| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
 Posted - 05/09/2011 : 17:47:01
|
What an atrocious call in the first period of tonight's game between the Canucks and Predators! I often wish the referees would make more unsportsmanlike diving calls, but the call on Tootoo was not justified.
I've seen numerous embellishments these playoffs, and indeed, in this series. To make such a call in game six causes me to scratch my head. (A deciding game which could see the Predators eliminated.)
I'm pulling for Vancouver in this series, and while I'm happy the Canucks scored on the ensuing power play, they got a beneficial call on that one! Gotta get back to the game, with hopes that the officials do not try to atone for the bad call.
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 17:49:34
|
| Jeez.- I just made my posting, and sure enough, the officials just called a penalty on Vancouver for knocking the stick out of Tootoo's hand. That looked more like embellishment than the first call! Please - just let them play! |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 20:13:00
|
Are you suggesting that the play was not a dive? Or that it was but it should not have been called?
It was a dive, the replay's showed pretty clearly that he threw himself to the ice. Probably not called in the 3rd period, but in the first period - after NSH has had back-to-back powerplays - if the refs are making a point to call it, then yeah, why not. After game 5, Barry Trotz complained heavily about the diving/embellishment from the Canucks, and the ref's have been clamping down on it league wide since then, in fact they seem to have made a point of it. So I was not surprised to see it really.
There were many non-calls throughout the night that might have been penalties in other games to both teams, and the announcers speculated that over-embellishment was the reason for more than one.
So, if they're making a point of calling more of them (or withholding other calls due to embellishment from the offended), then do it - but be consistent about it. |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 21:26:47
|
I'm not surprised that a Canuck fan would see it as a dive, but I've seen more egregious examples of embellishment, and on both sides.
Once again, I was cheering for Vancouver, but I thought the call on Tootoo was a bit surprising. I mean how many times do referees call unsportsmanlike diving? And in the playoffs?
Getting back to Tootoo - he's no dummy. He knew the referees we're looking for an even-up call, so a shift ot two later, he "allowed" his stick to be "slashed" out of his hands knowing that the officials never make unsportmanlike calls when a player embellishes when their stick is knocked out of his hands, and with a quick and surprised reaction after losing his stick, it was actually more likely that the Canucks would be penalized on the play. He was right, and if the Predators scored on the ensuing power play, his tactics would have worked.
The end result was that the Canucks won this game on their own merit, and good for them. I've stated it before, and I will state it again - referees make bad calls, and just like bad bounces, bad luck, etc., it's in the players' hands to get past all of these obstacles, and that's what great teams do. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 21:59:48
|
quote:
I'm not surprised that a Canuck fan would see it as a dive, but I've seen more egregious examples of embellishment, and on both sides.
Once again, I was cheering for Vancouver, but I thought the call on Tootoo was a bit surprising. I mean how many times do referees call unsportsmanlike diving? And in the playoffs?
You seem more concerned with the timing and type of the penalty, rather than the action itself. Again, did you think that it was diving or not?
IMO, it was a penalty offense. The fact that its not called often does not detract from that (I haven't seen clipping called since last century, but Ballard was given a penalty for it in game 1). The refs, several games ago, made a collective decision to clamp down on diving infractions league wide. Last night in the DET/SJ game, there was a diving call made as an offsetting penalty. They're starting to call it more, and you'll probably see more in the coming weeks, so get used to it.
The only reason that this particular diving call resulted in a PP (IMO) was that the action that prompted Tootoo to fall to the ice was not in itself a penalty - had it been, I think we would have seen offsetting minors, or no penalties given at all. There were other instances during the game where a penalty might have been given on an infraction but the ref might have held off because of an embellishment (for example the punch to Burrow's face late in the game when he threw his head back). I have no problem - so long as they're consistent with the calls.
IMO, the slash on Tootoo 8 minutes later was a legitimate penalty in its own right - there was no makeup call, Higgins deserved 2 minutes and got it. |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 22:31:05
|
To answer your question whether Tootoo dove or not, I can't disagree with you completely. It looked like a dive to me, no different though than many other times when I've seen or suspected diving. My original comment was "in the moment," and my later opinion is somewhat less absolute (as most things are with perspective, reflection and time), but I still maintain that the call was surprising.
