Puck Daddy - NHL

Mike Murphy(notes), the NHL's Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations, appeared on the NHL Live! radio program today to explain referee how the League let stand Dennis LaRue's epically awful call that robbed the Detroit Red Wings of a goal last night.

From NHL.com write Dan Rosen's transcript of the interview:

"In this particular case what happened is we (in the League's video replay room in Toronto) see the puck in the net and call the video goal judge and say, 'Blow the horn and get the referee over here. We see a puck in the net that hasn't been ruled a goal,' " Murphy said. "At that point the referee comes over and we have a discussion. They came to us and said, 'My intent to blow the whistle was there, I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line,' No more needs to be said. Once we hear that, video review is out of the process. It's a call made on the ice and it's a non-reviewable call. It's a whistle blown by the referee and it was blown or the intent to blow it was before the puck crossed the goal line."

Murphy's defending the indefensible here, which is why he gently placed LaRue under the bus today when he later said, "In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it appears we didn't."

But the more the NHL explains it, the less this is LaRue's fiasco; the League's own ineffective fail-safes against these sorts of blown calls are the reason it looks like a second-rate operation in this debacle.

It's the NHL's fault for removing human beings from in back of the net in favor of technology. Had there been a goal judge in back of the Dallas goal, that red light is flashing before LaRue intends to blow anything. But the NHL felt it didn't need an old man in a blazer to do what cameras could do "better," and the owners felt those extra dollars in lower-bowl tickets were worth ending the decades-old tradition.

But it's also the NHL's fault for not trusting its technology more than human beings -- in this case, their referees.

The play again:

Why do we have video reviews? Because human error happens, whether it's due to speed or poor positioning or an error in judgment. All three of these things occurred on LaRue's folly, yet the NHL considers "intent to blow" a non-reviewable call. Why? Murphy attempted to explain it today on the radio, via Rosen:

"In some cases when you have video review people expect perfection and that's never the case. There are times when we don't want video review to intercede. We don't want video review refereeing a game."

Murphy later did one of those "if we review this, when what about that!" arguments, wondering if video reviews for hooking or slashing are next, which is a preposterous straw-man argument. No one wants that; this mess is different. 

This review is really no different than one that determines if a puck crossed the line on a bang-bang play. It doesn't matter that Dennis LaRue intended the play to be whistled dead because the puck was already over the goal-line when he intended the play to be over.

(Murphy said "the feeling was the save was made and then the puck trickled in"; did LaRue even know it went in? It's something, you know, kind of mandatory for professional referees. There's no scramble in front, no need to protect Dallas Stars goalie Alex Auld(notes) -- even it's a ridiculously quick whistle, there's no way the play "ended" before the puck crossed the line.)

The good news is that the NHL understands this. As Murphy said, this is now three or four times this kind of thing has happened this season, and he wonders if there's going to be a "procedure change" at some point to address it.

Does that mean a chip in the puck to indicate that it crosses the goal line? Maybe one day.

For now, let's just make the logical, palpable change: Allow the War Room in Toronto to overturn obvious blown calls like this; or get rid of the "intent to blow" miscarriages of justice and simply play to the sound of the whistle, rather than the thought of it.

Which is, you know, what they do in pee-wee hockey.

