PDA

View Full Version : Denver at North Dakota: Big Rivalry, Big Weekend



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

VarsityWisconsin
01-26-2010, 10:51 AM
You cant be serious. If what you say is true, then the whole UM program should be scrapped. At this level, desire really isnt the problem. That program has some serious internal problems. Your posts are truly entertaining, but usually so far off that they are laughable. Try watching from the sidelines before you go spouting off about a topic that is, apparently, foreign to you.

stev

What would be those "serious internal problems"? When you can get any blue chip recruit you want from any state, the talent is there to put up 5 on anybody. Your guess is internal problems as to why they suck. My guess is desire.

Puck Swami
01-26-2010, 11:19 AM
No, the way to lose control of a game is "situational officiating" and to not call the penalties as they happen, by the rule book.

If a team commits five, ten, or fifty penalties in a row that's not the officials' or the opponent's fault. I'll be the first to admit there've been times where UND should've had ten in a row called on them. But I've also seen times when ten in a row should've been called on an opponent. But the referee's "next penalty" marble was in the wrong pocket for it to happen. And that's when tempers flaired and officials lost control.

The old slogan I've heard teachers use applies here: "I don't give grades, you earn them." Officials don't give penalties, you commit them.

Oh, and one more thing: Coaches shouldn't be allowed to try to "negotiate away" penalties on them or "negotiate for" penalties on the other side.

Call 'em consistently. "Situational officiating" isn't consistently.



I've had discussions about this with many referees over the years, and this is not a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of grey. I agree with you in theory - a penalty is a penalty and should be called when it happens. But I also believe there is no such thing as 'consistency' in officiating. It's all a matter of judgement. Consistency simply doesn't exist because players on both teams are committing some level of penalty on every shift, and if refs actually called every penalty they saw according to the rule book, we'd have the entire game played on special teams, which would suck.

Refs get paid to use their judgement wisely, and they are employed for a higher purpose -- first and foremost, they are on the ice to make sure that things stay under safe control between the two teams. Secondly, they are there to establish the conditions so that both teams have a fair shot to win the game on their own merits. They are not just on the ice to call penalties. Penalties are just an instrument of this control, and serve that higher purpose of safe game control and to esablish proper, fair conditions.

When penalties are called continuously on just one side, the refs gradually lose control of the game because the perception of fairness between the teams dissipates and human nature takes over. Refs let some penalties go because the perception of fairness and protecting the overall control and flow of the game is more important than just penalizing teams. Refs usually call just enough penalties to keep the teams focused on playing the game and not hurting each other.

Accordingly, I believe that it is often in the best interest of the game to not let the penalties get out of hand for one team and not the other. Since both teams could likely be called for a penalty on almost any given shift, I think it's in the best interest of the game to call them as you see them, but with the 'fairness of the game' always in the back of your mind. That's why penalties usually tend to even up over the course of the game, because the Refs know that the perception of fairness and game control/flow is more important than calling penalties everytime you see one.

vizoroo
01-26-2010, 01:04 PM
I've had discussions about this with many referees over the years, and this is not a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of grey. I agree with you in theory - a penalty is a penalty and should be called when it happens. But I also believe there is no such thing as 'consistency' in officiating. It's all a matter of judgement. Consistency simply doesn't exist because players on both teams are committing some level of penalty on every shift, and if refs actually called every penalty they saw according to the rule book, we'd have the entire game played on special teams, which would suck.

Refs get paid to use their judgement wisely, and they are employed for a higher purpose -- first and foremost, they are on the ice to make sure that things stay under safe control between the two teams. Secondly, they are there to establish the conditions so that both teams have a fair shot to win the game on their own merits. They are not just on the ice to call penalties. Penalties are just an instrument of this control, and serve that higher purpose of safe game control and to esablish proper, fair conditions.

When penalties are called continuously on just one side, the refs gradually lose control of the game because the perception of fairness between the teams dissipates and human nature takes over. Refs let some penalties go because the perception of fairness and protecting the overall control and flow of the game is more important than just penalizing teams. Refs usually call just enough penalties to keep the teams focused on playing the game and not hurting each other.

Accordingly, I believe that it is often in the best interest of the game to not let the penalties get out of hand for one team and not the other. Since both teams could likely be called for a penalty on almost any given shift, I think it's in the best interest of the game to call them as you see them, but with the 'fairness of the game' always in the back of your mind. That's why penalties usually tend to even up over the course of the game, because the Refs know that the perception of fairness and game control/flow is more important than calling penalties everytime you see one.


