Dear Diary Intends to Blow

Submitted by Seth on April 10th, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Michiganfirstgoal

MGoBlue /Ghostwhistle. Not in picture: Hockey East referee being incompetent.

Site note: If you're here for the official MGo-Take on last night's championship game, only Brian can deliver that. These are my opinions, not the blog's. And my opinion is that "Intent to Blow" is the worst rule in sports:

As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped.

I have been saying that for years, mostly because the Red Wings are famous for getting screwed by it like all the time. So when Michigan had their first goal waived off last night, I already knew what I'd be writing about this morning, because "Intent to Blow" is one of those topics that I – like pretty much anyone else with who spends an unhealthy amount of time at Kukla's Korner - get screaming mad about whenever it's brought up. The internet hockey world thinks it's such a joke that it's the nom de plume of its best satire guy.

So of course the consensus most mindfuckingly stupid rule ever goes ahead and rips away a National Championship from Michigan.

I can't get into the ludicrous penalty disparity (thanks again Hockey East) that had M playing one fifth of the game with 20% fewer players; I wasn't taking notes, and don't have the torrent yet. Not that it matters: during the course of a hockey game a puck squirted through a sieve and entered the UMD net several seconds before a whistle was blown. As is always the case with game-altering intent to blow calls, the referee was out of position in the corner, lost sight of the puck, and made up his mind that all official hockey activity had ceased. After making some tea and ambling his way behind the net, he finally deigned to blow his whistle to let everyone else know that hockey activities had ceased, and that all things that had transpired in the interim never happened.

In slow-mo thanks to hal2thevic0r:

The point of the rule, as I understand it, is to discourage dangerous scrums in front of the net between when the goalie goes down on the puck and the ref manages to get whistle to lips. But that is rendered moot by the players, who will play until they hear the whistle. Ultimately the refs should blow a play dead when they lose sight of the puck. However in an age when video replay is available and in use, it's all too easy to use standards for goal scoring and stoppage of play that are not at all subjective: pucks cross lines, whistles blow, and we just go to the evidence.

Above I linked the last round of a "worst rule in hockey" tournament by the Minnesota Wild SBNation site. The blog had this to say:

Intent to blow has crushed all opponents thus far in this competition. The reason is clear. Fans are tired of a rule that has so clearly cost teams games. The referees are not supposed to affect the outcome of a game. They are simply supposed to call the penalties and ensure a fair game. With a rule such as this, they have the subjective control to change the outcome of a game. That's just not acceptable.

The rule of "play to the whistle" seems so simple. It is reviewable, it is fair, and it is indisputable. Was the puck across when the whistle blew? Yes or no are the only two answers. Was the puck across the line when the referee intended to blow the whistle? How are we ever supposed to know that?

I'll go further: Video makes the Intent clause nothing more than a cover for referee fallibility. It's the ref's fault, not the players', if he's out of position and loses sight of the puck because of it. Even good refs can have bouts of incompetence, because hockey changes direction faster than jetpack Smurf Denards on swivel rollerskates.* If he blows an early whistle, well, that's an inevitable thing that happens with human refs. The Intent rule was an understandable standard in the absence of instant replay, because how else do you make a call out of a total clusterf—?

Refswarning

MGoBlue /How dare you question my intent! To the box, all of ye!

Video changes this because we now have what is essentially another referee who's usually in the perfect position and can provide incontrovertible evidence of everything he saw. So if the on-ice ref doesn't blow his whistle until later, what the bloody hell does it matter when he lost sight of the puck, just so long as the video didn't? Why codify errors that are easily avoided? Why keep a rule which its only extant function is to disallow good goals?

I swear if Michigan had scored the overtime winner I'd still hate the stupid rule. If UMD had a goal disallowed I'd still hate the stupid rule. But of course the stupid rule had to be the exact difference in a national title for the one team I can't possibly claim a lack of total idiot bias for.

Due to the butterfly effect we have no idea if the game would have transpired differently had that goal been allowed, but it doesn't change the fact that except for a rule that allows referee incompetence to trump video evidence Michigan scored 3 goals before Minnesota-Duluth did. If you're here from UMD looking for some sour grapes, okay, you have a fine hockey team which played some championship-worthy hockey these past few weeks. Congratulations. Also: the Bulldog is a silly name for a hockey team.

slapshot-drhook-mccracken2

Way to go Champ.