We can agree to disagree, and while I recognize and appreciate your point of view, I believe that the original call on Tootoo was wrong. I really believe that Tootoo "allowed" his stick to leave his hands on the second "infraction" to get an even-up call, but we will never know for certain. Even if we asked Tootoo himself what actually happened, we would still not know with certainty.
My greater point is that I wish the referees would allow the players to play, and not call every insignificant infraction. (And I think that the original call on Tootoo was frivilous.)
NHL referees will actually admit that they could theoretically call numerous infractions every shift, but the best ones don't. To call a game "by the books" would bring NHL games to a
standstill, and games would thus be decided by the best teams on special teams rather
than 5-on-5.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 07:10:21
|
I have no problem with the diving call on Tootoo. What I take issue with is the inconsistency of calls, specfically since Gillis went on his little childish rant. Trotz layed out tons of examples of embelishments the Canucks participated in and nothing.
Where is the honor??? |
|
|
|
Guest0436
( )
|
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 07:35:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8149
To answer your question whether Tootoo dove or not, I can't disagree with you completely. It looked like a dive to me, no different though than many other times when I've seen or suspected diving. My original comment was "in the moment," and my later opinion is somewhat less absolute (as most things are with perspective, reflection and time), but I still maintain that the call was surprising.
We can agree to disagree, and while I recognize and appreciate your point of view, I believe that the original call on Tootoo was wrong. I really believe that Tootoo "allowed" his stick to leave his hands on the second "infraction" to get an even-up call, but we will never know for certain. Even if we asked Tootoo himself what actually happened, we would still not know with certainty.
My greater point is that I wish the referees would allow the players to play, and not call every insignificant infraction. (And I think that the original call on Tootoo was frivilous.)
NHL referees will actually admit that they could theoretically call numerous infractions every shift, but the best ones don't. To call a game "by the books" would bring NHL games to a
standstill, and games would thus be decided by the best teams on special teams rather
than 5-on-5.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 08:36:20
|
The inconsistency is something i think everyone agrees with, has been a problem for the entire playoffs, not just this series or the last Canucks one.
I do find it funny that Gillis' complaint was a "little childish rant", but Trotz's words were simply "laying out examples....". Lol
Let's face it, Trotz did essentially the EXACT same thing, just worded it differently. He complained about the officiating while making it look as though he was complimenting the refs. Quite brilliant in fact, even saved himself a fine!
Maybe if the Preds/Trotz were sick of the Canucks "throwing back their heads", they should have tried stopping punching them after the whistle! There was a classic example last night (sorry, don't remember which Canuck "head snapper") where a Pred threw a punch, after the whistle at the Canucks player, landing it near his chin. Did the head snap back? YUP, even though i don't think there was contact there (it hit his upper chest), however, i know if anyone throws a punch anywhere near my face, my instant reaction is to move my head away from the punch.
What i saw through my Orca glasses (still not sure what those must look like ) was a team trying unsuccessfully to goad the Canucks into penalties after the whistle. This tactic worked brilliantly the past two seasons but unfortunately for their foes, the Canucks have finally learned their lesson and choose now to refrain from the costly retaliation they've lowered themselves to in the past!
Do i think there could / should have been a few other calls agains the Canucks? Sure. Henrik a few times fell on nudges after the whistle that my grandma wouldn't have even flinched at. I'd even say that the inconsistency probably favoured the Canucks, albeit slightly. I'll also say, the Preds could have gotten a few more pp's and prob gone 1 fer 4 million with the way they ran that inept, sorry excuse for a pp.
Bottom line is, the better team won. The team that controlled virtually 90% of the play throughout 6 games won. The team with the better special teams won. The Preds had no answer for Ryan Kesler who carried his team throughout this series.
Props to the Preds for a great year and for making round 2 for the first time ever. Props to their fans, from everything i've heard, their stadium was loud. The media here was quite surprised at the support in fact! Their team never quit, and had it been slightly deeper with a little more offensive skill, things may have been different. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 09:48:10
|
I absolutely agree that the better team won. I also see the Gillis "childish" vs Trotz "laying out examples" as they very same thing. But you admittedly agree that one was more tactful than the other. Maybe next time, if Trotz whines and complains, someone will listen.
