That's one (probably one of the bigger, if not the biggest) reason I like hockey more, I understand it. Or at least I thought I did...

If you are talking strictly interference it is cut and dry. Goalie interference on the other hand, is not. Diving in hockey is also not cut and dry.

For interference it is simply when a player doesn't have the puck and is interferred with. The term interference in this case usually means impeeded from getting to where he intends to go. If he has the puck he is fair game, without it you can't touch him (at least purposely).

I agree 100% with your take on the officiating. It is, in my opinion, more inconsistent in hockey than in any other sport. The NHL recognizes this and has made rule changes to try and help. Nothing has worked to this point however.