digg delicious
more

195 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. rick
    1. Posted by rick Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:41 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    2nd rate for sure.
  2. Patrick
    2. Posted by Patrick Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:42 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    WOW!!! There were some poor calls made last night! Brad May's slash? Really? I guess he touched the goalie's glove. OK. Whatever. Hooking on Holmstrom when the blade of his stick never leaves the ice surface? What? The non-call goal was just the icing on the cake.
  3. JohnB
    3. Posted by JohnB Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:45 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    The "Intent to Blow" rule is quite possibly the dumbest rule in sports history. Whoever thought up that junk should have been drawn, quartered, and then shot in the knee for good measure. Seriously, it takes less then a second for a ref to take his hand from stomach/side to his mouth, so why not just play to the whistle. I mean the clock doesn't stop when there's "Intent to Blow", so that should mean game on.
  4. Mike
    4. Posted by Mike Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:47 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    I'd be shocked if anything is actually done about this. All talk from the NHL, no results.
  5. Hans Gruber
    5. Posted by Hans Gruber Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:49 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    99 Playoffs sum everything up about the NHL. A never seen before memo was sent saying the "in the crease" rule is no longer valid, though it had just been used in the conference finals. The league has no brass.
  6. Jenny D
    6. Posted by Jenny D Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:50 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    WOW! The NHL sort of maybe almost admitted that one of its refs was possibly not 100% right!?!?!?
    Did anyone else just see four horsemen ride past the window?
  7. decappa
    7. Posted by decappa Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:51 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    And people wonder why Bettman and company get a bad rap, I ABSOLUTELY HATE the wings, but that was a goal my friends
  8. HotStacey
    8. Posted by HotStacey Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:51 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    why wouldn't you just confer with as many people as you can until the right call is made? there are so many ways to fix this: each team gets an appeal like the NFL, Toronto just makes it right by overriding the ref, etc. what a joke
  9. Animal
    9. Posted by Animal Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:58 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    They have the intent to blow rule so that Bettman can keep control of the game and the league. It's the only way he can guarentee that Cindy becomes the new Gretzky/Lemiuex, and that he, as Stern and Selig do in their respective sports controls who gets what. That way they can each claim they are the reason their sport makes the money that it does and justify their place in each of their respective sports. Intent to Blow is actually a perfect name for it. They just left off the "ionally off of the word intent!
  10. Tacks
    10. Posted by Tacks Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:58 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    Clearly the only solution is to have one officlal for every player on the ice to catch everything, until it resembles someone kicking an anthill out there. God help the nhl when we lose a wave of experienced officials after this year.
  11. Pat
    11. Posted by Pat Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:03 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    If only Bettman's mom had intent to blow, the NHL wouldn't be in this sorry state.
  12. Jeff G
    12. Posted by Jeff G Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:04 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    The ref could have at least had the balls to tell the truth. It is crystal clear that the whistle had not sounded before the puck was in the net. He should have told the fans at Joe Louis and to the cameras for those watching at home "It was my intent to blow the whistle so its no goal"
  13. Whoabot
    13. Posted by Whoabot Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:04 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    Toronto should've questioned him on what the hell planet you have to be on in order for it to take 4 seconds to go from "intending to blow the whistle" to "actually blowing the whistle." ...and on what planet they're the same thing.
  14. Mule
    14. Posted by Mule Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:04 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    I'm just thankful this didn't happen in a playoff game...oh wait, it happened against the ducks last year. Turning into a bit of a trend. So, I hope it doesn't effect the ability to make the playoffs, seeding, or decide the division race.
  15. Fill
    15. Posted by Fill Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:07 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    sadly pro sports with human officiating will never never be accountable. officials/arbiters have reputations that are above the law.
  16. Svipal
    16. Posted by Svipal Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:08 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    Nothing will ever be done, because the NHL will never admit there is a problem with the officiating or the rule-book, which is insanely unclear on several issues.
    How is it that a ref can tell the war room in Toronto that "the play was dead" when its a simple shot on goal that goes across the red line? It's just bulllllllshiiiit and that what the NHL does to deal with bullllshiiitttt; they just shovel more PC bullllshiittt to the media and the fans.
  17. The_Word
    17. Posted by The_Word Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:08 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    The problem with the chip in the puck is that, because the entire puck has to cross the line, where do you put the chip? You'd have to have like 6 chips on each side of the puck to make sure that the puck was entirely over the line.
