Seeing some of the stuff linked to over there still pisses me off.  Yeah, the Wings get all the calls…

Posted by DetroitHockey on 01/05/09 at 02:01 PM ET

Beauchemin’s (sp?) OT goal against the Wings was pretty clearly a high stick and they allowed it. Really, if you were a Wings fan, you soon would realize that the Wings NEVER get calls.

I guess it’s my duty to remind us that there was a goal called back against the Ducks that game, but since it wasn’t in overtime, I guess there’s no real need to remember it.  And as for the Beauch goal, the best that can be said about it is that it was very close to the crossbar, but not definitive enough to overrule the call on the ice.  Thus, goal.

Selective memory: providing evidence for referee bias since the dawn of time.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 01/05/09 at 02:04 PM ET

Earl, thanks for doing your duty.  There’s no need to remember the goal that was disallowed because it was the right call, Selanne interfered = no goal.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/05/09 at 02:13 PM ET

Earl -

When your team gets a goal allowed against them that CLEARLY HIT THE NETTING ABOVE THE GLASS BEHIND THE GOAL, such as what San Jose benefitted from against the Wings last year… then you can gripe about the fact that Wings fans complain about the absolutely ridiculous calls that go against their team and the fact that when one finally goes the other way we Wings fans feel no sympathy..

Or should we point out Datsyuk’s phantom penalty in the Game We Shall Not Speak Of that directly led to a Ducks win?

Until then, I think only the Sabres have as big a case for screwjob calls by officials (Brett Hull, are your ears burning?) and those who complain about them.

Posted by Primis on 01/05/09 at 02:14 PM ET

Selanne interfered = no goal.

Still an iffy call that went Detroit’s way (not that there weren’t counter-examples, mind you, but that one was a pretty big scoreboard impact—from a Ducks goal to a Wings PP on what I’d call a judgment call).

Also see pretty much the ENTIRE FRIGGING WCF IN 2007 you stupid frigging twit.

So in that six-game series, Detroit spent 68+ minutes on the power play compared to Anaheims’ 48+ minutes, and I believe the 5-on-3 discrepancy was even more disproportionately in Detroit’s favor.  While it’s tough to quantify how much bias there was in penalties called vs. penalties deserved, I still don’t really see how this becomes a terribly useful argument in how tough it must be never getting any calls going your way.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 01/05/09 at 02:26 PM ET

No, we have not Chief.  Personally, I would not waste my time debating with idiots.  The Mule deal went to Toronto-done and over with.  It was pretty obvious to me, but we all expected a different result.  And Toronto does not even like us-Thanks Gary. Ass.

Ken Daniels and Mickey Redmond??  We know who they are.  But, for an independent voice, just read some of Bucci’s comments on favorite announcers/personalities in some of his columns in ESPN.  Do not have the links here, but they are there for the inquisitive mind.  Bottom line, they are some of the best.  Murphy---that’s another question.

Posted by Jeff from Loveland, CO on 01/05/09 at 02:27 PM ET

There are three sets of rules. The Crosby gets whatever he demands rule. The rules for the rest of the league. Then, the rules for anyone wearing a Red Wings jersey.

Night in and night out we deal with trying to win against who ever we are playing.  Then, trying to win against the bullshit officials.

I have been watching the Wings for more years than I care to admit, but there is a bias on some nights. Thanks Gary.Ass.

Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

Posted by Kate from Pa. on 01/05/09 at 02:53 PM ET

I do admit that the Wings got the better end of the shit sandwich the refs have been feeding teams this year when they played the Wild on Saturday.  Am I apologetic?  Hell no.  I can say this with as little bias as possible (which is still a lot), that was the first game all season where the Wings got the better end of bad reffing.  I’m not saying that every game has been officiated poorly this season, but all that have to this point have been against the Wings.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/05/09 at 02:58 PM ET

I’ll put it another way.  Were ANY of you surprised on Jan. 1 when Hossa took a penalty for being knocked into the goalie?  Or when Lilja got boarded and then penalized for being unhappy about it?  Or Lebda taking an elbow to the face but penalized for a delay of game?

I think the crossbar thing with the Wild was a marginal call.  So...Red Wings:1 League: 185.

Posted by Gabriel from San Diego, CA on 01/05/09 at 03:04 PM ET

Gabe, well said man.
Nice update on the avatar too.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 01/05/09 at 03:16 PM ET

First:

The Wings get Semin-slapped by Gary’s referees so often that it’s become normalcy for all fans of The Dynasty.

Awesome quote.

Second:

There’s no sense in arguing with Earl anymore. Does anyone really care about the Ducks anymore? Now that the Wings got the Cup, I don’t even remember ‘07. And I’m not particularly concerned about the Ducks winning more Cups, either.

