Paul Stewart: Answer Me This...

Great follow-up to your last blog. I don't think the comparison of sending the refs home to benching a player is apples to apples, but otherwise I agree with your points.

The refs blew the call in my opinion. Obviously with your experience you have better knowledge and understanding. Regardless of the outcome of the game it should have been a minor at the most. The injury did not come from just the blatant cross check that goes uncalled many times a game. They reacted to an unfortunate injury caused by another hockey play by the player(Stastny) fighting for position. Refs going home in that case was to pacify the owners, teams, and players.

Paul, the thing is, you NEVER will admit that a ref made a bad call, or had a bad game. You always make excuses (like the rulebook is too vague, or rules contradict themselves). Well, the guys know this when they take the position, so they should be the best they can. They don't need you to make excuses for them (or do they)? We are all human, we all make mistakes, so sometimes we just have to say, yes, I wasn't at my best, I take ownership of my bad call (or mistake). I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs? Hell, at least put their names back on their sweaters.

Paul, the thing is, you NEVER will admit that a ref made a bad call, or had a bad game. You always make excuses (like the rulebook is too vague, or rules contradict themselves). Well, the guys know this when they take the position, so they should be the best they can. They don't need you to make excuses for them (or do they)? We are all human, we all make mistakes, so sometimes we just have to say, yes, I wasn't at my best, I take ownership of my bad call (or mistake). I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs? Hell, at least put their names back on their sweaters.
- powerenforcer

Well said, love it!

Good read, I agree we need less reviews and in fact I believe reviews need to be limited to certain situations on a more constrict scale. Even goal reviews aren't producing accurate results. There needs to be more transparency across the whole genre in hockey from the war room to the linesman.

Plays are all subject to video review now. By everyone in the building on the big screen, and by everyone at home watching the broadcast. The officials are literally the only people who don't know what happened on a lot of plays by the time the next puck drops. Welcome to the 21st century.

The only question these days is which calls are important enough that the game takes enough time to get them right, and which calls is it ok to let the officials screw the pooch on. And I think most fans would rather take the time to get a call right, than let the officials give one team a power play for nearly 10% of the game for no reason other than the referee failing to see what happened.

Paul, the thing is, you NEVER will admit that a ref made a bad call, or had a bad game. You always make excuses (like the rulebook is too vague, or rules contradict themselves). Well, the guys know this when they take the position, so they should be the best they can. They don't need you to make excuses for them (or do they)? We are all human, we all make mistakes, so sometimes we just have to say, yes, I wasn't at my best, I take ownership of my bad call (or mistake). I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs? Hell, at least put their names back on their sweaters.
- powerenforcer

Agreed

I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs?
- powerenforcer

Yep. I mean, the NHL refuses to even publicly acknowledge when it blew calls, it has to get leaked out that they apologized to the team for costing them the series. As much as Stewart complains about the NHL throwing officials under the bus, it actually does way to much to protect them.

Meanwhile, in baseball, you have situations like the one where Jim Joyce cost a pitcher a perfect game with a blown call; tearfully admits it after the game, and instead of being hated earns the respect of fans because it shows humility and just how much he cares about getting it right. How different would the optics be right now if O'Halloran had tearfully admitted to reporters after the game that he blew the call, wished he could go back and change things, that it's his worst nightmare to have a series be so effected by his mistake. There'd still be a conversation about whether majors should be subject to review, but fans would have a lot more faith in NHL officials.

Paul, I totally agree that the league was unfair to the referees in this instance. It would serve the league right if less experienced referees blow a major call in the Stanley Cup finals. The loss is 100% on Las Vegas, pure and simple.

With that said, I will stand by what I wrote previously where I said that while the referees (and you) may have been technically right according to the rule book I can't remember ever seeing a 5 minute major called on a crosscheck of this magnitude (including the apparent recklessness and frustration factors behind the crosscheck), most especially in the playoffs (in a game 7, no less).

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everything about the crosscheck itself (e.g. Eakin's recklessness and frustration) remains the same but the incidental trip after the crosscheck does not happen. Pavelski does not fall, hit head on the ice, and bleed but rather remains in the play (albeit impeded). Even if the rules allow for it would calling a 5 minute major still be appropriate? That would take serious brass balls to call the 5 minute major in this instance, even if technically allowed by the rule book.

Paul, what do you think about this crosscheck that Bortuzzo delivered on Malkin back on March 16th (2 seconds in, upper middle of the screen):
https://vimeo.com/324873689
The officials were Jean Hebert and Brad Meier. This was not even called a penalty and Malkin was out with a rib injury for a few weeks.

Paul, what do you think about this crosscheck that Bortuzzo delivered on Malkin back on March 16th (2 seconds in, upper middle of the screen):
https://vimeo.com/324873689
The officials were Jean Hebert and Brad Meier. This was not even called a penalty and Malkin was out with a rib injury for a few weeks.
- PghPens668771

Did they call the cross check on Kessel?

Paul, the thing is, you NEVER will admit that a ref made a bad call, or had a bad game. You always make excuses (like the rulebook is too vague, or rules contradict themselves). Well, the guys know this when they take the position, so they should be the best they can. They don't need you to make excuses for them (or do they)? We are all human, we all make mistakes, so sometimes we just have to say, yes, I wasn't at my best, I take ownership of my bad call (or mistake). I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs? Hell, at least put their names back on their sweaters.
- powerenforcer

He definitely does. He doesn't flame a guy though. That would be... gauche. He usually speaks in generalities instead of singling guys out. He constantly says they're not good enough at getting to the net to get the best possible view.

I can't believe Marchand got away with "don't do it again" as his form of discipline for cold cocking Harrington(?) while he was on his knees on the ice, and Marchand skates right to him, hesitates for a split second and pops him in the back of the head and skates away like nothing happened.

