NHL: Ref's call against Smith was "gutsy"

Stephen Walkom, the NHL's director of officiating, said the ruling that Lightning goaltender Mike Smith deliberately threw his stick to disrupt Milan Hejduk's shootout attempt on Thursday was the correct call.

"It was a very tough call. It was a gutsy call. It was a call that was made in an instant, and I support the call," Walkom said.

Walkom said the referees did it right by conferring amongst themselves to try to get the call correct. As for perhaps in the future expanding video replay to include such situations, Walkom said no because, "Where does it stop. It's a judgment call. You can watch this play 1,000 times, and the only thing you can say is the decision that was made you need to support.

"They're there," he said of the officials. "They have a sense of what really happened on the play. The video could argue it either way. At the end of the day, the guys on the ice make a judgment call and you have to support it. I don't think the video refutes it."

I'll have a lot more on this in the story in tomorrow's paper, including a pretty good blow by blow from Walkom about how the call was made, which referee was the ringleader, so to speak, and Walkom's concession that the referees could have handled better explaining to coach Rick Tocchet at the bench how the ruling was made.

In the meantime, here are some answers from the NHL as to the questions posed in Thursday's blog entry. These are excerpts from conversations with Walkom and NHL director of hockey operations Mike Murphy.

Was the call right?

Murphy: "It doesn't matter what i think. The call is made by the referees and I support their calls.

Walkom: "Just like Rick supports his team, I support the guys in the calls they make. This is hard. It leads to debate. But in the end, the referee on the play, viewing the play was 100 percent sure that is what (Smith) did. And he made that call in an instant. Not easy.

Should video replay be expanded?

Murphy: "Not with two referees on the ice and they do an unbelievable job. We don't need anyone refereeing from above, and that's what you can get."

Walkom: "Maybe this is a good example of how video really couldn't help you. ... I know it wouldn't change the result of this call. ... You can say you can watch this play 1,000 times, and the only thing you can say on this play is the decision that was made you need to support"

Has there ever been a discussion about expanding the video review?

Murphy: "They tried to expand video review and it hasn't been received well. Some general managers have put it on the agendas for a couple of meetings and it was not received well. Leave video review alone. It works and let's not expand it."

Why can't refs, generally, speak to reporters after controversial calls?

Murphy: "As I talked to both, they were wound tighter than a drum; very emotional. They were wound up as tight as the players. They had to deal with a lot of animosity from the bench and a lot of unhappiness. I don't want them even being approached even by someone like you who does not have an agenda. They might say or do the wrong thing and that's not what we want. The game is about the players. (Officials) are there to make sure the game is played on the ice and played fair."

Comments

[PD]

Heh Patwick they are considerably worse this year, how's that grab ya?

I said to keep the core not the team

[hyjyljyj]

BS. Totally made the save with the blocker, then dropped the stick.

Little tiny hint to the refs (again): when a call is totally borderline, could easily go either way....then you pick the call that doesn't have YOU deciding the outcome of the game. You keep YOURSELF out of the spotlight, let that shine on the PLAYERS. You already have forbidden the teams from deiciding ties in OT after 5 minutes. Now you're not even allowing the INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS to do it. Cretins.

NHL = National Horsesh*t League

[Ray]

Horse-SPIT! Totally made the save with his blocker.

[Ben bolt fan]

Then this idiot Stephen Walkom should have let the refs get interviewed after the game instead of hideing them.
What a butt cheese!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick]

PD,

You're act has been lame before the puck was ever dropped this season.

"Keep Richy and Kuba and blah blah, wah wah..."

You are the only person I've seen on this blog call Smith a savior. Everyone else though does recognize he is a great goalie and alone worth trading Richards for.

PD, try this - MOVE ON.

The bolts were the joke of the league last year with the cast you said they should have kept for another round - that makes a whole lot of sense. No matter how bad it works out this year, they were at least smart enough not to try what failed horribly the year before. Aren't canadians supposed to know this sport? You aren't representing too well.

