Greg Wyshynski on the Penalty Shot

[TSD]

When did the right call become the unfortunate call?</p>


 </p>


<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Frolik call was such a jarring shock to the system because we witnessed an NHL referee sacking up and making the correct call on a play like this … in an elimination playoff game.</span></p>


 </p>


 </p>


Its yet another situation where some wings fans don't understand how hockey works.</p>


 </p>


Anyone who thinks without that goal the game would have played out to a tee exactly as it did just without 4 goals for the hawks simply doesn't understand the game.  Babcocks decisions are different down 2 instead of 1, the players on both teams play differently.  Point being, had the hawks NOT scored a 4th goal, there is no guarantee detroit would have gotten 3 to tie it up, because odds are the play that led to the 3rd goal doesnt even happen, without everything before it, happening just as it did.</p>


 </p>


Was the same thing I tried to explain to some wings fans about the interference call who said it didn't matter if the goal got taken away, because the wings scored another goal.  </p>


 </p>


 </p>


My point is right call wrong call, Wings fans need to quit assuming that 3rd Detroit goal is a guarantee without Frolik getting the penalty shot.</p>


 </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

He brings up a good point which basically is, the Refs are going to get roasted either way, so they might as well make the right call and take the circumstances out of it. I was surprised he called a penalty shot. I had the sound down because the baby was sleeping, but when I saw the replay I said man that should have been a penalty shot, then I say him line up for it and score and I about pissed myself. They are only whining because it went in. If he had missed it would be a no issue today.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I thought it was weak given the circumstances. But ill happily take it any time!!


Did it fit the PS criteria? Sure. But I've seen waaaaaaaaay worse not even called a penalty, let alone a penalty shot.

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="197626" data-time="1369760645">
<div>


He brings up a good point which basically is, the Refs are going to get roasted either way, so they might as well make the right call and take the circumstances out of it. I was surprised he called a penalty shot. I had the sound down because the baby was sleeping, but when I saw the replay I said man that should have been a penalty shot, then I say him line up for it and score and I about pissed myself. They are only whining because it went in. If he had missed it would be a no issue today.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


With that said, With all the whining surrounding this, I would lay money detroit gets a penalty shot in game 7.</p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsonov" data-cid="197629" data-time="1369761051">
<div>


I thought it was weak given the circumstances. But ill happily take it any time!!


Did it fit the PS criteria? Sure. But I've seen waaaaaaaaay worse not even called a penalty, let alone a penalty shot.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I will completely agree with you on that, but felt vindicated we got our game changing "borderline" call.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="197631" data-time="1369761450">
<div>


With that said, With all the whining surrounding this, I would lay money detroit gets a penalty shot in game 7.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


And I'm fine with that, as long as it's the right call and conforms to all 4 of the above. What better deterrent for this type of shit than to get the call right? If the NHL wants better, faster games with more scoring opportunities, force the refs to get it right and the players to not make stupid mistakes.</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

DET got a call.....they had a phathom disallowed goal that swung game 3</p>


 </p>


At least this was a legit call</p>

 

[xatruio]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxclland" data-cid="197634" data-time="1369761700">

DET got a call.....they had a phathom disallowed goal that swung game 3
 
At least this was a legit call</p></blockquote>
QFT cuz +1 doesnt always justify

 

[the canadian dream]

It all just echos the same sentiment all hockey fans have shared over the last few years that the problem isn't the individual calls on the ice but the consistency  or inconsistency of calling penalties as they are. Fans including myself have no idea what a penalty is and isn't anymore and it's obvious that the players don't either. Not even sure if the officials themselves know sometimes to be honest. It just gets worse in the playoffs. One side of me believes if everything is actually called under the rules in the playoffs then there would probably be no flow at all to a game. I can tollerate a bit of slashing and hooking etc etc in the playoffs..i kind of like it to be honest. But yah where do you draw the line?</p>


 </p>


i said it before i have never seen a team hack and slash and trip and interfere as much as I have seen the Wings do on their penalty kills. I have no idea how the Hawks haven't had any 5 on 3's this series because the penalties under the book have been there. in the regular season the calls would have been made easily. That's what gets so confusing. </p>

 

[PatrickShart]

It goes along the lines of having 'puck luck'