Swami, I understand what you are saying, but what bothers me and most fans is when a "ticky tacky" or questionable call is made and moments later something blatant and possibly injurious to the player is not called.

The Sicatoka
01-26-2010, 02:55 PM
I've had discussions about this with many referees over the years, and this is not a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of grey. I agree with you in theory - a penalty is a penalty and should be called when it happens. But I also believe there is no such thing as 'consistency' in officiating. It's all a matter of judgement. Consistency simply doesn't exist because players on both teams are committing some level of penalty on every shift, and if refs actually called every penalty they saw according to the rule book, we'd have the entire game played on special teams, which would suck.

Refs get paid to use their judgement wisely, and they are employed for a higher purpose -- first and foremost, they are on the ice to make sure that things stay under safe control between the two teams. Secondly, they are there to establish the conditions so that both teams have a fair shot to win the game on their own merits. They are not just on the ice to call penalties. Penalties are just an instrument of this control, and serve that higher purpose of safe game control and to esablish proper, fair conditions.

When penalties are called continuously on just one side, the refs gradually lose control of the game because the perception of fairness between the teams dissipates and human nature takes over. Refs let some penalties go because the perception of fairness and protecting the overall control and flow of the game is more important than just penalizing teams. Refs usually call just enough penalties to keep the teams focused on playing the game and not hurting each other.

Accordingly, I believe that it is often in the best interest of the game to not let the penalties get out of hand for one team and not the other. Since both teams could likely be called for a penalty on almost any given shift, I think it's in the best interest of the game to call them as you see them, but with the 'fairness of the game' always in the back of your mind. That's why penalties usually tend to even up over the course of the game, because the Refs know that the perception of fairness and game control/flow is more important than calling penalties everytime you see one.

In the immortal words of John McEnroe, “You can not be serious.”


But I also believe there is no such thing as 'consistency' in officiating. It's all a matter of judgement (sic).

Allow me to call this what it is: Unneutered male bovine excrement.

The only thing an official has out there is professionalism and credibility. When you stop being consistent you become incredible, and unprofessional. I’ve told many a batter that they don’t have to like my strike zone, but it’s there, the same, for every hitter, every at bat, every team. It doesn’t change when someone’s about to lose via a ten-run rule.


if refs actually called every penalty they saw according to the rule book, we'd have the entire game played on special teams,

No. Fallacy. Pure fantasy. The teams, players, and coaches would adapt, adjust, improvise. Those that wouldn’t, yes, they’d spend some quality “box” time. Don’t believe me? Three letters: N. H. L. They changed how they call it and the teams adjusted.

Don't like "N.H.L?" How about I.I.H.F. Seems to me that many WCHA players went to World Juniors and thrived under IIHF consistent and by the book officiating. So don't tell me that it can't happen. Those players adjusted in days.


to establish the conditions so that both teams have a fair shot to win the game on their own merits

More rubbish. The rule book establishes the “conditions”. The officials need to enforce it. Equally. Consistently. The only “merits” in question are those of the rule book.

Merit doesn’t win games. Talent and skill wins games. But is the talent and skill being allowed to come out or is it being stifled by the desire for both teams to have a “fair shot.”


When penalties are called continuously on just one side, the refs gradually lose control of the game because the perception of fairness between the teams dissipates and human nature takes over.

Wrong. If the calls are per the rule book and consistently applied it will be obvious even to the most strident pundit that they are earned by the infracting team.


the perception of fairness

That is the ultimate definition of “situational officiating”.

If I didn’t know better I’d swear that you are an “officiating consultant” for the WCHA Administration.

Sorry, but Joe Bertagna (http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,9725/ColorCodedCalls) > (Bruce McLeod + Greg Shepherd).

The Sicatoka
01-26-2010, 03:20 PM
Given it's a USCHO column I have no qualms about reproducing it here (emphasis added):



Color Coded Calls

by Joe Bertagna/Special Columnist

Jan. 24, 2005 — I stayed home recently to watch a Hockey East game on television. After a first period dotted with a number of minor penalty calls, a player was interviewed by the roving ice-level commentator. When the broadcaster asked the sweaty iceman how the calls affected the flow of the first period, the player answered, “Yeah, it was pretty tough out there. Hopefully the ref will let us play in the second period.”

