Hockey refs are the scum of the earth

Submitted by genericmichiganfan on

Yes, this is old news, but tonight the Wings scored a goal to go up 3-0, but that douche Kerry Fraser said no goal because of contact between Holmstrom and Colorado's goalie. Mind you, Homer was pushed over by a Colorado player right before Franzen scored. What happens next? 2 goals by the Avs and now it's tied.

There is a special place in hell for hockey referees. First Michigan and now the Wings just in the last few days alone.

Red_Lee

March 1st, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^

The NHL is two balls and a dick short of the Olympics...mostly thanks to the return of bullshit, game-changing, NBA Jam keep-the-game-close calls.

MHNet

March 1st, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^

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.

WolverSwede

March 1st, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

I'm going to disagree about calling the goal back. At least it was quick and there clearly was some interference. The 2nd period penalty for interference was a joke though. A complete joke.

teldar

March 2nd, 2010 at 7:16 AM ^

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.

JustGoBlue

March 1st, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^

Refs are biased against coaches from Saskatchewan. That's the Berenson/Babcock connection. Solution: More refs from Saskatchewan!!

Seriously speaking, I don't have versus (>:o) so I didn't see the call, but I think that if I were ever somewhere and were to meet someone that was a hockey ref, I would probably deck them on principle, because they've probably cost either Michigan or the Wings at least one "no" goal, which all to often leads to the game. Honestly, I can't remember the last time, no matter what score it happened at, that a blown "no" goal call didn't cost my team the game. And it's ridiculous. I can't remember the last time I saw an opposing team's goal waved off, so even though I only really watch the Wings and Michigan, you'd think I'd see calls for us and against us about equally, since there are two teams in each game, but no. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the refs are fair/competent? I go to Michigan, so I like to think I'm at least not-stupid, but I fail to see the logic in that.

/end rant

South Bend Wolverine

March 1st, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^

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.

Starko

March 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 AM ^

I get really mad at refs, but it's a difficult and thankless job. If they're doing their best, that's all I ask. Absent corruption, I think we need to suck it up and accept that mistakes will be made.

JustGoBlue

March 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^

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

TomW09

March 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^

I'm sorry, but one of your premises is completely wrong. You argue that refs don't receive negative feedback.

This is completely false. Not only do they receive constant negative feedback, but if they don't quickly improve, they lose games (read: their job).

I can only speak for college basketball officials, because that's what I know best: every game and every call is judged by the officials' committee for a given conference (sport, league, whatever). If refs aren't making the cut, they aren't asked back next year.

Believe me, refs live every day with negative feedback and their job depends on them improving from it.

South Bend Wolverine

March 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 AM ^

:) 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.

JustGoBlue

March 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^

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...

TJ

March 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 AM ^

Kerry Fraser is the biggest Douche Bag ref in the history of the NHL. Back when the Wings started pulling players out of Russian in the 90's, Fraser became a biased asshole who would make 4 out of 5 calls against us. It's a damned shame he didn't get a career-ending head injury back when he wore pommade as a helmet.

Robbie Moore

March 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 AM ^

but the refereeing is so subjective. Can someone please give me a clear and concise definition of interference? Or taking a dive? Kind of like defining a foul in basketball. I can't watch the games sometimes because the calls are so damn inconsistent.

Blue in Yarmouth

March 3rd, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^

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.

BigBum

March 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

I love it when the (Wait, I can't use the "R" word) referees call both a penalty AND the dive.

Sarcasm–noun
1.harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

jsquigg

March 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

I agree but at least the Wings won. With a legit goal called off and Jimmy Howard pulling an Osgood on the second goal, the result probably should have been more comfortable.