the Cunning Linguist wrote:
Pokecheque wrote:
2. YES, the play should have been blown dead. If there's an obvious injury it doesn't matter if that team doesn't get possession.
I agree, but part of the problem is with the definition of an "obvious injury". Sure, if blood is spurting ala Clint Malarchuk, for Pete's sake, stop the play. I agree that in this case, it most def should have been stopped dead, but bear in mind, it wasn't obvious to the refs or linesmen that Calvert took a puck to the head; It wasn't until after the whistle was blown that he was in obvious distress and bleeding inside his helmet. Heard that he had blood coming out his ears
A few games back, Tanev blocked a Laine one-timer that Tanev said later was the hardest shot he'd ever blocked. It looked like he broke a leg, but there no stoppage in play; Tanev looked crippled on the play and couldn't get off the ice. At the time, I didn't think the play should have been stopped, but if he DID get a broken leg, should the play have been stopped then? I don't have the answers other than, yes, if there's an obvious injury, absolutely stop the play.
Well, if taking a shot to the head and bleeding onto the ice isn't what is defined as an "obvious" injury, then just strike the rule from the books and do something else. Because then, there's no such thing as an "obvious" injury. And a broken leg, short of piercing his femoral artery, will never, ever rise to the same level as a head injury.
I can understand to a point the refs' reluctance. They're definitely cautious after what happened in the playoffs. And officiating culture is all about committing errors of omission rather than commission (to paraphrase what a former ref said on NHL Radio last year), but it's swinging too far the other way.
The league just needs to clarify the rule, and they need to back 100% the refs when they make those calls. That's also part of the problem. When the refs fucked up in that Vegas/SJ game they just quietly booted that officiating crew out of the postseason. That's led to refs being on the defensive and afraid to make calls. You can see they're walking on eggshells out there (except for Wes McCauley, that dude has no fear). There needs to be more transparency. I'm not saying they should throw the refs under the bus--just tacitly acknowledge the error, say what needs to be done the next time, and if it should happen again and the play is blown dead and a single, solitary player/coach/GM bitches about it, fine the living shit out of them.
I also don't buy that clarifying the rule will lead to all these guys writhing on the ice like they're Mike Ribeiro. If necessary, hand out fines/suspensions if there's a concern, but Pierre-Edouard Bellemare said it very clearly in the postgame, there really isn't a player out there who would take himself out of the play like that just to draw a whistle instead of helping his team try to defend.
While I understand the refs' precarious position, it doesn't mean they didn't make the wrong call. It is not just a "judgment" call here--it was readily apparent EVEN TO ELIAS FUCKING PETTERSSON that the play needed to be blown dead. If the refs were unsure they could've swooped in real quick to take a look, seen the blood, and blown the whistle.
I imagine the two refs in that game feel awful. But my sympathy only extends so far. They blew it, and it needs to be addressed.