--------------------------------------------

* If you allow that there are competent NCAA hockey refs surely you'll forgive me jetpack Smurf Denards and their associated accoutrements.

--------------------------------------------

Diaries and Whatnot, but First Lose the Shirt

slapshot

Eddie Shore?

2006 Tigers fans will nod at this: sometimes you have a team that looked kinda good but not like world beaters, and then all of a sudden they're in a miracle season with new traditions and a palpable excitement, and then they topple Goliath and the only thing between it and a championship is the one thing all year they're actually favored a little bit to beat. Then it goes to hell, and not in the "well we came as far as we could" kind of way of freshmen losing to Duke by two but in the 20 errors by pitchers while the dream is shot and stabbed kind of way.

The way Michigan was playing last night after Intent to Blow you thought they were the better team. Then came all the UMD power plays – a few of them actually deserved – and by overtime you could tell Scooter had lost a step and Rust was run ragged and with all of that shaking something had to finally come loose.

It's been five years since the '06 Tigers got within sight of The Thing then fell out of the tree, but all I remember today is the climb. There was gum and Verlander and Inge fouling off 25 pitches from Barry Zito and the Slam in the Bronx, and all of that. Five years from now, what will we remember? The penalties will sting, but more than that it'll be Caporusso's Valentine, Scooter's shot, Rust's defiance of human capacity, a huge Swedish flag, and a tiny little goalie who made big.

Your Diarist of the Week is Gordon, who's already there:

At this time next year, around the time that new banners go up, and old banners get updated, there will be a Carl Hagelin plaque hanging in the north hallway of Yost. Is that anything to be disappointed about?

That's the conclusion of Gordon's diary, but like the 2010-11 Michigan Men's Ice Hockey season, it's not about the end but the journey.

Old Time Hockey?

Before the championship game became literally just this, Brian – as only that guy can do – aptly summarized the "1-0" victory over NoDak as the "world's longest penalty kill." Shortly before that Blazefire made a much less apropos analogy of Berenson's coaching v. UND to a Lloyd game:

"Make that lead hold up, boys! Drive them crazy!"

Just like a Lloyd coached game, UND had chances, and plenty of them. But what they got very little of was the break away, one on that makes goalies around the world wet themselves. Most of their good chances erupted from a pile of bodies, more of which were Maize and Blue than Green and White.  But it was always in a pile of chaos that’s hard to take advantage of.

“We’re gonna out-execute them. No mistakes. Do it right every time.”

Blazefire is pretty much wrong on the comparison – that's just my e-opinion – except for the part of the quote I bolded. If you ask me, Berenson's more Fielding Yost than Lloyd Carr or Bo. But I could totally see him telling his players on the bench that whole UND game: "keep up the pressure, you're driving them crazy!"

FTR, I like Blazefire. I just think the analogy isn't a fit.

They Teach You How to Underline in College

Board, meet yourself:

demographics

This is but one small sample of wingedsig's survey results, posted mere moments before I was going to post this. I haven't even read through it all yet but it's MGoDemographics and long so giddyup!

User ertai last week laid out his case for paying D-I revenue sport players, comparing Ph.D. students and their stipends on the basis of how much $ and prestige they bring to the university by choosing to do their work here. Some folks negged him out of hand because paying players is going to be a non-starter for the current NCAA folks. But:

As we can see, from a high level perspective, there are many similarities. The difference is that PhD students get a stipend, which varies based on the school and the location. Also schools may offer PhD students different amounts of money for their services based on how good they are. For example, an OSU PhD student choosing between OSU, MIT and Stanford will probably get a larger offer from OSU than one who just got into OSU. Stipends range between 15K to 30K a year, based on the department, school, and your attractiveness as a candidate.

Read and lend your e-pinion – it's obvious he put some time and thought into the proposal. The strongest case I can make against it is that for most schools, even in D-I, the revenue sports can barely bring in enough to pay for the rest of the athletic department, so we'd essentially be going back to a system of a few mega-Haves and the Boise States of the world unable to compete. Michigan would obviously be a Have, but the other 90% would raise so much hell it's a non-starter.

