Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Sharks VS the Habs, OCT. 26, 7:00 P.M. est. RDS, CBC, CSCA, TSN 690 Radio


kinot-1

Recommended Posts

Guest habs1952

The technology exists to improve the game IMO. More use of video or challenge system can't hurt. People cry it will slow down the game, but with all the TV time outs we have now, i just don't agree with that reasoning.

The NFL has 7 officials calling penalties on the field. The NHL should incorporate the linesmen in enforcing the rules too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's a major, major scandal. The kind that's tough to keep in house. Not 1 disgruntled ex ref would leak that the big bosses were giving them orders to impact the outcome of games? That's match fixing, it's SERIOUS. It would likely be criminal and people would be in MAJOR trouble. I refuse to believe it on logic, the risks severely outweigh the possible benefits. I believe there's a possibility for shady things, like refs doing things on their own, betting games, whatever. I wouldn't say it's likely but it's possible. Do I buy into the possibility of the NHL risking a 4 billion dollar industry to try and prop up the Sharks (who are doing fine)? No. I don't

Further to that, I have seen allegations by some fans but is there ANY evidence these teams get more PP's, or more key moment PP's than say Montreal, New York or Toronto, the rich teams that don't need help?

Compiling that kind of information in an empirical fashion event-by-event would be so time-consuming and/or expensive that it's likely only the NHL's internal quality control would have it, and potentially not for every game in league in a season.

Match fixing from the league office seems VERY implausible when you simply look at the fact that they'd have to involve a number of refs, over the course of years - decades and the fact that they would all lose everything if caught. Also the fact that Bettman works for all 30 owners and the most powerful owners are the richest ones. Snider, Dolan, Jacobs, Bell/Rogers. Why would Bettman go behind his biggest money makers backs like that while risking his job, reputation and possible criminal liability for fraud.

I think you're strawmanning this, to an extent, by immediately jumping to a massive top-down scenario that I don't think many people seriously believe is conceivable. It doesn't take this much to influence the outcome of games, on the macro or micro level.

Last week on the NHL Network's US highlights show, the NHL's head of officiating Stephen Walkom did a little interview/example thing with the anchors. In it, he outright said that the officials either have meetings or have a mailing list that gets updated every month, and they will occasionally make decisions based on these things. He specific stated that they'd sometimes decide that a particular penalty isn't being called enough/is being called too much/with the wrong standard/etc, and that they'd remedy it afterwards. I wish there was video of online, because it was rather shocking to see. In a game as fast as hockey, where snap judgments are quite often the only judgments you're given, do you seriously want to tell these guys to stop and add an extra level of thinking to their decisions? How is that going to in any way positively impact their reactions? And besides that, what happens if an individual ref disagrees? Is he really going to feel comfortable speaking out against his superiors in a league that still employes Colin Campbell?

Just because the concept of top-down malfeasance on a massive scale in the NHL is horribly unlikely doesn't mean their behaviour and manner is on the level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

Would have had Bell satellite. But there's too many trees in our backyard and the home owners aren't letting us use the roof. So we got Bell Fibe instead. Trying to convince my parents to get rogers.

Try to get RDS for $5 a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're strawmanning this, to an extent, by immediately jumping to a massive top-down scenario that I don't think many people seriously believe is conceivable. It doesn't take this much to influence the outcome of games, on the macro or micro level.

Last week on the NHL Network's US highlights show, the NHL's head of officiating Stephen Walkom did a little interview/example thing with the anchors. In it, he outright said that the officials either have meetings or have a mailing list that gets updated every month, and they will occasionally make decisions based on these things. He specific stated that they'd sometimes decide that a particular penalty isn't being called enough/is being called too much/with the wrong standard/etc, and that they'd remedy it afterwards. I wish there was video of online, because it was rather shocking to see. In a game as fast as hockey, where snap judgments are quite often the only judgments you're given, do you seriously want to tell these guys to stop and add an extra level of thinking to their decisions? How is that going to in any way positively impact their reactions? And besides that, what happens if an individual ref disagrees? Is he really going to feel comfortable speaking out against his superiors in a league that still employes Colin Campbell?

Just because the concept of top-down malfeasance on a massive scale in the NHL is horribly unlikely doesn't mean their behaviour and manner is on the level.