It is at a time like this that I wish my remote was equipped with a “TRANSLATE” button. This could be a TIVO-like feature that, when pushed, rewinds to the last quote and adds sub-titles at the bottom of your screen, so you can understand what the last speaker meant. (Just think how helpful this could be at, say, a George Bush press briefing.) In this instance, the sub-titles would read, “I hope we can break the rules in the second period and the ref won’t call penalties.”

The “Let Them Play” culture (heretofore designated as “LTP”) has been widely accepted, to one degree or another. I feel safe in asserting that a rather large majority of players, coaches and fans accepts the notion that a referee should not call every literal violation of every rule in the book. That said, what many of us have concluded is that the “LTP” pendulum has swung so far in the direction of anarchy that something had to be done to reverse the trend. And thus was born the directive that went out from the NCAA this past fall and reiterated earlier this month.

As has been observed by many, “LTP” usually means let a defender play. Rarely, does it apply to an offensive player, except, perhaps, when an offensive player tries to “pick” a defender in a set play off a face-off. And so the “LTP” phenomenon, when taken to the extreme, comes at a cost to the offense more than the defense.

What those of us in support of this year’s directive are trying to do, in effect, is change the culture. If you watch all levels of play from youth hockey through our college game, you are exposed time and again to players getting called for obvious violations of the book who routinely throw their arms up in shock that they are being penalized.

If you could interview these poor souls, you would discover that in many instances, they won’t argue that what they did was not a violation of the rules. They just can’t believe the ref called it. They expect things to be let go as part of the game. That’s why when the NCAA decided to identify three situations that officials had to call tightly this season, it was considered controversial and resulted in a distinct period of adjustment.

If many of us have our way, this season will represent the start of a longer and more thorough process whose goal is to recapture the game we once had. The three situations identified this year should remain as targets for our officials. But we should expand our focus. And it is likely that when the college hockey community meets in Naples, FL, in April, the gathering will not only look back to see how effective this year’s initiative was, but to discuss going forward into new battlefields.

What those areas are remains to be seen. I, for one, would like to see other parts of our culture attacked so that we eliminate from our speech the following:

“How can you put us down 5-on-3?” (Hey coach, isn’t your player who slashed the guy in front of the net the one who put you down 5-on-3?) “That’s a terrible call at that time of the game!” (But it would be, what, a good call ten minutes earlier?)


“That’s five in a row on us, ref. When do they get one?” (Ah, when they commit the same violation as your five guys just did.)

“C’mon, that was just a little hook.” (You are right. And it caused a little obstruction. That caused a little delay in his getting to the net. Which caused a big difference in the type of scoring opportunity your worthy opponent got out of the play.)

“Do you believe an ‘AR’ made that call?” (Let’s see. You don’t dispute it was a penalty. Your problem is that this official called it instead of that official, right?)

And this brings us to a likely topic for Florida and beyond: the role of the assistant ref. Most people agree that the game is increasingly difficult for one official to call. Yet coaches, in a desire for predictability on a given game night, vocally oppose a two-ref system. And so we have created this system that no one really likes. The poor “AR” must, at the same time, determine if a violation of the rules took place AND if the referee saw it. He is only supposed to whistle the infraction if he is sure that it was indeed a violation AND his buddy didn’t see it.

On top of those restrictions, I am still afraid that some referees make it known that they would prefer their partners to be less active rather than more active. And so when an “AR” does step up and make a call, as he should, it’s considered rather bold of the guy, rather than a routine act of responsibility.

I think I have come up with a solution that will address the need for two men calling penalties and the coaches’ desire for predictability. Borrowing from Tom Ridge and the Homeland Security system of color coded terror alerts, I say we arm the officials with a collection of different colored arm bands. Here’s how it would work:

If a referee intends to call a moderate type of game, no crackdown and no “LTP” mode, he wears an orange arm band. If he intends to call it tight, he wears red. If he is in “LTP” mode, he wears yellow. Now, this allows different refs to wear different colors or for a given ref to change bands from one period to another or even within a period.

Can’t you see it? One ref is wearing orange and the other has on a red band. Then, during a TV timeout with five minutes to go and the score knotted at 2-2, they both go to the bench and put on their yellow arm bands. Wait, it gets better. This system is so efficient that it could accommodate such intricate situations as an overtime power play.

Let’s say that someone commits such a flagrant slash in overtime that both refs raise their arms and acknowledge the call. Well, in today’s culture, few people want to see a potential 5-on-3 in overtime. In fact, my poll says most people expect a so-called “make-up” call against the team on the power play so that a 4-on-4 situation will result. So, with the color coded arm bands, the refs go to a two-band approach. On one arm, they wear white, indicating that the team that is already down a player will be subject to Code White. That means that anything short of a firearms violation will not be called.