The folks who don't like Johnny RBUAS got a rep in the diaries in zoltan the destroyer, who riffed on Johnny's guest post. Of course, zoltan totally missed the point: the intellectual weakness of a Johnny post isn't in being kindly sentimental to his subjects, just in the bias of choosing Michigan subjects. When I can explain in less than 800 words why Johnny fans like me naturally get bent out of shape when a cynic breaks up our sap, I'll do so. Just a thought from a writer's perspective: the reason the thoughts he puts in M players' heads are those of great good isn't saying they're all heroes; he's doing that because in our own heads we're all heroes. Make sense? Probably not. Have a haterz gif.

Comments

Coach Kyle

April 10th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^

I can understand the intended to blow thing. It makes sense because in some other sports refs don't have to skate. No, what I don't get is how they can go to a replay booth and say "well, the puck is clearly not under the goalies pads, so the play shouldn't have actually stopped, but forget common sense, I'm just going to say I couldn't see it and the play should have been stopped." 

 

I mean... what's the purpose of replay? To look at the emotions displayed on the ref's face so that we can better understand what he was thinking when he lost sight of the puck? Hell no. The purpose should be to see whether or not the call was correct or not. 

CompleteLunacy

April 10th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^

I don't know of a single person who likes the damn rule. Not a one. Except for front offices, of course, and Gary "I'm trying to make hockey officiating resemble NBA officiating as best as I can" Bettman. 

What's the point of hockey? Entertainment. Does the intent rule actually prevent scrums? No. Is it 'entertaining' to watch your team robbed of a goal over and over? Fuck no (unless you hate yourself). So...what's the point of teh rule then? The only other thing I can think of is it being a safeguard in case whistles don't work. Which is probably the stupidest reason you could possibly give for the rule, because when was the last time you saw a ref's whistle fail mid-game? 

The rule serves no real function. PLayers play till the whistle anyway, regardless of what a ref 'intends' to do. In the age of video review, this rule has worked to setback the sport of hockey even further. I just don't get it...I thought that the NHL and subsequentlycollege wanted MORE goals, not less, and MORE fans, not less...how would your average passerby-viewer get interested in your sport when it sees a rule so incredibly stupid in action? 

I could rant forever about it. But I'll just stop here. It didn't cost Michigan the game, but it sure had a signiificant effect on how the rest of the game played out.

redwings8831

April 11th, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^

I was at the game but after watching the replays it seemed like the puck was clearly under the goalies pad until jarred loose by Hagelin(?). If the puck is controlled by the goalie (in his pad, jersey, glove, etc) the play should stop. I don't have any problem with the call (unlike Miami last year) and its not the reason why we lost.

jshclhn

April 11th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^

Whether or not how the refs got to the call made or any sense or not, it was still the right call. 

The goalie was sitting on the puck and it only went in the net after Michigan players took about three or four good whacks at the goalie.

For a few minutes after the call, I kept thinking how if it had happened the other way around and Minnesota-Duluth had a goal waved off I'm sure there wouldn't be any Michigan fans saying the refs got the call wrong.

 

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 12:59 AM ^

Of course, a grand conspiracy to STEAL, I do say STEAL, a national title that the Wolverines had the right to just HAVE.  After all, they won their semi-final game against the vaunted Sioux.

There are quick whistles and slow whistles in hockey...at every level.  This might have been considered a quick whistle, but for the fact that if you watch the replay, UMD's Reiter had the puck stopped and covered by his pad.  At that point, play is stopped if the referee determines the goalie has covered the puck.  Doesn't matter if the whistle actually sounded before or after the final shot or before or after the puck goes in, much less whether the wave off signal comes before or after.  (And I have yet to see a replay that has fine enough audio to actually tell about the whistle).

As for covering the puck, it's the rule, but I guess when you take so many penalties in the frozen four, you start not liking the rules, huh?

And enough whining about the penalties.  Sure, there were a lot of them called for a title game and a few questionable ones BOTH ways, but Michigan did what it needed to do and killed most of them off.  The maize and blue lost that game because UMD was quicker through the neutral zone and in offensive zone entry and outworked them on the boards for long stretches.