  18. Tom Luongo
    18. Posted by Tom Luongo Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:10 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    "Intent to blow the whistle" is a sop to the old guard referees who didn't like the idea of video review overturning their infallible judgment and control of the hockey game. We've lived with it long enough and it's time to put the rule out to pasture, along with many of the old guard referees. Either take the human element completely out of it or the play is dead when the whistle actually sounds, like GDub suggests. This ain't the dark ages, we have the technology, let's get the most important part of the game right.
    Ta,
  19. Jr.
    19. Posted by Jr. Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:11 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    The refs had a bad night altogether...it was far more than just the blown goal call. In the first place a live moving puck that goes virtually straight into the net....how does one justify the need for a whistle during the course of a regular play? The puck never "trickled" in...look at the replay and see it went almost completely directly into the net and was pretty close to a complete whiff by Auld. And is laRue really that slow on the whistle? The puck was clearly over the line at least 3 seconds before he blew the play dead....all you have to do is time the puck entering the net to the whistle....bottom line is he was NOT in proper position and had no clue the puck even entered the net. Sadder yet, he completely missed Auld sweeping the puck out of the net. But this wasnt the only time he was badly out of position...anyone remember when he was actually standing in the crease on the goalline during a scramble in front of the net....any response by the league as to why a ref is in the middle of the crease during a live play and not properly positioned behind the net (or at the very least at the side of the net)? The "slash" at Auld by May....a loose puck (as clearly shown in the replay...he did not have control of the puck). Even the horrible delay of game by Auld....there were Red Wing skaters coming down both wings inside the circles...is he supposed to give away the puck or make the safe play? They "protected" him on the May tap and then hang him out to dry on the delay. Someone already mentioned the Holmstrom "hook" (to hook ones stick must impede the opponent...a stick on the ice that never even reachs the puck in front of the guy somehow is now hooking?) even though a midget ref wouldnt have blown that call...but surprise...it was LaRue that blew that one too. Very embarrassing for the league and unfortunately this isnt a bad night...it looks more like a bad trend to me and doesnt help sell the game when a horrible call changes a game so drastically. What becomes of a 2-2 game...we'll never know because the league doesnt know how to get it right and would rather "justify" bad calls than correct them. Us fans deserve better!
  20. AllanM88
    20. Posted by AllanM88 Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:15 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    I agree we do not want video refereeing hockey games, but I also agree that this is totally different. When it comes to goals - whether the score is 9-0 or 2-1, a goal is a goal is a goal...and in this case, May's shot was a goal.
    Let's hope this controversy forces a rule change...but I won't hold my breath. This is the NHL after all.
  21. Ryan
    21. Posted by Ryan Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:15 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    I watched this game. "Intent to blow" doesn't even factor in. Is LaRue saying he intended to blow the whistle while the puck was still being played by May? That's the only time he could have blown it before the puck was actually in the net. Is LaRue actually telling us that he lost site of the puck while it was being passed around the ice by the players? In that case, he has no business being a ref. "Intent to blow" has a purpose when there is a pile up in front of the net or freeze up of the puck and the ref looses site of the puck for at least a second. It protects goalies from being continually whacked at once they've covered up. In this case it is completely irrelevant. It was such an unbelievable call it makes one wonder if somebody had some money on the Stars. Either way, it appears the NHL satisfied their intentions. They definitely blow.
  22. Nic
    22. Posted by Nic Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:21 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    To be honest, the Sharks/Hawks game isn't worth posting. It looks like the puck sat on the goal line and by NHL rules that's a no-goal, so really at least to me (neutral Pens fan) it's a no-goal. A close-call, but a no-goal nontheless. The only erroneous part was the ref's failure to make any indicating signal (I think he thought it was still in the equipment of the Hawks goalie) and the subsequently inappropriately timed whistle to stop play from another official (which is hard to blame, the guy obviously wanted to see justice be done and knew that his partner had a poor vantage point.)
    To me this is actually a shining example of replay working, unlike the Wings game.
  23. bng3636
    23. Posted by bng3636 Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:21 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    Good example of "Murphys Law" if you ask me.
  24. Nic
    24. Posted by Nic Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:22 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    oh, and speak of the (NJ) devil, as I post you take the vid down. Woo Wysh!
  25. rickwlsn
    25. Posted by rickwlsn Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:24 pm EST

    Report Abuse

    Freaking unadulterated Morans!

Puck Daddy

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Teams

Customize to follow news and rumors on your favorite teams. [ Sign in ]

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Puck Daddy Recent Readers

Watch Live Hockey Online with GameCenter Live™