Bettman said it deserved a penalty and that if he did it again, he'd be suspended.

I understand the "everyone is human and makes .mistakes" argument, but at the same time considering that NHL refs are supposed to be the best in the world out if 7 billion people and they are paid multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to work for 3 hours a day, there are way too many obvious mistakes. We need robots that dont have emotions and can call the game based on the rule book instead of based on the score and situation. If a team is winning 15-0 and one of their players gets tripped, it's still a tripping penalty. Nowhere in the rule book does it state that if a team is blowing out another team that you stop giving them power plays.

Paul, the thing is, you NEVER will admit that a ref made a bad call, or had a bad game. You always make excuses (like the rulebook is too vague, or rules contradict themselves). Well, the guys know this when they take the position, so they should be the best they can. They don't need you to make excuses for them (or do they)? We are all human, we all make mistakes, so sometimes we just have to say, yes, I wasn't at my best, I take ownership of my bad call (or mistake). I think we as fans (at least I would) respect the refs more if they would face the media to talk about their game. The players have to own their play, why don't the refs? Hell, at least put their names back on their sweaters.
- powerenforcer

Couldn’t have said it better. I lost all respect for you Paul. You’re a joke. This is the last blog of yours I’ll waste my time on.
Peace

In this case, if the Golden Knights had not allowed four power play goals in a five-minute span, there's no controversy.

Sorry Paul but this logic reeks of desperation.

By your account, there would also have been no controversy had Stastny and Pav. not ran into each other, thus worsening the fall/injury...but the refs and apparently you don't seem to factor that in. You're saying the later effects from the initial cross check follow the play and will factor in determining the penalty....okay, so when does that end?...did it end when Stastny and Pav collide...because it's still a normal crosscheck by that point. Or if we're going to use your logic, let's say Pav wasn't injured on the fall to the ice, but then as he's getting up he gets hit with the puck and is severely injured...by your logic, and because the root cause of him being in the ice at that moment was the crosschech, then you're saying the end result injury of being hit with the puck MUST be factored into the original crosscheck...and that quite frankly is ridiculous!

I can't believe Marchand got away with "don't do it again" as his form of discipline for cold cocking Harrington(?) while he was on his knees on the ice, and Marchand skates right to him, hesitates for a split second and pops him in the back of the head and skates away like nothing happened.

Bettman said it deserved a penalty and that if he did it again, he'd be suspended.
- Wetbandit1

Until plays like this are punished, and punished severely (multi-game suspensions) any lip service Bettman and the League give to caring about concussions cannot be taken seriously.

In my opinion this was worse than most of the plays that generate suspensions because it had exactly 0% to do with game play.

It was a premeditated, intentional head shot, to a player in a vulnerable position, well outside of the normal flow of gameplay, and well after the whistle. If that’s not suspendable, then virtually nothing should be.

Dirtiest piece of poop in the league. Karma is coming for you Brad. It always catches up eventually.

Until plays like this are punished, and punished severely (multi-game suspensions) any lip service Bettman and the League give to caring about concussions cannot be taken seriously.

In my opinion this was worse than most of the plays that generate suspensions because it had exactly 0% to do with game play.

It was a premeditated, intentional head shot, to a player in a vulnerable position, well outside of the normal flow of gameplay, and well after the whistle. If that’s not suspendable, then virtually nothing should be.

Dirtiest piece of poop in the league. Karma is coming for you Brad. It always catches up eventually.
- Ogilthorpe2

Agreed. Marchand is a dirt bag. You'd think someone would've "got him" by now but they haven't. Why is that? He might finish his career without anyone "getting him."

Did they call the cross check on Kessel?
- Queenie_5_hole

No, and I would have been ok if they called both. Kessel's crosscheck was a reaction to being first crosschecked himself by Bouwmeester. Both Kessel's and Bouwmeester's were the "garden variety" that are almost never called (and were not). Bortuzzo's was a much more serious one that should have been called although if we are going to follow the rule book exactly, all three should have been called.

In this 17 second video there are three crosschecks, none of which were called. This really just illustrates my point - that crosschecking is usually not called, even for incidents that meet all of Paul's criteria. When it is called it is usually for bad incidents (excluding Bortuzzo's on Malkin above), repeated incidents, or just arbitrarily.

Until plays like this are punished, and punished severely (multi-game suspensions) any lip service Bettman and the League give to caring about concussions cannot be taken seriously.

In my opinion this was worse than most of the plays that generate suspensions because it had exactly 0% to do with game play.

It was a premeditated, intentional head shot, to a player in a vulnerable position, well outside of the normal flow of gameplay, and well after the whistle. If that’s not suspendable, then virtually nothing should be.

Dirtiest piece of poop in the league. Karma is coming for you Brad. It always catches up eventually.
- Ogilthorpe2

I think the problem is more the players's union than it is the league. When players (like Tom Wilson) get suspended they just appeal through their union, who usually back the suspended player with no regard to the other player who he injured, and a supposedly "independent" arbitrator reduces the length.

The league could have given Wilson a 50 game suspension for his preseason hit on Sundqvist (rather than 20) but it would be irrelevant if it still got reduced to 13 games by the union's arbitrator. Generally speaking, the older the player is, the more average a player is, and the more Canadian a player is the more support they get from the union. In that case Wilson had much more clout in the union. The only way a player can get the full measure of the NHL's longer suspensions is when the union stops backing them, like for example Raffi Torres.

As far Marchand, I would love to see him get nailed. He would never survive in the "old NHL". I can't imagine what the mid-70's Flyers teams would do to him.

I was shocked that the NHL sent those refs home.

Chickensh*t move.