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 1:24 AM ^

Neither, but I'm a knowledgeable long-time college hockey fan who rooted for Duluth last night because they're from my home state.  FWIW, I cheered for Michigan on Thursday.

The officiating wasn't perfect last night but I've seen a lot worse (including from some CCHA and WCHA crews).

Michigan had some nice chances on rushes but got outworked in the corners and behind the net all night.  Getting outworked leads to penalties (sometimes legit and sometimes bad calls) because it means you're trailing the play.  That's why they say you make your own breaks in hockey. 

Monocle Smile

April 11th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^

Doesn't matter if the whistle actually sounded before or after the final shot or before or after the puck goes in, much less whether the wave off signal comes before or after.

It also doesn't matter if the official thought the play was dead or not, it only matters what he says. Now the word of an official is above reproach through replay or otherwise despite any and all evidence, as the only evidence (if any) is contained within his brain. Officials now have unlimited discretion over the outcome of game. A whistle makes a detectable noise. Whistles cannot be unblown. A whistle sets a clear, irrefutable yet reviewable standard obvious to anyone who can draw breath.

(And I have yet to see a replay that has fine enough audio to actually tell about the whistle).

Then you must be watching replays on fast forward. It's fairly clear in real time.

I guess when you take so many penalties in the frozen four, you start not liking the rules, huh?

That's a ridiculously trollish statement that no fan of sports would find remotely sane.

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^

So you're directly questioning the integrity of the official? Dude, read your own sig line (the part about no excuses). 

I watched the slow-mo replay on this site.  The only thing I can tell is that the puck was covered and stopped and the ref waves off the goal after it went in.  I saw the whistle in his mouth but couldn't tell when exactly it blew. 

So, if we go by the sound of the whistle and the ref has a cold and has a cough when he starts trying to blow the whistle and little/no sound comes out, does that mean the play is still live?  Just taking your argument to the next level here.

Lastly, Michigan took a lot of penalties in both games of the Frozen Four.  That's a fact.  They were able to dodge a bullet in the North Dakota game through outstanding defensive play.  In the UMD game, once again they had outstanding play on the PK and a very good game by Hunwick.  But they lost a lot of battles for the puck.  If they weren't deep enough to have fresh legs on the ice after killing the penalties, that's the maize and blue's problem.

M-Dog

April 11th, 2011 at 1:41 AM ^

that all of the gratuitous penalties called on Michigan weren't really a factor because they killed them off except one.

The hell they weren't a factor.  It was nearly a full period's worth of killing off penalties.  A third of the game where you can't go on offense.  Think that didn't make a difference?

 

CompleteLunacy

April 11th, 2011 at 2:20 AM ^

Hmmm...I wonder how UMD looked so much more energetic in OT than Michigan did...couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the disproportionate amount of time they were on th PK, could it? Nope, must be UMD's superior athleticism.

 

Yes, Michigan took at least 5 dumb penalties that were well-deserved. No, that doesn't justify the NINE that got called on them. 

JustGoBlue

April 11th, 2011 at 2:15 AM ^

Several reasons have already been thrown out there about why intent to blow the whistle sucks so much, including the subjectivity of it and how it really serves no purpose other than to allow a ref to completely subjectively call off a goal.  Also, if something happens in the time it takes the ref to decide play is dead and physically blow the whistle, then the play wasn't dead enough for the ref to blow the whistle.  But I'd like to add that it is incredible inconsistent.  The play stops when the ref intends to blow the whistle.  That is clearly outlined in the rule book.  The clock should stop when play stops.  Thus, whenever a whistle blows, if you're going to keep that rule, the ref should think back to when he intended to blow that whistle and add time according.  Is that feasible?  I certainly don't think so, but the inconsistency of its application is another black mark against it, in my opinion.

That being said, the refs didn't cost Michigan the game.  They didn't score on their best opportunities (we haven't seen that at all this year...) Cappy and Carl, arguably the two people you would most want on a 2-on-1 had a breakaway and couldn't score and they made enogh defensie mistakes to lose.  Duluth played really well and was a step ahead of Michigan most of the game.