On the other arm, the refs wear black. The team that is on the power play will be subject to Code Black. That means that if they even look hard at an opposing player, they will be called for a minor. All of this just acknowledges openly what everyone in the building is thinking anyway.

Before I hear from the Rules Committee or one of my Hockey East directors, this is offered with tongue planted firmly in cheek. But if we don’t take a serious look at our hockey culture in regards to how the game is called, we might as well order the arm bands and acknowledge what already takes place on a typical Friday or Saturday night.

Joe Bertagna, a former Chair of the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee, is the Commissioner of the Hockey East Association and Executive Director of the American Hockey Coaches Association.

The Sicatoka
01-26-2010, 03:22 PM
Grabbing one of Bertagna's points:


you would discover that in many instances, they won’t argue that what they did was not a violation of the rules. They just can’t believe the ref called it.

They can't believe the ref called it.

That tells me that the ref isn't being consistent.

No consistency ==> No control ==> No credibility and no professionalism.

brianvf
01-26-2010, 03:30 PM
It was mentioned by a poster on ss.com that possibly both Hextall and Knight would be ready to play this weekend. No confirmation on either, but I'm sure we'll find out more tomorrow during media day. If both can play it would be a huge boost to UND's offense. Plus, Gwoz would have reason to bring his ice walking shoes. :)

The Sicatoka
01-26-2010, 03:44 PM
One more mini-rant/observation:

Don't forget that it was on the heels of DU's national championship that the NCAA called for an end to interference and an end to situational officiating. (It was criticism of the NCAA's action that caused Bertagna to write his column.)

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a Disciple of Gwoz would prefer "the perception of fairness" to true fairness.

PCM
01-26-2010, 03:45 PM
It was mentioned by a poster on ss.com that possibly both Hextall and Knight would be ready to play this weekend. No confirmation on either, but I'm sure we'll find out more tomorrow during media day. If both can play it would be a huge boost to UND's offense. Plus, Gwoz would have reason to bring his ice walking shoes. :)
I highly recommend these (http://thewarmingstore.com/noslipicegrips1.html?gclid=CMymmL6Cw58CFQ3yDAodE1b DOw). :cool:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-11545572856523_2081_745431

Puck Swami
01-26-2010, 05:36 PM
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, “You can not be serious.”

To address your contentions, I think you may be mistaking intent for reality.

Consistency just doesn't exist at any level. It's a pipe dream. Refs might shoot for it but they never attain it. No refs ever calls the same penalty, the same way every time. They are constantly using their judgment based on the game scenario. Every game is full of hundreds and hundreds of uncalled penalties, many of them right in front of the refs. Watch any slo-mo replay and you'll usually see a penalty or two, most of which never get called. It's part of the game and refs let sometimes let stuff go becuase they don't want games to be decided solely by special teams. NHL and IIHF games also have many uncalled penalties, too. 'Situational' officiating still exisists because a fairly officiated game is about much more than just calling penalties by the book - good refs undertand the dynamics of the game and do the best job they can to ensure a safe and fair contest. It's never as black and white on the ice as it is in the rulebook. That's why you see refs sometime swallowing whistles late in games. That's why penalties tend to even out on the scoresheet. That's why clear 5-minute fighting penalties suddentyl become double minor roughing penalties. Judgement is what refs get paid for - not just calling penalties.

Mike Rane
01-26-2010, 07:42 PM
I highly recommend these (http://thewarmingstore.com/noslipicegrips1.html?gclid=CMymmL6Cw58CFQ3yDAodE1b DOw). :cool:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-11545572856523_2081_745431

Get with the times, PCM.:p :)

What's really required are broomball shoes. These employ the "suction" devices on the bottom to aide in dance moves and prevent unexpected slips and falls.:D

http://www.broomball.com/ecomm/img/lg/9.jpg

PCM
01-26-2010, 08:45 PM
Get with the times, Swami.:p :)
I'm the one not with the times...not that anyone's surprised by that. :p

The Rube
01-26-2010, 09:08 PM
Grabbing one of Bertagna's points:



They can't believe the ref called it.

That tells me that the ref isn't being consistent.

No consistency ==> No control ==> No credibility and no professionalism.

