Kukla's Korner Hockey
from Larry Brooks of the New York Post,
So Braden Holtby trips over his own skates after attempting to move the puck against a Luke Glendenning forecheck, the puck is shot into what becomes an empty net by the Red Wings in D.C. on Wednesday, referee Mike Leggo is watching the entire sequence from the right wing circle, doesn’t have his arm in the air signifying a penalty, and as soon as the puck goes in, he begins with the washout “no goal” signal.
Why? Why, even if the absurd goaltender interference call were made initially by referee Ghislain Hebert, out by the blue line, why didn’t Leggo correct him? Why wouldn’t he have told his partner he got it wrong? What was Leggo doing?
The NHL doesn’t need a coaches’ challenge. It needs referees who are unafraid to communicate with one another in order to make the correct call. It needs referees who don’t make calls — or reinforce them — based on things they never saw.
And the NHL needs a policy in which these referees actually have the responsibility to meet with the media — in the form of a designated pool reporter — after games to explain themselves, the way major league umpires do when there’s a controversial play.
more topics include Gordie Howe and some escrow talk...
added 4:22pm, Jim Matheson agrees with Brooks via tweets,
Agree whole-heartedly with @NYP_Brooskie that NHL is totally wrong not allowing refs to talk after games to pool reporter to discuss calls.
Mind you, NHL doesn't ever want us knowing who the zebras either by taking their name bars off.
from Jeff Z. Klein of the New York Times,
Anaheim Ducks defenseman Sami Vatanen felt a stick blade jab him in the face during a game last week against the San Jose Sharks. Vatanen fell and lifted his hand to his mouth, either to draw attention to the foul or simply as a reaction to being stabbed by a stick.
The referee Tim Peel blew his whistle for a high-sticking penalty against the Sharks — but he also penalized Vatanen for embellishment. Anaheim Coach Bruce Boudreau protested, but to no avail.
Peel judged Vatanen to be exaggerating, a violation of N.H.L. Rule 64, which calls for a two-minute penalty against “any player who blatantly dives” or “embellishes a fall or a reaction” to influence a referee. The call against Vatanen was part of a crackdown on what the league sees as rampant fakery among players.
“Embellishment in the game is a real problem today,” Colin Campbell, the N.H.L.’s senior executive vice president for hockey operations, said in June. “We understand players are trying to draw penalties. We feel it’s out of control.”
Or, as the bombastic hockey traditionalist Don Cherry once observed, “We’ve got to watch that we don’t start acting like those goofy soccer guys.”
continued and below, watch the Vatanen embellishment...
from Darren Dreger of The Dreger Report at TSN,
- As our video shows (click here to watch the video), L.A. Kings forward Jarret Stoll was tagged for tripping as Pittsburgh's Brandon Sutter went down inside the blue line. Stoll argued the call, but was swiftly directed to the penalty box by Greg Kimmerley who eventually waived Stoll out of the box after consulting with fellow referee Steve Kozari.
It's clear a mistake was made and this isn't the first time on-ice officials have rescinded a penalty. However, a similar scenario almost always includes a high-sticking infraction when a teammate has caused the foul, as recognized by one of the game's four officials.
This wasn't that case. This was a tripping call the Penguins might argue shouldn't have been called back.
As it turns out, Pittsburgh won the game and this isolated play had no impact on the outcome. However, while NHL officials shouldn't be beaten down for getting it right, some around the league worry about the precedent of this overturned call from now on. ...
- We're just over four months until the NHL trade deadline, so there's plenty of time for the Washington Capitals and veteran defenceman Mike Green to work on a contract extension. However, with the offseason signings of blueliners Matt Niskanen and Brooks Orpik, many believe Green may be viewed as the odd man out given the $6.08 million cap space he takes up.
from Sean Fitz-Gerald of the National Post,
Be honest: Who really got under your skin?
DVM: Claude Lemieux. [laughs] We just couldn’t get along on the ice. I gave him two 10-minute misconducts in one game, which I had never done to any player.
Did the emergence of video replay ever make you second-guess yourself?
DVM: No. Most our guys, I think, would tell you it’s been an asset to get the call right. We just knew it was there to be used to help us. You just have to react to what happens, and if the review shows it was different later, it’s not because you intended to be wrong. Mistakes happen.
18 more questions and answers...
The TSN Insiders discussed the no-goal in the Wings/Capitals game last night and also mentioned Scott Stevens may join the Department of Player Safety.