But I also don't care that Reiter had possession of the puck.  If it was covered enough, than Carl wouldn't have been able to push it into the net and we wouldn't be having this conversation.  A similar play happened against Miami at Fort Wayne last year, where Hunwick had the puck beneath his pad and some Miami player came and punched it in.  No whistle, good goal. Do I wish the whistle had blown faster?  Most certainly.  Am I going to bitch because Hunwick had the puck covered and the whistle *should* have been blown?  Nope.  Well, not too much, at least.  Hunwick should have covered the puck better and it wouldn't have gone in regardless.

Play stops (or should stop...) when the ref actually, physically blows the whistle.  Period.  Paragraph.  Essay.  If he blows it too late and a goal is scored, it happens.  If he blows it too early and a goal is disallowed, it happens.  At least that way there is a definitive mark,even if precisely when the whistle blows is still objective.  Arguing about when a ref should or should not blow the whistle is pointless, what should matter is when he does. 

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^

First of all, the rule is the rule as you indicated.  The officials can't make up or ignore rules on the ice, so at worst the rule book screwed Michigan, not the officials.  I still don't believe that's the case because....

Second, the hockey rule is actually very consistent with other sports. Examples:

In the NFL, if there's a pile up and the ball pops out a moment before the whistle is blown, it is not a fumble.  The whistle is merely the signal to players that the referee has determined play has ended.  The play stops when the official determines that the runner was down by contact, not when that determination was signaled by the whistle blowing. 

In baseball, if there's a borderline infield fly rule situation and the umpire waits until the ball is either caught by an infielder or even is dropped to make the infield fly rule call, the result is the same and the batter is out. 

The point is that it's not the timing of the call that matters, but the referee's judgment that the play is over.  It was the right call and Michigan fans (who I 've generally found to be classy people) do their reputations a disservice by whining about it. 

Sgt. Wolverine

April 11th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^

an intent to blow equivalent?  Seems to me the NFL works around the sound of the whistle, rather than giving undue weight to a referee's inaudible intent.

Had that goal review happened in the NFL, it wouldn't have been based on how long before the whistle the puck crossed the line -- which sounds silly when actually written -- but would have instead been based on whether or not the puck was frozen.  The NFL isn't afraid of overturning a down-by-contact call and calling it a fumble if the replay proves the ball came out before the runner was down (and the ball was clearly recovered); however, with hockey rules a runner can be called down by contact before he's down, and even if the replay proves he wasn't down and the whistle hadn't yet sounded, the conclusive replay can be ignored because the referee intended to blow his whistle before the ball came out.

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

In the NFL, if the player is ruled down by contact on the field, the play is over, done, finished.  If the ball pops out and replays show it popping out before his knee touched down, it doesn't matter.  Some calls in the NFL are unreviewable and mostly it's when a play is ruled on the field as being over, because you don't know what the ensuing action could have been.

In this case, in fact, the officials did review the replay and confirmed that the puck was covered by the goalie (which was the moment of the intent to blow and the end of the play). 

No official in any sport can simultaneously make a decision and make it audible.  It's impossible, our bodies don't work that way, and in fact officials in many sports (I'm a high school baseball umpire) are trained to actually pause a moment before making a call so as to allow your mind a moment to digest what it saw and so that your actions are deliberate.

It was the right call and the rule makes sense.

Sgt. Wolverine

April 11th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^

I've seen them overturn down by contact calls if the replay shows a fumble and clear (and timely) recovery.  Either that or I've been taking psychedelic drugs before watching NFL football.

EDIT: also, NFL refs often make a point of letting the play go when they're not sure, so replay can make the right call after the play.  The intent to blow rule often blocks replay from doing its job.

InterM

April 11th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

His analogy to NFL review is nonsensical.  In the situation he describes -- ball pops out before player is down, but the referee blows the whistle believing that any fumble occurred after the player was down -- there is no NFL rule that prevents the officials from using the objective information they learn from reviewing the replay.  Instead, the problem is in the conflict between two pieces of objective data -- (1) the replay shows the ball is out, but (2) the players have reacted to an audible whistle (not one in the referee's mind).  Once that whistle has blown, you can't say what the players might have done if it wasn't, so there's nothing you can do.