While so many panicked and claim the hawks got their assed kicked in gms 3-4..but disregard the 5 posts, disallowed goal, the 4 breakaways the hawks had, numerous 2 on 1's - all on the road - but just couldn't finish


While 2 of their 4 goal in those games ...hit the post and in


Things find ways to balance out , just a calls/timing of them do at times, where eventually the best team wins

 

[Tyralyon]

Here's another piece, from former NHL ref Kelly Fraser:</p>


 </p>


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=424167</p>


 </p>


Interesting part about Saad's breakaway in Game 4:</p>


"The foul from behind caused Saad to lose possession of the puck and a reasonable scoring opportunity was denied. While this play was another textbook example of a penalty shot, the Referee instead chose to assess a minor penalty to Kindl for hooking."</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

"puck luck" takes on a different meaning to me than I suppose it does to others by the sounds of things. For example pucks bouncing of a stanchion directly to Bieksas stick is "puck luck" to me. Hitting a post isn't "puck luck" in my opinion nor is botching 2 on 1's those to me are more about execution for the most part. Officiating doesn't even go into the realm of what I consider to be "puck luck". Officiating is an entire different complaint all together. I can see how some posts can be considered by many as being part of this "puck luck" campaign though but it would have to be taken case by case. Many hit posts are just an example of poor execution sometimes and even good goalkeeping (good goalies are aware of where their posts are). It is a game of inches no doubt about it. So arguments can ensue as they always do. I just don't throw around the term "puck luck" around that loosely anymore. That becomes to much of an excuse to me sometimes. I believe in it just not to the extent of others.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tyralyon" data-cid="197655" data-time="1369771104">
<div>


Here's another piece, from former NHL ref Kelly Fraser:</p>


 </p>


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=424167</p>


 </p>


Interesting part about Saad's breakaway in Game 4:</p>


"The foul from behind caused Saad to lose possession of the puck and a reasonable scoring opportunity was denied. While this play was another textbook example of a penalty shot, the Referee instead chose to assess a minor penalty to Kindl for hooking."</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I assume it was a different ref on the ice? To me it's exactly what TCD says about inconsistency. And it definately leads to not understanding what a penalty is and what isn't which makes it a lot harder to understand the games nuances and a lot harder for new fans to pick it up. My wife, who has watched hockey her whole life, was watching with me last night and said multiple times why wasn't that a penalty, and why was that called but the other one wasn't? She doesn't know hockey as well as a lot of fans, but she knows it well enough to be confused about the inconsistencies. Same can be said for basketball. Flops and hard fouls and inconsistencies, and we've seen how that game is slowly being ruined. NFL I would assume is next even though for the most part theirs are procedural and pretty cut and dry.</p>

 

[The Count Dante]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Canadian Dreamalchuk" data-cid="197658" data-time="1369772268">
<div>


"puck luck" takes on a different meaning to me than I suppose it does to others by the sounds of things. For example pucks bouncing of a stanchion directly to Bieksas stick is "puck luck" to me. Hitting a post isn't "puck luck" in my opinion nor is botching 2 on 1's those to me are more about execution for the most part. Officiating doesn't even go into the realm of what I consider to be "puck luck". Officiating is an entire different complaint all together. I can see how some posts can be considered by many as being part of this "puck luck" campaign though but it would have to be taken case by case. Many hit posts are just an example of poor execution sometimes and even good goalkeeping (good goalies are aware of where their posts are). It is a game of inches no doubt about it. So arguments can ensue as they always do. I just don't throw around the term "puck luck" around that loosely anymore. That becomes to much of an excuse to me sometimes. I believe in it just not to the extent of others.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


As with so many other topics for me, I look to poker. Poor players speak of luck. And not getting enough. As in poker as it is in hockey, you earn your "luck" through work and experience.</p>


 </p>


Sometimes, the cards will screw you hard with NOTHING you can do, but anyone who blames the cards or the way the puck bounces or the ref calls is looking for excuses and excuses make you blow your bankroll having never learned a thing.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I thought when JT had that mini breakaway on the PP and the Redwings Dman came over the top like an axe, we would see a PS. </p>