Third (and the issue at hand):

Over the course of a season, do the Wings have more calls go against them? No. Do they have more calls go their way? Nope. After 82, it’s pretty close to even.

That said, are there some match-ups that result in the Wings having calls go against them (or no-calls)? Absolutely. The Ducks are always a tough deal with the refs for Detroit because they commit so many fouls that the refs can’t call them all. It’s brilliant, really. Build completely around defense and goaltending, then have your punk-ass players desensitize the refs to the point where regular fouls don’t look like penalties, and over-the-top fouls look like normal infractions.

But there are also match-ups that result in the Wings getting calls that might be weak. For instance, when Detroit is playing the Quad-Bravos, or the Atlanta Thrashers… I think refs have a natural tendency to assume that the team that’s got the 0.650 win % really did get hooked on that play they couldn’t quite see, since they are obviously so much better than the team with the 0.400 win %. That’s natural. When you have a good team playing an awful one, you kind of just assume that either a) the good one will have to play bad for a game or b) the awful one will have to cheat if they want a chance at winning the game.

In the end, there are plenty of calls that go for and against each team all season long. The law of averages says that after almost 5,000 minutes of hockey, the calls/no-calls/phantom calls/etc. will even out amongst all team.

What matters is how critical a bad call is. A bad call in the playoffs is exponentially worse than one in the regular season, in almost all cases. A bad call in tied series is worse yet. And a blown call in a Conf. Final or Cup Final is that much worse.

Bottom line—we Wings fans think our team gets a lot of bad calls/no-calls/etc. We’re no different than fans of any other team (except maybe the Ducks… even their fans cannot argue with the murder they get away with sometimes). Half the time we’re upset with a call/no-call, we’re right, the other half the time we are wrong. And the same goes for the Wing haters. Half the time their Wing hate blinds them from seeing the call as it truly is, and the other half the time they are right.

My advice to the Wild, their fans, and media members—get over it. We’re not even half-way through the regular season. Essentially, they are a team that has fallen apart of the last few weeks and are looking for ANYTHING to blame it on other than their own poor play (which is natural, I don’t hold that against them). You’ve still got 40+ games to go out there, play good hockey, and make up for the lost point. If you miss the playoffs by a point, it’s because you lost 10 freakin’ games in December (yes, 10… in a single month… that is the stuff the Blues are made of, gimme a break Wild), not because you “got shafted” on that one call in the middle of the season.

And besides, Malik’s got the conclusive evidence that it was a goal: http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/01/franzengate_redux.html.

Right after Franzen’s shaft (sexy, right?) drops below the bar you see the puck come into the frame from off the boards and hit it. The images from Russo are showing the puck CLEARLY before it makes contact with the stick. Use any basic image program and zoom in on it. In the side-view shot he posted there is nothing worthwhile. The defender is in the way of the view so it’s hardly “proof” of a goal or no-goal. In the second shot (from behind the net) that he posted, you can clearly see plenty of Zetterberg’s white jersey between Franzen’s stick and the puck. Furthermore, that second shot is quite clearly at an angle that breaks at least a few degrees above being parallel to the ice surface (and as such, the crossbar). If the camera in this shot were level, we wouldn’t so clearly see the top netting of the goal.

On the other hand, in the FSDetroit feed where it shows the zoom from the video camera at the other end of the ice, the camera is clearly much closer (if not completely) parallel to the ice surface, as you cannot see any of the top netting on the zoomed in shot.

In the end, I’m just surprised that the league has not used a little programming and geometry to get this done. Since the position of the goal never changes, all that would be needed is for a specific set of cameras to have fixed locations and angles that do not change. Math can do the rest.

Posted by Nathan on 01/05/09 at 03:29 PM ET

Just another incident to add fuel to the fire: remember the Sharks goal in 2008 where the puck bounced up, hit the netting, came back down, and was put into the goal by the Sharks?  Dan O’Hallaran was the official who allowed it, stating the referees did not see the puck hit the net, yet the Wings and some of the Sharks had body language indicating the play had been stopped.

Wings got the shaft there, yet the video replays ALL showed the netting bulge as the puck went out of play.

Posted by drimo on 01/05/09 at 03:37 PM ET

RE: the Franzen goal, here (again) is the conclusive video from George Malik’s Snapshots blog:

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/01/franzengate_redux.html

We may call it getting:
- shafted
- the short end of the stick
- screwed
or any number of other colorful terms, but li’l gary has another name for it…
PARITY.

It doesn’t only happen to the Wings, but with fans being fans, we all tend to notice the bad calls and non-calls that impact our team more than those that hurt the opponent. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen to the Wings, either. Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.