[ajax]

you summed up "Your" misery. You miss Richie Torts and Feaster. The recipe that sunk the cake. Although Torts got dragged in the batter. Yeah we really want Richie back and his 7.8 million. Talk about the trade that was one sided. Smith Halpern Jussi and enough money to sign Malone for the king of the minus leaders Mr. PPlay assist. HAHA Thanks for the Xmas funny PD. I know you weren't serious when you had Brad and Feasater on your wish list. PD where were you last year when Kuba was a minus 28 over the last 50 games??? Must of been the coach!!!

[PD]

Ajax I/we listened to your Kool-Aid material in Oct. Its lame now that things have played themselves out isn't it.

No one with any sense at all claims the Meszaros trade tilted in the Bolts favor and that's WITHOUT the 1st round pick that Lawton threw in.
BTW, Phillips and Volchenkov are the Sens top 2 D just so you know.

No one said Smith is playing badly but at 8-29 as a Bolt, please. A savior, not.

Give back Ritchie and Boyle, Kuba, Lukowich and Picard and the $$$ that Koules blew and keep Feaster and Torts.
spend it wisely. There are lots of bargain goalies and maybe some that can win a shootout.

Draft Doughty instead of Stamkos and get a bonus pick in the deal.

Think the Bolts then would be the joke of the league, think they wouldn't have any secondary scoring, think the PP would be limp? Think they wouldn't have some depth. Think the chemistry in the room might be different?

You have been proven wrong my friend.

Wouldn't worry about the Leafs Ajax, they are positioned rather well going forward.

[ajax]

PD keep printing that mindless crapola about Smith. All it really does is paint you for what you are. Mindless rants on a continual basis. There is plenty of blame but Smith ain't one of them, yet you keep going back again and again to his losing record. Mindless on your part. Remember PD, Luongo has a career losing record, so stats only tell which ever dark side of the story you wish to pursue. If Smith was playing bad your rant would be worth while. But if he is keeping us in the games night after night and you say he stinks cause he has a losing record. Like I said, Mindless Rants. Saw a good segment on Ottawa and how they desperately want a Dman that can move the puck. Another one of PD's favorite posts about Kuba and how great he is. Bottomline is when Picard and Kuba are your top Dman you won't be able to compete. Kuba can't/won't skate, period. But it is often the basis of PD's bashing of the MEzzy trade. Mezzy is twice the player Ottawa got. Hoepfully Mezzy will be here for 10 more years. I see where Toronto gave up an 8 spot the other night. Oh I forgot they are looking good and rebuilding at 15 million below the cap. The Cup will have rust on it before it ever is lifted in Toronto again. PD, It's Xmas save the pessimism for your Toronto blog. Here is some optimism. We have by far the worst overtime record and we have by far the worst one goal loss record(really really bad if you consider we also have given up 5 empty net goals)
We are getting there, It is Xmas and I for one refuse to be negative until 12-26-2008. Tonight will be a big win. Tampa 4 Atlanta 1. Just wait and see Scrooge(PD)

[PD]

as opposed to what exactly Jessicles?

[Jessicles]

wow pd you really know quite a bit about hockey.stfu about mike smith.he's the one keeping us in the games

[leo]

Agree with Joe on the call being "made in an instant" angle.
Was or wasn't it?
That's the refs' story?
P.

[Patrick]

Danger,

They looked pretty happy with themselves despite needing a terrible call from the refs to get a shootout win over one of the worst teams in the league. Not really something to be celebrating if you ask me.

[PD]

Well the good thing about the meaningless shootout "contoversy" is that it paints the Bolts as victims and allows the most recent, nasty little loss to take 2nd page.

Mike Smith 8-29 in a Tampa uniform.

Bring back Homer and Ritchie and play for the tie.

[Danger]

You know the part that annoys me most? It's not even the fact that we ended up losing on a goal awarded for free after Smitty made an amazing save. It was the way the Avs acted after they "won". Raycroft making the save and smashing the puck into the crowd. Then Liles and Foote do a jumping shoulder bump. I mean I'd take the 2 points too, but just skate off the ice boys, no reason to act like you actually earned it.