 </p>


Just glad Frolik scored on it.</p>


 </p>


**** Detroit</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="197623" data-time="1369760317">
<div>


When did the right call become the unfortunate call?</p>


 </p>


<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Frolik call was such a jarring shock to the system because we witnessed an NHL referee sacking up and making the correct call on a play like this … in an elimination playoff game.</span></p>



 </p>


 </p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


When the NHL routinely abandons the rulebook throughout the regular season and even moreso during the playoffs. It's a huge problem. There are tons of calls that should be made, but aren't, and tons that shouldn't, but are, usually in those cases to "even" things up to make it 4 on 4. Situations where a penalty isn't called on something that is a legit penalty until a player from the other team does something to the player who committed the penalty and then both are called. It's bullshit.</p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="197678" data-time="1369779883">
<div>


When the NHL routinely abandons the rulebook throughout the regular season and even moreso during the playoffs. It's a huge problem. There are tons of calls that should be made, but aren't, and tons that shouldn't, but are, usually in those cases to "even" things up to make it 4 on 4. Situations where a penalty isn't called on something that is a legit penalty until a player from the other team does something to the player who committed the penalty and then both are called. It's bullshit.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I agree it really needs to be addressed, playoffs/not playoffs.  Call it as you see it.  If you miss a call you miss a call, DONT GIVE MAKEUP CALLS.  Theres no way the refs will always make the right call, I get it, but when they try to makeup for mistakes they just **** it all up.  2 wrongs dont make a right so to speak.</p>

 

[Variable]

Yeah those make up calls too. Agreed, it's dumb. But I was talking more of the situations like this:</p>


 </p>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rIg_pDWdec</p>


 </p>


Where they weren't going to call a penalty on Dejardins only until after Keith started that fight or something similar happened.  And then you lose Keith for almost an entire fucking period and they lose a 4th line goon. Something like that happens on almost a daily basis during the regular season, almost in every single game, you can point out an occurrence where a penalty was obvious but nothing was called until it was retaliated against and both teams are penalized, and many times the worst of it going to the team in which the power play SHOULD have been going to in the first place IF they had only called the penalty, like in that Keith example.</p>


 </p>


It's not just about getting the calls the right, arguably more importantly it's about stopping the enabling of stupid dangerous shit like that in which I don't think they  even realize they are enabling. Because it's a double edge sword, if nobody does anything in that example, nothing gets called on a fucking blind side high hit. The refs were content to play on. It was only until Keith had to start a fight did they make the call.  It's like they have no idea how insane that is.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="197685" data-time="1369785722">
<div>


Yeah those make up calls too. Agreed, it's dumb. But I was talking more of the situations like this:</p>


 </p>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rIg_pDWdec</p>


 </p>


Where they weren't going to call a penalty on Dejardins only until after Keith started that fight or something similar happened.  And then you lose Keith for almost an entire fucking period and they lose a 4th line goon. Something like that happens on almost a daily basis during the regular season, almost in every single game, you can point out an occurrence where a penalty was obvious but nothing was called until it was retaliated against and both teams are penalized, and many times the worst of it going to the team in which the power play SHOULD have been going to in the first place IF they had only called the penalty, like in that Keith example.</p>


 </p>


It's not just about getting the calls the right, arguably more importantly it's about stopping the enabling of stupid dangerous shit like that in which I don't think they  even realize they are enabling. Because it's a double edge sword, if nobody does anything in that example, nothing gets called on a fucking blind side high hit. The refs were content to play on. It was only until Keith had to start a fight did they make the call.  It's like they have no idea how insane that is.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Not to derail the thread...</p>


 </p>


...but that shouldn't of been a match penalty, hence why the NHL never suspended him.  No different than that Gryba hit.  </p>


 </p>


I don't disagree the NHL needs to say set standards and stick to them.  Playoff hockey has always been called differently and it shouldn't be.</p>


 </p>


Unfortunately, these calls are going both way.  Toews is getting smacked around by sticks and no calls are made. I'm shocked Sharp hasn't received a slashing or other stick related penalty with the way he's been using his twig.</p>

 

[Variable]

Misses the point, it was a penalty. A dangerous one. But they weren't going to call anything.</p>


 </p>


The NHL not suspending him afterwards proves nothing just because of their track record regarding decisions involving supplementary discipline and if it's necessary or not. They are horrible with it.</p>