Well I would suggest I'm absolutely not strawmanning this because the initial discussion came from the implication the NHL is getting it's refs to try and help out poor teams to prop them up. The implication is obvious, there's no reason for an NHL ref to care about propping up failing franchises, the orders would have to come from the league office.

The only plausible way a scenario exists that involves NHL officials trying to prop up failing franchises involves league involvement and thus match fixing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

Really didn't like the momentum shift that the PP's gave SJ, Habs did come out with intensity and had some good pressure. Sometimes you have to give the other team credit, SJ aren't first in the west for nothing. They are a good team and did a good job of boxing us out. PK wasn't very visible tonight.

It seems every year SJ has a top team. Every year they exit the playoffs early. This year will be no different. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week on the NHL Network's US highlights show, the NHL's head of officiating Stephen Walkom did a little interview/example thing with the anchors. In it, he outright said that the officials either have meetings or have a mailing list that gets updated every month, and they will occasionally make decisions based on these things. He specific stated that they'd sometimes decide that a particular penalty isn't being called enough/is being called too much/with the wrong standard/etc, and that they'd remedy it afterwards. I wish there was video of online, because it was rather shocking to see. In a game as fast as hockey, where snap judgments are quite often the only judgments you're given, do you seriously want to tell these guys to stop and add an extra level of thinking to their decisions? How is that going to in any way positively impact their reactions? And besides that, what happens if an individual ref disagrees? Is he really going to feel comfortable speaking out against his superiors in a league that still employes Colin Campbell?

Just because the concept of top-down malfeasance on a massive scale in the NHL is horribly unlikely doesn't mean their behaviour and manner is on the level.

No problem with that, if an NHL ref disagrees with what is/what isn't a penalty he shouldn't go against his superiors. If the head of officiating watched a lot of games around the league and said hooking isn't being called upto standard and sent a memo out saying, make sure we start calling the hooks again. That's fine by me, all sports leagues are run that way. It's interesting to hear Walkom's openness. Trying to take the ref's discretion of out it is a major part of the goal IMO. Call the rulebook. I think a lack of transparency is more of an issue than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

On 1, logic would tell me that the Habs having the most PP's the last 2 years makes sense, uptempo style, quick little players. Is there a team out there who has the most missed calls? Yeah, there has to be a number 1 but it's a TOTAL guessing game. I don't see the Habs dealing with more missed calls than the opposition. Some games, like tonight sure, some games other way. I just don't notice the bias. If we're already 1 in drawing PP's (by a pretty fair margin), it's hard to imagine us also being 1 in missed calls. Should we really be getting THAT many more powerplays than everyone?

On 2, it's a more interesting point but it would take a lot of work. I don't know how much it applies to the Habs, haven't noticed that a vast majority of our PP's come in garbage time. They didn't bother trying to even it up tonight in garbage time. I'm sure someone would look it up, our PP really helped drive our success last year. Strong % and an absolute ton of PP opportunities.

Even if the NHL had their favorites though, do you think they'd manage to incorporate that down to the refs? Like whisper in their ear, hey give Boston as many advantages as you can? Boston, I believe has the worst PP/PK ratio in the league since forever, at least that's what I read. They are often near the bottom of the league in PP chances and you know what? On logic, that makes sense to me, slow team, a bit dirty, lumbering all over the ice. Do I think there maybe biases in the suspension game? Yeah I do, I think it's pretty clear star players get special treatment.

There's more involvement from the league higher ups in the suspension game, so I do see some room for that kind of junk there, at least more so. I'm not sure I can see a league higher up saying ANYTHING like that to an on ice official, like I said, match fixing like that (which is really what it would be), is VERY VERY serious.

Match fixing in the NHL seems so implausible that nobody would believe it would ever happen. And that's exactly why I believe it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that dissappointed,in last nights game,I think they just have some better players,more experienced,bigger and just as fast as us,Ditto some of the non calls and calls,but what can you do once the game is over,it's over.

One thing I will say about SJ,they don't seem to have stay at home D men,no wander they let Murry go,but they were very fast,we did some good things,and played pretty hard,unlucky bounce on the second goal.After all SJ is one of the best we are only 3/4of the way there, just need some of our kids to grow up a bit more.

Tomorrow is another day,another game.

GO HABS GO :wub::wub: :wub: :wub::wub::wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...