[Steve R]

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's Crosby throwing a haymaker at a helpless crotch...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Puck-Headlines-Sidney-Crosby-trains-on-Valabik-?urn=nhl,130399

[hockeytalkie]

agree that only shots that cross the line should be called goals.

back to the soccer shootout comparison, if a goalie leaves his line early and makes the save, the refs allows a re-take. if they shooter scores in spite of the goalie's infraction, the goal stands.

league is full of BS. they say they only review puck crossing the line, but we all know they review kicked pucks, high sticked pucks, pushed pucks, etc.

maybe the rule needs to be rewritten to be a retake for the shooter and a possible 5 game suspension for the goalie (after the league reviews it, of course). that way a punishment/penalty is involved. no suspension means the league quietly disagreed with the refs' call. but players still decide the game.

[Marv]

The officials have been less than satisfactory this year. In several games, one could believe they were looking for calls against us and, not make the same call against our opponent.
Several teams have are complained about the officials. One most recently was Columbus which just recently got some bad calls which ultimately led to their losing.
It is almost like if you are down in the standings, you don't the favorable calls. Adverse calls, yes.
Marv

[anne]

Hey Damien,
Maybe you could get with Eric at TBO and then some other repoters in other NHL cities and start a petition for us fans. Get enough names and comments sent to the idiot running the officials and just maybe he will see that they don't know how to do their job. In a propability, it will get ignored but maybe it could get some publicity showing how fans everywhere are irratated with all the innconsistent calls that are being made. Maybe that would make them look at themselves.

[Josh G]

I feel bad for the refs who had to make this call. I officiate youth hockey and absolutely the last thing I want to do is make a call that ends up deciding the game. I'm sure these refs feel the same way. You couldn't get to that level of officiating if you tried to influence the outcome of games.

The officials had one chance to look at the play. What they probably saw was Smith's stick go into the corner, which made them believe he threw it. If they had been able to take a second look at it, it would have been obvious that he didn't throw it. It was dropped to the ice, hit the ice and THEN went to the corner after Smitty had made the save.

Kudos to the refs though for making the call they thought was right, even though they knew it wasn't going to be popular with the fans. In hindsight, it was of course the wrong call. But I don't blame the refs for this one, I blame the NHL for not making it a reviewable play. Refs, being humans, are going to make mistakes once in a while. Why take the risk of a mistake like that deciding the outcome of a game? Can you imagine if this had happened during a penalty shot in the playoffs?

If Toronto can review whether or not a player kicks the puck into the net, why can't they review if a goalie throws his stick?

[Amanda]

1. The Director of Officiating mollycoddling, er I mean, supporting the call of the officials?! *gasp* No! I'm shocked!

2. "The game is about the players." Oh is it, now? Really? Then let the players decide the outcome of the game.

[Max Hunter]

Boltflasher:

I was just thinking the same thing. If we can't agree on the video replay, then lets revert to street hockey rules - DO OVER!

Max

[Boltflasher]

The rule should be the shooter gets to repeat the "penalty" shot. As stated above, what a bunch of hooey...

[Jason]

absolutely NO accountability for these bozos. when is it going to stop? when will the nhl actually admit they were wrong? this is as bad as madoff stealing $50B, at least he admitted to it though

[Joe]

It was not made in an instant. It was made after a 3 minute conference on the ice. The original call of no goal was made in an instant, and that was the correct call!!!!

[Nan]

Oh, and I third the B.S.

[Nan]

Thanks for the update Damian. The whole problem here is the stupid rule where a team is awarded the deciding/winning goal in the game when the puck didn't even cross the goal line. Change the rule! The player should be given another chance to get the puck in the net not given an automatic goal. That would be more fair than what happened. Then the players would be deciding the outcome of the game not the officials. The puck should always cross the goal line to be considered a goal.

[Brittany]

I second (or fourth, I guess?) that. BS and crapola.

[Mike13]

"Walkom: "Maybe this is a good example of how video really couldn't help you. ... I know it wouldn't change the result of this call."

Complete and utter crapola.

[Patrick]

BS indeed.

[Karen]

B.S.