Talking with some refs in the past couple seasons, and asking about a couple calls and why they called it as such, I remember one instance where some thought it was a CFB, and others thought it was a simple roughing (it was called roughing). The reason? The victim's head was up, not down.

So, taking from that, along with some of the other reasons they called/didn't call a penalty, something that simple/minute was the difference in a player being ejected or serving two minutes.

Now, repeat those minute differences for 60 minutes, along with the speed of the game, the style of play (a UND/MN series is more physical than say, a Tech/SCSU game), etc, inconsistency becomes more apparent.

I'm not defending the refs 100%, because they do make mistakes, they are human after all, but many (if not most) have legitimate reasons for calling what they call most of the time.

dggoddard
01-26-2010, 09:30 PM
One more mini-rant/observation:

Don't forget that it was on the heels of DU's national championship that the NCAA called for an end to interference and an end to situational officiating. (It was criticism of the NCAA's action that caused Bertagna to write his column.)

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a Disciple of Gwoz would prefer "the perception of fairness" to true fairness.Please explain why "home" teams get one extra power play on average per game. NHL, WCHA, Major Juniors, it doesn't matter. The crowds influence the referees and they make calls accordingly.

You really need to start reading some hockey referee blogs. All the things that Swami talks about are out there. The great referees let the game dictate their style of refereeing and the make adjustments.

When you compared a baseball strike zone to any given hockey play you unwittingly proved Swami's point. A strike zone is a two dimensional situation, while on any given moment on the ice there are two or more players to watch, a puck, multiple sticks, blue lines, goal lines & goal creases to keep track of. Plus every single player out there is trying to "cheat" the rules to the degree that they can get away with it.


From The Hockey Referee Blog (http://ultimateofficials.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-dont-doubt-it-one-bit.html)

"I am just saying it is human nature, and if you try to combat this by being a 100% "Book" Referee, you will not go very far. "Book" referees are the strict disciplinarians who call everything right by the book. These guys are told they have "no feel" for the game. I agree. A "Book" Referee can be good...but...he will never be great."

Goon
01-26-2010, 09:58 PM
I wonder what the over and under of Gwoz doing a dasher dance this weekend? Maybe we will see Gwoz stroll across the ice this weekend.

Also, I would love to see Todd Anderson ref these weekend's games, it only seems fitting. Gwoz seems to love Anderson’s officiating and when ever the two are together it does play out in some good theater.

If Anderson refs there will be both a dasher dance or two and a stroll across the ice and your classic Donnybrook...

SiouxTechie
01-27-2010, 01:25 AM
I forgot to put in my daily "Go Sioux" :)

The Sicatoka
01-27-2010, 09:00 AM
dgoddard: Using a blog as a definitive reference? I thought Wikipedia was the gold-standard. ;)

Do refs see everything that happens on the ice? No. Can't. They're human.

But why was a second ref put out onto the college ice? To see more, and not just to observe, analyze, consider, put into context, and ponder the relativity of, but to call.

Once you start letting "relativism" into the officiating, how will we know when it was a "judgement call" or if someone had ten C-notes on it with "Vinny Da Book" down on the corner? (See: N.B.A.)

Dirty
01-27-2010, 09:32 AM
dgoddard: Using a blog as a definitive reference? I thought Wikipedia was the gold-standard. ;)

I don't see a problem with this.

Sioux Split. Gwoz does the Charleston.

dggoddard
01-27-2010, 10:25 AM
dgoddard: Using a blog as a definitive reference? I thought Wikipedia was the gold-standard. ;)

Do refs see everything that happens on the ice? No. Can't. They're human.

But why was a second ref put out onto the college ice? To see more, and not just to observe, analyze, consider, put into context, and ponder the relativity of, but to call.

Once you start letting "relativism" into the officiating, how will we know when it was a "judgement call" or if someone had ten C-notes on it with "Vinny Da Book" down on the corner? (See: N.B.A.)The second ref should slow down the "make up calls." But lets face it, there are certain times in a game when most fans will say, "The next call will be on Team X" and be right 90% of the time.

All these WCHA refs in the offensive zone sure clogs things up. Refs are getting hit with pucks and running into players all the time this season. Last weekend in Sconnie a DU player on a breakaway was run into by a ref. They should have thrown the ref in the Penalty Box for interference.

DU Sweeps: Sioux supporters adhere to new "Fan Code Of Conduct"

The Sicatoka
01-27-2010, 10:42 AM
I have a solution for too many zebras on the ice, but it involves ... {gasp! <-- that's for dramatic effect} ... technology. :eek: