Abel to Yzerman
Next entry: Detroit Media: Zero Outrage. Fedorov? Plenty
Previous entry: Well Gary? Your League Is A Joke
Choosing Sides
by IwoCPO on 11/19/09 at 03:25 AM ET
Comments (104)
Now it gets interesting. Now we see who piles on and who sees this for the travesty it is. Now we get to see who the bloggers and media members with conviction are…and on the other side of the coin we see who is going to use this as a punchline.
Wyshynski? You choose the camp he belongs to. You’ve had suspicions before and it appears they’ve just been confirmed.
Beyond Detroit losing a goal, the worst thing about this situation is that it’ll provide further fodder for the tin foil hat society among Wings fans, who are convinced that Gary Bettman and the NHL and the Illuminati and the Stonecutters are all conspiring in some secret cabal to undermine their franchise. Because what business would want one of its most popular, ratings-driving, star-studded franchises to, you know, succeed?
Here’s the response, the only comment—I think—I’ve ever left at Puck Daddy.
At what point, in the post you linked to, did I—or any of my readers—claim this was a result of a conspiracy Greg? Have we said that before? Yes. Do we believe Bettman has a personal issue with the Ilitch family? Yes. But in this case, it’s simply a case of extreme ineptitude and it should offend every hockey fan. Not just us.
Bettman is responsible for every good or bad thing this league is about. That’s called leadership. Your “tin hat” reference gives him a pass just as it trivializes the complaints of Wing fans. I’d expect that kind of reference, in this kind of situation, from Ryan Lambert (Two Line Pass). The fact that it comes from you is interesting.
Prior to his last-minute, kick to the nuts of a statement at the end, which was unnecessary, uncalled for and a clear hint at bias? Wyshynski hinted at an appropriate level of outrage over this disgusting call.
And then he proves what many of you have said time and again.
It doesn’t take a tin hat to figure out that was a butchered call. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to claim that the officiating in this league is a pathetic joke. At no point in our original post did we claim conspiracy. In fact, not a single comment from the 19 even hinted at that. We don’t believe this situation is an indication of anti-Wing bias on the part of Gary Bettman, just a horribly run league.
If you want an example of anti-Wing bias, if you really want me to point one out to you, something you can sink your teeth into and point fingers back at us claiming we see ghosts around every corner? Don’t look to Toronto, not in this case. Look no further than Yahoo.
Filed in: | Abel to Yzerman | Permalink
Comments
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Henrik Sedin had a goal waved off against dallas too on a super early whistle and there was no outcry here over that blown call.
“Welcome to Abel to Yzerman, a Red Wing blog since 1977.”
But thanks for stopping by.
I think you have to think about which one you emulate.
If you met him in real life, Cameltoedrag, you’d be left in no doubt as to which one he emulates. There’s such a thing as a difference between an online persona created for the purposes of entertainment, and one’s own actual bearing in life.
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 11/19/09 at 01:43 PM ET
Wings fans, follow ireland’s lead and demand that bettman replay the game!
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=700597&sec=worldcup2010&cc=5901
Posted by Tinfoil Hat on 11/19/09 at 01:57 PM ET
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=700719&sec=worldcup2010&cc=5901
Posted by Tinfoil Hat on 11/19/09 at 01:58 PM ET
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731
As predicted.
“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.”
He commented further, adding, “And we will continue to have zero accountability from our referees as they continue to delegitimize this league in the eyes of fans everywhere “.
Murphy said the League’s Hockey Operations group will “internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer,” but he warns that too much video review is not a good thing.
Posted by pilgrim from the ice at the bottom of the world on 11/19/09 at 02:05 PM ET
Yzerman wasn’t above addressing refereeing issues he felt needed addressed. In fact, he was quite outspoken about the new standards.
Wysh grabbed a piece of article from here in calling us a tinfoil hat society in a case in which the chief clearly stated there’s no conspiracy, but that Bettman is part of the problem. He later defended his judgment by pointing to past instances.
Do I think the league is “crooked”? Well, that’s a strong word. I’ll tell you what I do believe though. I do believe that under Bettman’s leadership, the NHL has leaned too far over the business versus sport ledge. I believe too many policies or decisions of Bettman’s NHL are consistent with the idea that they’re a moneymaking business at the expense of them being stewards of the game of hockey.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with the NHL running themselves as a business. I know that they have a responsibility to try to ensure that they can be profitable as well as competitive. I just worry that under the guise of always doing what’s best for the bottom line, they’re losing the soul of the game. The league’s murky suspension policy has been at the forefront of this for some time now. I believe the refereeing issue brought to light by last night is another offshoot of this. They’re so concerned with outwardly projecting strength and faith in their referees that to admit they’re human and fallable is to somehow admit weakness and to lose a competitive edge.
A lot of people will mention the expansion into southern markets as another failure of Bettman’s NHL. I don’t fully support this, as I think it was the right idea at the time. If the NHL ever wanted to crack those markets and grow a strong hockey fanbase in the US, this was going to have to happen. It was a gamble at the time and I don’t think it’s been fully lost at this point. I think where Gary Bettman’s NHL has failed is in making sure that business owners were prepared and competent enough to take on these expansion teams. The Boots del Baggio screwup in Nashville really hurt a team that could be viable in that market. The dollar signs surrounding him obscured the view of the stink lines right behind the guy’s character.
Bettman and the league realized too late that in order to have a successful franchise in a market that isn’t used to your sport, they need to be able to be a competitive team almost immediately. Expanding in the era before the salary cap hurt them. By the time the cap came around, many teams had already turned owners over at least once and initial fan excitement for the new guys in town had worn off. I believe this CAN be attributed to an egregious lack of foresight. I’ve defended and will continue to defend the idea that, even in the pre-cap era, a team could not just “buy” a cup… but what they COULD do is buy enough big names to deny the smaller market teams the opportunity to move a superstar into town in order to bolster excitement for the team. Basically, you ended up with professional farm clubs like you see in Major League Baseball (especially with the Royals and Pirates). If a guy did show enough promise to become a superstar, it was hard for those smaller market teams to compete for his services once free agency hit.
So, is Gary Bettman and his NHL “crooked”? No, not at all. Is he a crappy commissioner? You bet your ass he is.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/19/09 at 02:14 PM ET
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731
As predicted.
You forgot this line in your article. Wouldn’t want people to misled and not get the full picture.
““In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it is clear we didn’t,” Murphy said.
Posted by Tinfoil Hat on 11/19/09 at 02:17 PM ET
So they’re back to “intent”? What happened with “the whistle blown the play dead”?
“We don’t want video refereeing the game.”
Translation: we don’t want good officiating.
Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 11/19/09 at 02:22 PM ET
Jesus, just about word-for-word what I expected. Big surprise. I completely get that their hands were tied by the claim that LaRue had intended to blow the whistle. What’s missing from this point is any mention that LaRue’s statement is indefensible. There is no way he should have had an intent to blow the whistle while the shot was being made.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/19/09 at 02:28 PM ET
“We don’t want video refereeing the game.”
why? why not get it right? look at the NFL. the games are long and slow, but they get their calls right a heck of a lot more than the NHL. football ref throws a flag and another watching the same play runs up to him and says “there wasn’t a penalty on the play. it looked like holding, but it wasn’t” and it gets waived off. no flag on the play. in the NHl we have guys making calls from center ice when the ref 4 feet away lets it go and there’s nothing they can do about it. video replay would go a long way to fixing that.
and instead of review being off the table because of intent, the conversation should go like this:
“Hey, it was in the net. it should be a goal.”
“no, i intended to blow the play dead.”
“well i intend to tell you to STFU. it’s a goal. put it on the board.”
i know wings haters are loving this, but it’ll happen to your team too. i will be very impressed when it does and you all nod your heads and say, “rules are rules…” but i won’t hold my breath.
Posted by Twig in Houston from Houston, TX on 11/19/09 at 02:41 PM ET
hahaha look at all you losers spitting fire at Wyshinski’s blog!
“i don’t even go read it!”
“who reads puck daddy? there readers are idiots!”
if you all don’t read the site, then why the hell do you get all up in arms about it? if you read the entire post, you’d see what he was talking about, but you pick the last paragraph out and just bash it.
no wonder everybody hates wings fans. any fan who reads this thing and ISN’T a wings fan, is laughing at you.
it was a terrible call last night….but hell, it happens to everyone.
Posted by Ben from VA on 11/19/09 at 02:42 PM ET
it was a terrible call last night….but hell, it happens to everyone.
and you’re fine with that?
Posted by Twig in Houston from Houston, TX on 11/19/09 at 02:51 PM ET
The point, Ben, is not that we’re mad that it happened to us. The point is people are justifying terrible officiating with your self-stated “it happens to everyone” nonchalance.
Posted by rock & rye from Cartersville, Ga on 11/19/09 at 03:00 PM ET
“who reads puck daddy? there readers are idiots!”
Way to help prove the point, Ben.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/19/09 at 03:01 PM ET
Chuck, we went over the Hossa slash ad nauseum, the stick broke when he turned around and slashed Hossa’s foot with it.
As for the covering the puck in the crease instances? There’s still argument (obviously) as to wether it was the right call. There’s room for subjectivity on either side.
Both of those instances leave room for interpretation. While I won’t argue that there were missed calls in the finals, I’m saying that nobody is claiming Mays’ shot last night shouldn’t have counted.
All of that aside, the conspiracy nonsense that abounds on this blog is still ridiculous.
The conspiracy talk is tiresome, so stop talking about it. The 19 aren’t calling conspiracy here, we’ve been calling incompetence. Any conspiracy mention that happened in the live blog was done with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Maybe if you stop thinking of all of us as conspiracy theorists, we suddenly won’t be conspiracy theorists anymore, but rather just Wings fans who don’t like the way Bettman runs the league (which is exactly what we are).
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/19/09 at 03:54 PM ET
Sorry it took me so long to respond. Been in the air most of the day. I found this particularly amusing.
Don’t reach out for advice from me on email and then trash my site in public.
What? I emailed you to ask about Cover it Live. You responded. Thank you. Your sage advice was well heeded.
And then you made an idiot of yourself on your blog and I’m supposed to ignore it? What internet world are you living in Greg?
Am I unfair to the Detroit Red Wings? No.
Unfair? I have no idea, nor do I care.
But you are biased. And for those who don’t see that yet, they will.
Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 11/19/09 at 03:56 PM ET
any fan who reads this thing and ISN’T a wings fan, is laughing at you.
Believe me, I care. I really do. It keeps me up at night to know that complete strangers on the internet are laughing at me and think I’m an idiot. And when I do finally manage to drift off, I usually cry myself to sleep realizing that you and your associates don’t like me at all.
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 11/19/09 at 04:16 PM ET
Believe me, I care. I really do. It keeps me up at night to know that complete strangers on the internet are laughing at me and think I’m an idiot. And when I do finally manage to drift off, I usually cry myself to sleep realizing that you and your associates don’t like me at all.
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 11/19/09 at 04:16 PM ET
I have to keep a full glass of water beside my bed to keep myself hydrated from my constant sobbing. I’ll tell ya. . . . . *sniff* . . if not one anti-Wings fan likes me . . . . I don’t think I can go on living *sniff* . . . WHY GOD, WHY??
Posted by TEMO from LANSING, MICHIGAN, U.S.A. on 11/19/09 at 04:36 PM ET
I’m subjective and objective.
Most hilarious comment I’ve ever read on the net.
Posted by calquake on 11/19/09 at 05:02 PM ET
What happened last night was the clearest case of an official thinking he’s “bigger than the game” that I’ve ever seen in my life.
That is exactly right. All puffed up with power. Scumbags.
Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!
Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 11/19/09 at 05:29 PM ET
Wyshynki is a tool. Everyone knows that “Excluding Zetterberg” flows off of the tongue so much better than “the tin foil hat society among Wings fans.”
Posted by rwhater on 11/19/09 at 05:57 PM ET
Couple things:
One.
Can’t believe how much hate puckdaddy is getting considering he has the best hockey blog out there.
“Best?” No way - I’d put both Lowetide and Down Goes Brown ahead of Puck Daddy, for starters, in both quality of writing and depth of insight.
Two.
Beyond Detroit losing a goal, the worst thing about this situation is that it’ll provide further fodder for the tin foil hat society among Wings fans, ...
THAT is the worst thing? THAT?!?
No god-damned *#$%@& WAY is that the WORST thing to come out of the fiasco.
As I said earlier:
The worst thing about the call is that it perpetuates the NHL’s EXISTING AND WELL-DESERVED reputation as a third-rate sports league that permits criminals as team owners, cares not at all for the welfare of its own players, has no apparent standards for officiating other than the ability to skate without falling over, markets its designated golden boy to the exclusion of all other talented players, puts more emphasis on appearance than substance in terms of winning (even my father thinks a shootout is one of the dumbest ways to decide a game that he has ever seen, and he doesn’t even really follow hockey), and gives every appearance of being unable to organize a one-car parade.
The NHL is a laughingstock among sports fans - even (maybe especially) hockey fans, and every time they have an opportunity to improve their reputation, they f*** it up royally. THAT is the worst thing about the call.
The worst thing is it gives everyone something else about the sport to point at and laugh about - as if it needed it. Imagine trying to explain this to a newer fan, who doesn’t know the game all that well yet, but wants to learn - and you have to tell him or her that although the puck was in the net, and it wasn’t kicked in, and it wasn’t batted in with a glove, and it didn’t go in under the net when it popped up off the pegs, and there wasn’t a penalty, it still doesn’t count because the official heard a *#$%@& whistle in his own tiny mind when there was no *#$%@& reason for him to even be THINKING of *#$%@& blowing the *#$%@& whistle?
Would you take a sport seriously that had bullshit rules like that? Would you? I know I’d laugh until my ribs ached at such a third-rate sport that for all the money involved couldn’t be bothered to use the modern technology at their disposal - a league that touts how smart and technoloogically savvy their fans are - but can’t be bothered to make the sport less bush league.
It’s asinine.
And every gaddamned time someone - anyone - excuses the NHL and lets them get away with it, with an “isn’t it cute how even though the officials are continually *#$%@& up, they still try their darndest to get it right even without using any of them new-fangled gadgets like an instant replay machine?” it just trivializes the whole issue.
The officiating sucks and it hurts the sport. Period. It should be fixed. It never is.
It’s a load of elephant shit is what it is.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 06:39 PM ET
@Baroque
I think you should start your own hockey blog. You’re obviously well educated. You know your hockey inside and out, specifically the NHL. And most importantly, you are very articulate. I’m not even slightly kidding, seriously.
Just a thought.
Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 11/19/09 at 06:57 PM ET
I posted this comment during the live blog as a joke but it rings all too true for this particular fiasco. “That is why man invented instant replay… because we forget what we just saw”. If we are going to allow the referees to control the game with “intent to blow” then let’s not use instant replay for anything. Either they (the refs) control it or they don’t. No instant replay, no dispute last night. That way we, as fans, can say “Look, he missed it ... human error. Too bad.” Instead we have everybody pissed off and the league scrambling to come up with a cockamamie excuse as to why this happened.
Posted by calquake on 11/19/09 at 07:02 PM ET
It’s funny how proud of these statements you are, to display them on every post:
“Why is it you Detroit fans are still so classless when you have such a classy hockey team, with such a professional GM and gentlemen players? I understand that the author of this blog is a manner-less cad, but the rest of you should be better.”
“Have you ever *read* A2Y? Its the most opinionated, juvenile stuff i’ve read.”
So why are you now offended and call “bias” when someone buys into the image you project and are so proud of?
If calling the 19 a “tin foil hat society” is that insulting, just put Wyshynski’s quote under the “How Others View The A2Y 19” section and keep truckin. Don’t wage a self-righteous war all of a sudden.
Unless this is all just a big hoax, in which case: well played.
Posted by Cameltoedrag on 11/19/09 at 07:05 PM ET
Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 11/19/09 at 06:57 PM ET
Thank you. That is a fine compliment.
Unfortunately, blogging regularly takes a lot of time, and although I admire those who do take the time to set their thoughts afloat on the internet on the off chance that someone might read them and be amused, puzzled, or enlightened, I do not have the time to devote to it to do anything other than a shipshod job.
I have a tough enough time keeping up with just reading the ever-increasing number of very good blogs that people come up with.
(And you aren’t fooling me one bit - I know you are just laughing at how many times I used *#$%@& in that comment!) 
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:06 PM ET
(And you aren’t fooling me one bit - I know you are just laughing at how many times I used *#$%@& in that comment!)
Remember this though- with you, never at you.
Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 11/19/09 at 07:11 PM ET
It’s a load of elephant shit is what it is.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 06:39 PM ET
Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 11/19/09 at 07:12 PM ET
Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 11/19/09 at 07:12 PM ET
Need a bigger bag.
And how is your resume coming, by the way?
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:22 PM ET
I completely get that their hands were tied by the claim that LaRue had intended to blow the whistle. What’s missing from this point is any mention that LaRue’s statement is indefensible. There is no way he should have had an intent to blow the whistle while the shot was being made.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/19/09 at 02:28 PM ET
One hundred percent in agreement that there’s no way he should have had an intent to blow the whistle, as there was no period of time between the shot and the puck going in the net that could have been qualified as him “losing sight of the puck”. The puck went immediately from shot to in. He lost sight of it because it *#$%@& went IN the goal and Auld’s leg just happened to be obscuring his view of the puck in the net. So if the ref can’t see the puck in the net, that means it’s not a goal? What if the ref closes his eyes and doesn’t see a puck in the net? Does that mean no goal? What about the idea of some sort of sensor that immediately triggers the siren when the puck crosses the goal line? If the siren would have gone off, they would have been looking at the situation totally differently. They would have seen the siren and been going over to the net to make sure the puck was in, and not going over to make sure the puck was “covered up” to then blow the play dead. Their point of view would be coming from a completely different place - the puck being in the net as opposed to it being “out of sight”.
You know what though? I DON’T get that their hands were tied by the claim that LaRue had intended to blow the whistle. The option to overrule the ref on the ice based on clear video evidence should be FUNDAMENTAL to the sport. Their hands being tied by LaRue’s claim is absolute motherfucking bullshit. The War Room should have ultimate authority over a situation like this. The comparison to the NFL is perfect, numerous refs, and one ref throws a flag because he thinks he sees a hold, and another ref who saw it from a different angle runs over it says “no penalty, I could clearly see it from this angle” and they change the call, no flag, no penalty. The bottom line heart of the issue is that the league seems to be so scared of hurting the *#$%@& refs feelings by overturning whatever it is they saw on the ice, at the expense of credibility.
Now regarding Wyshynski, the bottom line about his ridiculous crap is that he wrote that A2Y Wings fans are claiming conspiracy about this incident, and posted a link to a thread on A2Y where every member of the 19 was clearly and undeniably saying it is NOT a conspiracy, just incompetence. His comments today certainly seem to be taking lessons from the NHL in the “admitting when wrong” realm.
Posted by stayouttamalibu from Temporarily in Tempe, AZ on 11/19/09 at 07:29 PM ET
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:22 PM ET
Sorry, there aren’t bags big enough.
(Thanks for remembering to ask about the resume status. I loaded software Sunday but have been running errands - many, many errands - with my boys all week. Today was my first “free” day but have been too angry / upset / angry / sad / angry / bewildered / angry / sick / angry / confused / angry / disappointed / angry / angry / angry / ... / angry, to get to my more important stuff. Maybe tonight after the games - if I feel like watching any (sad, as a hockey fan, that I just don’t have the enthusiasm for hockey, nor confidence in a “professionally” officiated (i.e. competent) game right now ... will I ever again?) - I’ll update the resume and plan to forward a copy to you by the weekend. Probably a good thing to do when I can’t sleep ... )
My recurring nightmare:
Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 11/19/09 at 07:43 PM ET
... have been too angry / upset / angry / sad / angry / bewildered / angry / sick / angry / confused / angry / disappointed / angry / angry / angry / ... / angry ...
Sometimes chocolate helps. Especially hot fudge ice cream topping eaten directly from the jar with a spoon.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:47 PM ET
Sometimes chocolate helps. Especially hot fudge ice cream topping eaten directly from the jar with a spoon.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:47 PM ET
I finished that and all other cocoa products in the house last night at 3 in the morning and haven’t been to the story yet to replenish the sweets - I have been too angry / upset / angry / sad / angry / bewildered / angry / sick / angry / confused / angry / disappointed / angry / angry / angry / ... / angry ...
I haven’t been myself all day.
Thanks Gary. Ass.
Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 11/19/09 at 07:56 PM ET
Just so I’m understanding this correctly, the dim bulb that writes this little blog (an admitted homer) all of a sudden expects the entire hockey world to stop, become objective themselves, and feel sorry for the Red Wings because they were “victimized” by a referee who followed the rules as they’re written in the rule book? As opposed to taking glee at the “misfortune” that befell a team that for the better part of 15 years has been allowed to obstruct, pick, and impede opposing players (against what’s written in the rulebook, by the way) more than any other team in hockey?
Amazing. This one takes the cake, even for the clowns here at Excluding Zetterberg. Your outrage and tears sustain us. Keep the bad karma coming for yourselves, inbreds.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 08:28 PM ET
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 08:28 PM ET
You missed the point. Try again.
Pity isn’t the issue - horrible officiating for all teams, that gives the league the appearance of being incompetent, unprofessional, technologically idiotic, fossilized in its outlook and worthy of nothing more than mocking for not getting something as simple as a goal right even with the aid of instant replay is the issue.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 08:35 PM ET
I’m sure the outrage over bad officiating here at EZ would be just as vociferous if a similar call went against the Stars last night, right? The self-righteous indignation over the fact that the league you’re a fan of is, and I quote:
incompetent, unprofessional, technologically idiotic, fossilized in its outlook and worthy of nothing more than mocking for not getting something as simple as a goal right even with the aid of instant replay…
...that all would still be occurring here today, right? Since the Queef and the 16 are bastions of fair play and sportsmanship?
Or not? You know, since this is a RED WINGS BLOG, full of RED WINGS FANS who are FANS, and therefore don’t have to be OBJECTIVE.
Here’s another buzzword for you folks, in big bold letters again: HYPOCRITES. Enjoy the taste, and get used to it.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 08:49 PM ET
I would be just as upset, yes. But I’d like to see a sports league actually place value on competence and its credibility. Thus far the NHL has not.
If I wanted scripted sports-like entertainment, I’d watch professional wrestling.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 08:57 PM ET
I’m sure the outrage over bad officiating here at EZ would be just as vociferous if a similar call went against the Stars last night, right?
Well I can’t speak for everyone else, but I would not have been doing the dance of happiness. As others have already more eloquently said, this kind of officiating makes the entire league a big joke. It is unfortunate that this happened to the Wings because it just makes the people that hate the Wings and their fanbase think that we’re all acting like big babies. I would hate this just as much had it happened to any other team. Yes, even yours, Anthrax, and that is really saying something.
We’ll never know what the outcome of that game would have been if May’s goal would have counted, but that’s neither here nor there. It sucked for the team we support, yes. It sucked for us as fans, yes. But the big picture is that the incident itself and the explanations from the league that came afterward made it clear that poor officiating (that affects ALL teams in the leagues, I DO watch other games) is just going to continue.
Posted by jennyquarx on 11/19/09 at 09:03 PM ET
Just so I’m understanding this correctly, the dim bulb that writes this little blog (an admitted homer) all of a sudden expects the entire hockey world to stop, become objective themselves, and feel sorry for the Red Wings because they were “victimized” by a referee who followed the rules as they’re written in the rule book? As opposed to taking glee at the “misfortune” that befell a team that for the better part of 15 years has been allowed to obstruct, pick, and impede opposing players (against what’s written in the rulebook, by the way) more than any other team in hockey?
Amazing. This one takes the cake, even for the clowns here at Excluding Zetterberg. Your outrage and tears sustain us. Keep the bad karma coming for yourselves, inbreds.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 08:28 PM ET
Just so I’m understanding this correctly, exactly what rule was the ref following in not allowing a blatantly and undeniably good hockey goal? Hate to break it to you, troll, but even the die hard Wing haters from other fanbases are in agreement on this one - worst call in a long, long time. I personally think it might be the worst call I’ve ever witnessed, although the hand ball in yesterday’s France/Ireland match might tie it. The only reason you could possibly have for saying the ref was just “following the rules” is that you just simply haven’t seen the play. Now proceed to the nearest exit and *#$%@& off, thanks for going out of your way to spend the time and effort.
Posted by stayouttamalibu from Temporarily in Tempe, AZ on 11/19/09 at 09:26 PM ET
So, essentially, you’re saying that Dennis LaRue invented the “intent to blow the whistle” rule, on the spot last night?
Really?
Whether or not it was a good call, the fact remains that the referee made the call within the constraints of the rulebook. The outrage, hand-wringing, tears, whining, and paranoia that WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHngs fans are most famous for are fully on display here (from most of you), and it’s providing an endless source of entertainment for the rest of us. Suck it up, kids…you got outplayed by Dallas. The notion that hockey fans everywhere should unite behind Detroit fans after you’ve spent years lording your little superiority complex over the rest of us is laughable. You, the Queef, and the 16 can blow this one out of your collective asses.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 09:46 PM ET
poor anthrax jones. still doesn’t get it. we know about ‘intent to blow’. any wings fan who was unaware of the rule, learned about it real quick last summer. i know you hate the wings more than you like hockey since any time i’ve seen you post it’s only been insulting red wings fans. i get it, yer jealous.
i just wanna know, if this same play happens to your team… shot from the slot, ref loses sight as it goes in the net… you wouldn’t be annoyed? you wouldn’t ask yourself, “hmmm. i wonder if there’s anything the league could do to prevent this from happening in the future?”
Posted by Twig in Houston from Houston, TX on 11/19/09 at 10:00 PM ET
and you’re right, the wings got outplayed. they still had their chances and lost. the headline should have read ‘stars outplay wings, hand them their first loss at home.’ but no, it’s all about the call and the rule book. are you proud of this league? cuz this is what it’s become now.
btw, second worst call of the night was auld’s delay of game penalty. there, rose colored glasses are off.
Posted by Twig in Houston from Houston, TX on 11/19/09 at 10:04 PM ET
So, essentially, you’re saying that Dennis LaRue invented the “intent to blow the whistle” rule, on the spot last night?
Really?
Whether or not it was a good call, the fact remains that the referee made the call within the constraints of the rulebook. The outrage, hand-wringing, tears, whining, and paranoia that WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHngs fans are most famous for are fully on display here (from most of you), and it’s providing an endless source of entertainment for the rest of us. Suck it up, kids…you got outplayed by Dallas. The notion that hockey fans everywhere should unite behind Detroit fans after you’ve spent years lording your little superiority complex over the rest of us is laughable. You, the Queef, and the 16 can blow this one out of your collective asses.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 09:46 PM ET
No, I didn’t say that at all, because intent to blow didn’t come into account on this play. Again, did you watch the video? The ref’s explanation was “There is no goal on the play, the whistle was blown to kill the play.” I’ll ask again, what rule was he following in not allowing that goal? That literally does not make a single bit of sense.
Posted by stayouttamalibu from Temporarily in Tempe, AZ on 11/19/09 at 10:50 PM ET
Let’s see, I can either take the word of Random Biased Internet Guy (stayouttamalibu), or I can take the word of the guy who was actually involved with the situation (Mike Murphy, the NHL’s Senior VP of hockey operations):
“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.”
Apparently, you didn’t get the “no more needs to be said” part either. Keep going after that windmill though, Don Quixote. All that reasoning and $2 might get you a cup of coffee tomorrow morning.
Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 11:14 PM ET
Sorry, Malibu.
I seriously doubt jones is trying to actually display any semblence of intelligence.
Don’t waste your energy on trolls looking to be ... uh, conversational?
Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 11/19/09 at 11:15 PM ET
answer it, anthrax:
if this same play happens to your team… shot from the slot, ref loses sight as it goes in the net… you wouldn’t be annoyed? you wouldn’t ask yourself, “hmmm. i wonder if there’s anything the league could do to prevent this from happening in the future?”
Posted by Twig in Houston from Houston, TX on 11/19/09 at 11:20 PM ET
So Anthrax…your mother didn’t have enough chores for you today…instead of just post whoring on PD…you had to come here too, eh?
Yup. Still a douche…but thanks for sharing.
Posted by mrfluffy from Long Beach on 11/19/09 at 11:46 PM ET
Let’s see, I can either take the word of Random Biased Internet Guy (stayouttamalibu), or I can take the word of the guy who was actually involved with the situation (Mike Murphy, the NHL’s Senior VP of hockey operations):
“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.”
Apparently, you didn’t get the “no more needs to be said” part either. Keep going after that windmill though, Don Quixote. All that reasoning and $2 might get you a cup of coffee tomorrow morning.Posted by Anthrax Jones from Reality on 11/19/09 at 11:14 PM ET
Oh you’re right! I totally didn’t even notice the “no more needs to be said” part. That totally makes it all better and 100 percent not a horribly blown call! Thanks for pointing that out to me, what was I thinking? You’re totally right. A ref can do whatever he wants and just say “because I said so and that’s that” and everyone just has to deal with it. Totally acceptable. No more needs to be said. Just magically makes it all better, like it never happened! Yay! And yet AGAIN, I’m not asking you to “take my word” on anything. I’m asking you to tell me why he didn’t allow that goal. If his intent to blow was there, why didn’t he say so in his explanation during the game? Why did that all of the sudden become the reason the next day after of course the league talked to the refs? And the most important thing, why was he intending to blow a play dead when there was no reason for it to be blown dead? The puck was being passed around in plain sight, not covered up in a goal line skirmish. They *#$%@& up and everyone in the world seems to know it except you, because you’re blinded by your hate of all things Red Wings. It’s fine for you to hate all things Wings, but EVERYONE agrees on this except you. You’re actually trying to take the NHLs ridiculous response to this situation and use that against us as reason why the play was perfectly fine and acceptable, and to say that we have no reason to be upset, that there was nothing wrong with this. You’re dead wrong, yet you’re apparently the only one who knows it. Oh and hold on a sec.. apparently YOU didn’t get the part where Murphy also said, word for word, “In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it appears we didn’t.” Would you mind now explaining to me how the ref was justified in making that call?
Posted by stayouttamalibu from Temporarily in Tempe, AZ on 11/20/09 at 12:48 AM ET
I can take the word of the guy who was actually involved with the situation (Mike Murphy, the NHL’s Senior VP of hockey operations):
Ah yes, because the corporate world never lies and always has our best interests at heart. Tell me, how does that dioxin in your water taste? Tell me, how does corporate schlong taste?
Just watch the damn video and do continue to defend the indefensible. Apparently it’s not just the referees that have trouble admitting when they’re wrong.
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 11/20/09 at 03:14 AM ET
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
GDT - Game #56: Red Wings host Ducks (7:30)
GDT - Game #55: Red Wings host Oilers (7:30)
The F Stands For Finger And The Finger Could Really ______ Us All
GDT - Game #54: Red Wings at Coyotes (8:00)
So Far 4 In 2, Why Not 6 in 3?
About Abel to Yzerman
Welcome to Abel to Yzerman, a Red Wing blog since 1977. No other site on the internet has better-researched, fact-laden and better prepared discussions than A2Y. Re-phrase: we do little research, find facts and stats highly overrated and claim little to no preparation. There are 19 readers of A2Y. No more, no less. All of them, except maybe one, are juvenile in nature. Reminding them of that in the comment section will only encourage them to prove that. Your suggestions and critiques are welcome: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Get the top online sports betting bonuses available to sports betters!
Look, nobody cares what I have to say, but I think as a Wings fan, I have 2 sides.
One side absolutely LOVES Steve Yzerman more than any human, is amazed by the dominance of Pavel Datsyuk, feel more confident about Nik Lidstrom than anything on Earth, hates the living shit out of Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf, Sidney Crosby, Claude Lemieux and Patrick Roy, wants the Cup in Detroit every single year, and holds a grudge against anyone who tries to use my love for the Wings against me. This side *#$%@& loves this blog.
The other side of me feels like there’s a bigger picture sometimes; feels like what I’ve been taught by Steve Yzerman about class, respect, humility, self-control, gratitude, and the will to make every sacrifice to help a team, is what being a good person is all about. This side of me wishes other Red Wing fans represent Stevie better, and hold off on the selfishness and immaturity of putting fanhood above rationality, respect, and everything else. This side of me sees Puck Daddy’s Point.
Why does Sidney Crosby have a hard time getting respect from referees, players, and fans? Because he whines about calls, disrespects opponents, and has an over-inflated sense of self-worth.
Chief, you describe the difference between Yzerman and Crosby well (and often), but sometimes I think you have to think about which one you emulate.
Posted by Cameltoedrag on 11/19/09 at 01:32 PM ET