The "intent to blow" rule overrides the objective data.  No matter when the whistle blew (an objective fact) or the puck went in the net (another objective fact), the result is dictated by the official's subjective (and unknowable/unreviewable) view of when the play was "really" over.  All this blather about the puck being under the goalie is a red herring -- that just means there would have been a good reason for the referee to perceive the play as over (and to blow his whistle), but the rule makes it irrelevant whether he had a good reason or not.  In other words, nothing about the actual play in the Michigan game makes the case for this rule -- the best you can say is that, in this case, the rule did no harm over what a competent referee would have done.  That's hardly an endorsement for the rule, which is dumb, and which every thinking hockey observer agrees is dumb.

M-Wolverine

April 11th, 2011 at 6:01 PM ^

Saying the same thing. They don't blow the whistle, it can be overturned. Which is why they don't as quickly anymore, and often lean towards ruling fumble, because giving the ball back to the team on review is no harm, but stopping a return because you rule no fumble is.
<br>
<br>Even if they blow the play dead, they can still give the ball to the other team at the point of the fumble, they just lose any advancement.
<br>
<br>If this guy's football knowledge is so erroneous, I have to question his views on hockey. Especially when using analogies that make the case to ignore intent, how the whistle, and utilize replay.

JustGoBlue

April 11th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^

it wasn't the right call, based on the rules.  I never said the refs screwed up. I said that it's a dumb rule that serves no purpose and is remarkably inconsistent as it's only applied when a goal is scored before the whistle blows.  The call was correct, based on what exists in the rules, that doesn't mean I have to like it.  I've been complaining about it for years and have yet to get a satisfactory explanation as to what purpose it serves.

As for the comparisons, for football, at least, play generally stops when the ball carrier is down, or even before the play if a penalty occurs.  The whistle is just a signal.  In hockey, play generally actually stops when the whistle blows, because otherwise there really is no clear sign of what the ref is thinking other than the whistle.  I'm honstly not sure, what happens if the whistle blows, but it is determined that the ball came out after the whistle but before the ball carrier was actually down?  Is it a fumble?  As for baseball, I don't understand that comparison.  The ump isn't calling play dead.  He's waiting for a result.  And it isn't based on what the ump intends.  It depends on if there is an infield fly or not and he waits until the end of the play and doesn't determine when it's over.  And as you said, the batter is out regardless.  Which is not the same as either awarding or not awarding a goal. 

Regardless, I didn't say that it was inconsistent with other sports, I just said it was inconsistent and strongly implied that meant within the game.  It only applies when a goal is scored.  And even then, it only applies to the goal.  I don't recall them adding back a second or two or 1.294804389 seconds, or however much time elapsed between the ref deciding play was over and the ref blowing the whistle.  So even though play was "dead" it wasn't over as the clock continued to run.  And that happens every time.  The clock stops when the whistle blows, not when the ref intends to blow the whistle. 

I bitch (and bitch and bitch and bitch) eveytime I see that rule applied because I think it's stupid.  I'm pretty sure I actually wrote an essay on it on this site last year when Brad May?  scored a goal against Dallas.  Only he and the goalie saw it in at first.  Play continued for a good 5-10 seconds with most people milling around and Brad May pointing at the puck in the net.  Finally the ref blows his whistle, looks in the net, sees the puck and goes to review.  A minute later he comes out, signals no goal and his explanation is intent to blow the whistle.  When that can happen, even though I think everybody would agree that the Brad May incident was a horrible application of that rule and the one on Saturday was relatively standard, based on the rule, there is a problem.

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

So you agree with the call but disagree with the rule. I can see that to a point, but...

The rule exists because human beings are not physically capable of both making a decision and vocalizing it simultaneously.  It's impossible.  Your expectation seems to be that the on ice officials should somehow be able to do something impossible. 

What's the appropriate length of time for the whistle to be blown?  I'm not sure exactly, but a couple seconds seems rational.

Let's take the argument to the logical next step though.  Let's say the ref gets run over by a player while trying to blow his whistle.  Let's say he has to catch his breath for a moment.  Let's say he has a brief cough and then blows it.  Are you saying play should continue in all of these scenarios when the ref has determined the play should be over?

 

JustGoBlue

April 11th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^

If play hasn't stopped, play shouldn't have stopped.  If the clock is runnng, the players are competing and things are happening and ref hasn't blown the whistle, for whatever reason, it's unfair and takes away from the game to retroactively say, "oh that didn't happen because I didn't intend for it to happen".  Also, I definitely do not expect them to vocalize and make their decision simultaneously, even under normal circumstances.  But if something happens in the second or two it takes to go from though to action (or longer in the case of something weird happening), then it happens and it happened and nobody should say it didn't happen, maybe the ref shouldn't have been intending play to stop then.  And then of course the obvious change from a completely subjective call to one that has an objective component.  It's not rocket science.  Nothing else ends when the ref intends to blow the whistle, except for the opportunity to score.  In the intermittent space, play continues, the clock continues and none of that is called back by the refs intent.  So really, play doesn't end when it ends in the refs mind, because everything continues to the actual blowing of the whistle, the only thing that it allows for is the subjective waving off of goals.  And I think that is ridiculous.  I would be far more OK with having a goal scored against Michigan because the ref didn't blow the whistle in time, even becasue he was run over by an opposing player, than having a goal waved off, however correctly, because of the "intent" to blow the whistle. 

yotg

April 11th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

As I posted elsewhere, when a team is getting outworked on the boards, they usually draw more penalties. Sometimes those penalties are the right calls and sometimes not, but when you're chasing the play from behind (due to getting outworked) you get called for more penalties.  In hockey, you make your own breaks.

mnblue

April 11th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^

I was at the game, sitting down low in the M section which means I couldn't see the intent to blow play live at all. A buddy who was watching ESPN texted that it was the same situation as the Lynch non-goal against Miami last year so I spent the remainder of the period fuming at what an aweful rule intent to blow is. A bad call that early can't be blamed for the eventual result, but still...

Anyway, after watching the replay after I got home, I felt silly for the outrage I felt and encouraged within our section. The reason is simple, and has very little to do with the intent to blow rule: the decision to stop the play when the puck was under Reiter's pad was probably correct. A close call for sure, and a tough one for whichever team didn't get it, but probably correct (just as it was probably incorrect to allow Miami's goal against us last year when Hunwick covered the pick with his pad).

In the situation where the decision to stop play is correct, the intent to blow rule works fine and is probably even necessary. Think of the most obvious situation where a goalie covers the puck but an attacking player pokes it free in the moment before the ref can sound his whistle. Of course a goal shouldn't count under those circumstances, and "intent to blow" is the only way to ensure the right result.

However, in situations where it is obvious that there was no justification for stopping the play (see Lynch's OT non-goal last year) the intent to blow rule is as unjust and illogical as the original poster suggests. The rule should therefore be changed so that where replay conclusively shows that there was no basis to stop the play, everything that happened before the whistle actually did sound stands. That would allow common sense to prevail and lead to the right result in almost all situations.

Bottom line: we got screwed last year, but this year: not so much.

mnblue

April 11th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

I was at the game, sitting down low in the M section which means I couldn't see the intent to blow play live at all. A buddy who was watching ESPN texted that it was the same situation as the Lynch non-goal against Miami last year so I spent the remainder of the period fuming at what an aweful rule intent to blow is. A bad call that early can't be blamed for the eventual result, but still...

Anyway, after watching the replay after I got home, I felt silly for the outrage I felt and encouraged within our section. The reason is simple, and has very little to do with the intent to blow rule: the decision to stop the play when the puck was under Reiter's pad was probably correct. A close call for sure, and a tough one for whichever team didn't get it, but probably correct (just as it was probably incorrect to allow Miami's goal against us last year when Hunwick covered the pick with his pad).

In the situation where the decision to stop play is correct, the intent to blow rule works fine and is probably even necessary. Think of the most obvious situation where a goalie covers the puck but an attacking player pokes it free in the moment before the ref can sound his whistle. Of course a goal shouldn't count under those circumstances, and "intent to blow" is the only way to ensure the right result.

However, in situations where it is obvious that there was no justification for stopping the play (see Lynch's OT non-goal last year) the intent to blow rule is as unjust and illogical as the original poster suggests. The rule should therefore be changed so that where replay conclusively shows that there was no basis to stop the play, everything that happened before the whistle actually did sound stands. That would allow common sense to prevail and lead to the right result in almost all situations.

Bottom line: we got screwed last year, but this year: not so much.