Also discussed was the cap issue with the Kings and NHL Safety meeting with NHL teams.
from Adam Proteau of The Hockey News,
The phrase “the straw that broke the camel’s back” is tossed around too often, but when it comes to expanded video review in the NHL, the goalie interference call assessed to Detroit’s Luke Glendening Wednesday night certainly qualifies. Thankfully, the spectacular botch job didn’t decide the game’s outcome, but the fact a call this bad could be agreed on between two referees should be deeply disconcerting to league officials and every team in the league....
And imagine what would happen if a similarly awful penalty/rescinded goal materialized in the final game of the regular season and the result of that game meant the difference between a team making or missing the playoffs. Imagine if a call like that went down during the playoffs – say, in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final – and there were no option for the officials to skate over to the penalty box area, check a video monitor for a few brief minutes and make sure they got the call right. Fans and media of the team on the wrong end of such a predicament would go apoplectic, and rightfully so; any league unwilling to utilize technology readily available to assure the integrity of its game is a league painfully out of touch with what fans demand in return for their investments of time, money and emotion.
If it ever got to that point, the NHL would need to hold an IPO to raise its stock to laughing status.
from Kerry Fraser of TSN,
Given the climate within the game that has evolved over the past number of seasons there is heightened awareness and sensitivity to player safety issues. Ongoing studies conducted by both NHL and independent medical experts provide scientific evidence and newfound knowledge that is slowly changing attitudes and redefining acceptable practices and behavior.
This is being addressed in part, with the addition of new rules relative to protective equipment. Last season visors became mandatory for any player with fewer than 25 games of NHL experience (rule 9.7). In addition, no player is allowed to remove his helmet prior to engaging in a fight. If he does so, a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct will be assessed under rule 46.6.
You witnessed a continuation of the player safety theme on Tuesday night when Linesmen Scott Driscoll and Greg Devorski demonstrated their good judgment and quick response to intervene in an altercation before it escalated to full-blown fisticuffs.
more and you can watch the incident below...
from Kerry Fraser of TSN,
Assuming the on-ice officials determined O'Reilly contacted the puck above the crossbar but below his shoulders the puck is eligible to be played by any player. We know that the puck did not enter the net directly off the stick of Ryan O'Reilly but instead glanced off Bruins goalie, Niklas Svedberg and then deflected into the net off the leg and skate of Dennis Everberg. Since there was no distinct kicking motion by Everberg, logic and common sense would indicate that this should be a good hockey goal.
Bill, this is where your question has exposed the contradiction!
Rule 80.3: When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent's goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed (This translates that the subsequent deflection of the puck off the leg and/or skate of Everberg should still result in no goal).
Only to be contradicted by Rule 78.4: If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal...
more and watch the play below...
“I think the new rule is a little absurd. It's all a judgment call by the referee. How do you judge how guys are on their balance, how they’re on their skates? What if they’re on one foot and on their turn a guy gets pushed? Does that mean that he has embellished?
“The fact that guys are going to start getting fined for it, I don't agree with that. It’s all the discretion of the referee and you’ve got to try to play within the rules. We’re going to try to find that line, but at end of the day, it’s up to the referees with what they want to call, and you’ve got to live with it.”
-Brad Marchand of the Boston Bruins on the diving/embellisment rule. More from DJ Bean of WEEI.
from Kerry Fraser of TSN,
The ref helmet cam is another piece of modern technology that provides a useful purpose within the game and I am pleased that it is being utilized. This camera shot not only enhances the television broadcast by taking the viewer directly onto the ice with sight and sound, but more specifically to gain a unique sightline on a play that is potentially shared by the referee. I offer the caveat "potentially" because while the helmet might be directed toward an area of the action it does not necessarily mean that the referee's eyes are 'lasered' into a specific location or segment of the play. Some of you might be rolling your eyes in disbelief at this suggestion but that is exactly what I'm talking about. Your head might not have moved as you rolled your eyes but I guarantee your focus of vision and attention most certainly would have changed.
A practical example how this might occur is during a scramble in the goal crease or as players crash the net. In this scenario the referee would drive toward the net along or preferably slightly ahead of the goal line from the corner to gain the best sightline on what might develop inside the crease. His various objectives would be to locate the puck and ascertain if it is playable; frozen; covered illegally by a defending player in the goal crease resulting in a penalty shot; goalkeeper interference or if another foul were to occur; and finally if the puck were to enter the net legally.
If you missed some of the video of the helmet cam in action, I did a post on it earlier today.
About Kukla's Korner Hockey
Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.
From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.
Email Paul anytime at firstname.lastname@example.org