Finally, I had to chuckle at Earl pulling out the 2007 WCF power play minutes in defense of his “death by a thousand cuts” Ducks. I do have to admit that he’s absolutely right when he says “it’s tough to quantify how much bias there was in penalties called vs. penalties deserved”—a thought that’s at the heart of their strategy.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 01/05/09 at 03:46 PM ET

Nice common sense explanation Nathan.

Posted by Jeff from Loveland, CO on 01/05/09 at 03:56 PM ET

There’s no sense in arguing with Earl anymore.

Some might argue that it never made sense in the first place. 

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 01/05/09 at 04:00 PM ET

Eh, c’mon guys, ease up on Earl.

He knows his hockey, just seems to be stuck in a geographically undesirable area, hockeywise ... ,that is.

Nathan seems to have cracked the nut, without actually saying “Watch more hockey, not just the Wings”.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd from upset when blogs don�t live up to my expectations on 01/05/09 at 05:01 PM ET

When your team gets a goal allowed against them that CLEARLY HIT THE NETTING ABOVE THE GLASS BEHIND THE GOAL, such as what San Jose benefitted from against the Wings last year… then you can gripe about the fact that Wings fans complain about the absolutely ridiculous calls that go against their team and the fact that when one finally goes the other way we Wings fans feel no sympathy..

My apologies to the the 19, but that was a good goal.  The refs didn’t stop play, therefore the puck was live. 

For a puck in the netting, the rules specify that play is stopped if a referee sees the puck in the netting and whistles the play dead.  In this case that “if” was very important.

The ultimate problem with that goal wasn’t the refs not seeing the puck in the netting, but the Wings not playing between the whistles.

Posted by monkey from Gary's World, setting fire to McCrimmon on 01/05/09 at 05:14 PM ET

The ultimate problem with that goal wasn’t the refs not seeing the puck in the netting, but the Wings not playing between the whistles

Watch more hockey, not just the Wings”.

Ding ding. 2 winners.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 01/05/09 at 05:37 PM ET

Earl, of course the Ducks had more PIMs that year - if every team played like they did they’d call it the Federal League.

Posted by HockeyJoe from Upstate New York on 01/05/09 at 06:14 PM ET

Advice to The 19:

Dont argue with an idiot - he’ll drag you down to his level & beat you with experience.

Posted by RWBill from jabbing a six inch sewing needle into my eye. on 01/05/09 at 07:17 PM ET

Douche Canoe calling the WJC Final. Those poor kids.  It’s bad enough when he gets an asinine idea and takes it as a theme for the whole game, looking for any evidence he can stretch to fit his idea when he’s calling the pros.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/05/09 at 07:20 PM ET

Nice common sense explanation Nathan.

Agreed, but there’s no room for that around here, Nathan.

Seriously, though, I agree with every word of your post.

Posted by Incognetis from Exile in Alabama on 01/05/09 at 09:39 PM ET

And the same goes for the Wing haters. Half the time their Wing hate blinds them from seeing the call as it truly is, and the other half the time they are right.

So what is the Douche Canoe’s problem.  He is so blindly biased against the Wings, it’s like his eyes were poked out by the pecca of Gary’s Baby Boy.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from Earth. on 01/06/09 at 08:25 AM ET

Agreed, but there’s no room for that around here, Nathan.

Damn. You’re right. But remember, I started my post by complimenting the “Semin-slapped” phrase, so I think I met the per-post quota of juvenilacity.

So what is the Douche Canoe’s problem.  He is so blindly biased against the Wings, it’s like his eyes were poked out by the pecca of Gary’s Baby Boy.

I don’t disagree that DC is a Wing-hater.

But we’re talking about good/bad officiating, and who gets the most benefit of it. To which I say, nobody, it all evens out. Teams play almost 5000 minutes of hockey in a season. That’s a shit-ton of hockey. There will be unfair penalty calls, bad no-goal calls and bad goal calls… stuff will go against you. But in that much hockey, you’ll get a few your way too. It’s just easy to remember the bad ones.

What’s critical is that these calls are scrutinized and made to be correct when you get down the stretch run and into the playoffs.

But as for the Wild blubbering it up in flippin’ January? My point is this—give me a break, it’s January, you lost 10 games in December (so you must suck). The good/bad breaks even out… look to how shitty you played last month if you want to know why you’re in 9th place, not to one borderline call in one game in January that cost you one point.

As a side-note on the media issue, I think that often times that mainstream and Canadian hockey media come across as Wing-haters because they’re sick and tired of reporting the same old stuff. I can’t say I blame them. Since 1995 it’s been the same story at least every couple of years—Detroit is too old, but then their skill and determination comes through and they win… then they draft some diamonds in the rough and get guys to sign contracts that are fair… and they win again. If you had to cover the league from a national or Canadian perspective, you’d probably be sick of having one team take all your headlines too. Just being honest.

Posted by Nathan on 01/06/09 at 11:03 AM ET