LOL @ Stephen Walkom

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Too easy to blame the ref in that situation if youve never officiated a quick moving hockey game.

    He was the back official. The skirmish... clearly a case of each man committing minors.. was right in front of him.  That area was his responsibility, not 50 feet in front to the left of him. The commentators complaining it was a "bad call" had no business assuming he's supposed to know the play is developing into a prime scoring chance. That's not the officials job in his position at that point.

    It was definitely unfortunate how it turned out, but he did not do anything wrong. Calling offsetting minors is hardly substantial "with under 2 minutes to go."

    If the Hawks' player's shot went wide, and the teams went on a 4 on 4 and Kane scored the winner with all the extra skating room, all the complaining fans would be saying what a great call it was.

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Horrible call.  The puck was in the net before he blew the whistle.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    Horrible call.  The puck was in the net before he blew the whistle.



    Didn't stay up so missed this live, but saw the replays on NHL Network this morning.  In the video that they showed, you clearly hear the whistle before the shot.

    Wonder if the officals were sensitive to what happened to Filppula in the 1st in a bench scrum with Shaw?  Filppula was a pretty big loss for the Wings.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    I just watched it again.  It looked to me like the he was just about ready to blow the whistle when the shot was released.  Regardless, it was a ticky tack call.  Maybe Walkom didn't feel like working the OT and he thought there was a better chance someone would score 4 on 4.  Glad it didn't cost the Hawks (although I wanted the Wings to win!).

     

    I saw Fil leave the ice but I didn't really see what happened to him...did someone fall on him?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    Horrible call.  The puck was in the net before he blew the whistle.



    You're right . The second time he blew the whistle.......not the first.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MustangBri. Show MustangBri's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

    Too easy to blame the ref in that situation if youve never officiated a quick moving hockey game.

    He was the back official. The skirmish... clearly a case of each man committing minors.. was right in front of him.  That area was his responsibility, not 50 feet in front to the left of him. The commentators complaining it was a "bad call" had no business assuming he's supposed to know the play is developing into a prime scoring chance. That's not the officials job in his position at that point.

    It was definitely unfortunate how it turned out, but he did not do anything wrong. Calling offsetting minors is hardly substantial "with under 2 minutes to go."

    If the Hawks' player's shot went wide, and the teams went on a 4 on 4 and Kane scored the winner with all the extra skating room, all the complaining fans would be saying what a great call it was.

     

     




    Exactly.  Well said.  I watched it live and thought it was the right call all the way.  This ref is watching the center ice areas,  not what is going on inside the blue line.  It was clearly roughing and was the right call.  Melrose on SC completely agreed also.

    Another interesting point I heard on SC....  The 4 remaining teams in this years playoffs are the last 4 Stanley Cup winners.  Crazy.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Clearly this isn't a big deal if the Hawks don't score right after the whistle.  And you can't ask the refs to watch penalties happen and then try to consider the upcoming situation before making a call.  I agree it was really unfortunate, especially if the Hawks end up losing, but why is it a bad call exactly?

    They were penalties.  The ref is not responsible for the timing of them.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Whistle went first, and I thought the call itself was just.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    Horrible call.  The puck was in the net before he blew the whistle.

     



    Didn't stay up so missed this live, but saw the replays on NHL Network this morning.  In the video that they showed, you clearly hear the whistle before the shot.

     

    Wonder if the officals were sensitive to what happened to Filppula in the 1st in a bench scrum with Shaw?  Filppula was a pretty big loss for the Wings.




    Not to mention that the play does NOT end when the whistle blows, it ends when the referee decides the play is over.

    Plenty of arguments stemming from the time it takes the ref to get the whistle to his lips. Human beings.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

     

    Not to mention that the play does NOT end when the whistle blows, it ends when the referee decides the play is over.

     

    Plenty of arguments stemming from the time it takes the ref to get the whistle to his lips. Human beings.



    Huh?  Doesn't the ref decide the play is over by blowing the whistle?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

     

     

    Not to mention that the play does NOT end when the whistle blows, it ends when the referee decides the play is over.

     

    Plenty of arguments stemming from the time it takes the ref to get the whistle to his lips. Human beings.

     



    Huh?  Doesn't the ref decide the play is over by blowing the whistle?

     



    I think in some instances where there is a goal mouth scramble and the ref doesn't know where the puck is and then the puck goes in the net, the ref can call the goal back because he intended to blow the whistle but didn't do it quick enough.I guess what it boils down to is, the intent to blow the whistle was there. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Wonder if the officals were sensitive to what happened to Filppula in the 1st in a bench scrum with Shaw?  Filppula was a pretty big loss for the Wings.



    This could most certainly be in Walkoms defense and a few NHL players tweeted they were suprised by the call.

    On the other side, there were allot of skurmishes through out the game. Why blow the whistle that late in the game ? The ref has to be aware of the play and where the game is.

    Tough play, bad call.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:


    Huh?  Doesn't the ref decide the play is over by blowing the whistle?

     

    I think in some instances where there is a goal mouth scramble and the ref doesn't know where the puck is and then the puck goes in the net, the ref can call the goal back because he intended to blow the whistle but didn't do it quick enough.I guess what it boils down to is, the intent to blow the whistle was there. 

     



    But it can't work the other way around, I don't think.  Meaning, the ref can't blow the whistle, then see that a shot went in, and decide that the whistle should have been blown after the shot.  In short, the whistle always ends the play.  Right?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Fletch, there is an "intent to blow" rule that basically implies that if the ref has decided in his mind that the play is dead, it's dead, regardless if he has let anyone know yet.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Fletch, there is an "intent to blow" rule that basically implies that if the ref has decided in his mind that the play is dead, it's dead, regardless if he has let anyone know yet.



    But it can't work the other way around, I don't think.  Meaning, the ref can't blow the whistle, then see that a shot went in, and decide that the whistle should have been blown after the shot.  In short, the whistle always ends the play.  Right?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Yes, but the play can also end without a whistle.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    i see no reason there can't be an "inadvertant" whistle rule, it's makes as much sense as the "i intended to blow my whistle" rule. i'm only half-joking. the only reason the "i intended to blow the whistle" rule should be used is if there is a whistle malfunction(broken)- and IT cannot physically make a noise to stop play. if a whistle blown, is a whistle blown- then it stops the play. if there's no whistle, there's no whistle- play is live. can't have it both ways. VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE. did the ref now intend to call a penalty? intend to call an offsides? a penalty is a penalty, 1st minute of the game SHOULD be the same as the last. as soon as game situation determines IF a penalty gets called... a mockery is made of the rules of the game. again VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Bradon Saad 2 minutes for being body slammed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    Gotta admit, I saw Walkom in the title and thought, "Freakin' Null got ANOTHER account?"

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: LOL @ Stephen Walkom

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Gotta admit, I saw Walkom in the title and thought, "Freakin' Null got ANOTHER account?"




    My first reaction too, seo.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share