The Canucks are a better team than the Preds and there is no doubt about it. However, the calls need to be the same on both sides of the ice. That's all I am saying. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 10:04:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I absolutely agree that the better team won. I also see the Gillis "childish" vs Trotz "laying out examples" as they very same thing. But you admittedly agree that one was more tactful than the other. Maybe next time, if Trotz whines and complains, someone will listen.
The Canucks are a better team than the Preds and there is no doubt about it. However, the calls need to be the same on both sides of the ice. That's all I am saying.
Maybe being a small market team didn't allow Trotz to "whine" like Gillis cuz he couldn't afford the fine? All kidding aside though, i agree the calls need to be consistent and i'll concede that if there was an advantage one way or the other, Vancouver prob rec'd that though i'd say it was VERY small. It pretty much comes down to that Tootoo diving penalty really. As much as i didn't think he was hit/interfered with, i think it's something they could have just let go. They did warn the teams apparently but i still think that's a play that could have been left uncalled.
Personally, i still think the series' overall have been called pretty evenly. I do reserve the right to omit game 6 of the Canucks / Hawks series from that theory!
Where the problem lies, is that while most of the series have been called "evenly" (IMO), they've (the refs) have been inconsistent in the things they call. |
|
|
|
Guest5052
( )
|
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 10:28:26
|
I was fairly neutral with caring about who won or lost the series, but I thought it was a bad call.
Perhaps not in the abstract... although even then he was obstructed and fell, and yes in all likelihood exaggerated his fall, but it would be difficult to say the obstruction didnt materially contribute to the way he fell... in other words, it didnt look great, but I wouldnt have called that a penalty.
In relative terms, that sort of thing was going on all over the ice. That was an inconsistent call and there are too many of those in the game.
Van was the better team, no doubt about it, and I have no problem with any team getting a break from a call or a bounce... it happens. So congrats to them... but that was a bad call imho. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 12:35:05
|
Doug McLean and Nick Kyprios discussed the Tootoo diving call on Sportsnet last night, and not their opinion matters more than anyone else's, their view was that the referee could have called Edler for interference on the play, or that the referee(s) could have easily (or more appropriately) tagged both players, but to make the call only on Tootoo was questionable.
I agree with their assessment, and I agree with majority of posters on this thread that the best team won the game (and series), and despite this one call, that the calls in this series were fairly even.
With respect to the comment about Mike Gillis' "childish rant," I addressed this in a past thread, but I will offer my comments again. I think his "rant" had some positive affect for the Canucks, and the affect was to call out the officials and to divert attention.
Gretzky did the same thing at the 2002 Olympics, and I can't remember anyone describing his "rant" as childish. The end result worked in both cases, where a senior member of the team (not the players or the coaches) stuck up where they saw injustice – nothing childish about that! In fact, I would suggest that it was a smart tactic. (Albeit, Gretzky's comments about officiating in the 2002 Olympics appeared spontaneous, and Gillis' comments were definitely well planned. I mean he brought notes and stats about officiating to a press conference.)
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 14:23:04
|
I originally was fine with the call, and not for biased reasons. However, when i watch a replay of it now, it does seem like a very questionable call. I wouldn't call them both though, as i'm not sure how it could be considered interference considering Tootoo had just released the puck when he was hit by the Canucks dman.
I still think it should have just been let go. Looked to me like Edler (think it was him), tried to take the upper body of Tootoo and he more or less ducked to avoid the hit. To me, that's not a dive. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 15:32:26
|
quote:
I wouldn't call them both though, as i'm not sure how it could be considered interference considering Tootoo had just released the puck when he was hit by the Canucks dman.
I agree, and for this reason don't mind the one-way penalty. Edler did nothing wrong here, his check was clean on Tootoo. Perhaps the ref came down harder on Tootoo because he tried to sell a penalty on an otherwise very clean play. Perhaps his reputation also factored in - I have no doubt that if Burrows had done something similar we might have seen the same call.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Diving call on Tootoo 
