In the aftermath of the Dustin Brown hit, Kings coach Terry Murray was asked about instant replay, and specifically whether hits such as Brown’s should be subject to immediate review, to determine whether or not there was actual contact to the head. A five-minute major penalty can play a significant factor in a game, but Murray said he didn’t want such reviews taking place.
MURRAY: “It is a very important penalty. I don’t think it should be reviewable though. It takes too much away from the referee, I think. I think you just let them make the call. It is reviewed after that. If it is deemed, by the league, that there is no blow to the head, no lateral, blindside hit, then they take away the game-misconduct part of it, and that’s the way it goes.”
Incidentally, the referee who came over to explain the call, Wes McCauley, is an offseason neighbor of Murray, in Maine. According to Murray, McCauley said he would review the video after the game to determine if Brown’s game misconduct should be rescinded.
Totally agree. Reviews are taking too much away from the game…
[Reply]
I don’t understand why he doesn’t at least talk to the other ref’s before giving the game misconduct and major penalty. It can determine the outcome of the game and should be talked over before calling. just my .02
[Reply]
Paddy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am
@jp, A couple things..
Both referees were signaling the same penalty. And the referees are only instructed to call penalties they actually see, and what they see from their individual perspective. Rescinding a judgement call is too subjective.
Terry Murray’s right– reviewing penalties in-game takes too much away from the referee and the nature of the game.
[Reply]
Lars H Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@Paddy, Concur. Bad calls happen. Just look what video replay review has done to the pace of NFL games.
[Reply]
jp Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@Lars H, I totally agree with the video replay. However I think there needs to be dialogue on the major penalty calls. Look what they did with the Simmonds penalty. They discussed and got the call correct.
Michael_DD8 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:17 am
@jp,
I think he just felt super bada** doing it the way he did. Trying to send a message haha.
[Reply]
I’m with TM on this one. No more stoppages please.
[Reply]
Just curious, what purpose does rescinding the game misconduct serve a day later? Brown’s not suspended or anything, right? Or is it like taking a negative off of Brownie’s record? Anyone know the answer?
[Reply]
We B Ilya'n Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am
@SafariChecker,
I think 2 game misconducts result in mandatory suspension
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:19 am
@SafariChecker,
23.2 Fines and Suspensions – A player incurring a game misconduct penalty shall incur an automatic fine of two hundred dollars ($200) and the case shall be reported to the Commissioner who shall have full power to impose such further penalties by way of suspension or fine on the penalized player, goalkeeper or any other player involved in the altercation.
Any game misconduct penalty for which a player has been assessed an automatic suspension or supplementary discipline in the form of game suspension(s) by the Commissioner shall not be taken into account when calculating the total number of offenses under this subsection.
The automatic suspensions incurred under this subsection in respect to League games shall have no effect with respect to violations during Playoff games.
Any request by a Club to have a game misconduct reviewed and rescinded by the League must submit their request in writing to the League’s Hockey Operations Department within 48 hours of the conclusion of the game in which the game misconduct was assessed. Failure to submit the written request within this time frame will automatically result in the game misconduct being upheld and no further review of the incident will be considered or entertained. This does not apply to infractions addressed under Rule 29 – Supplementary Discipline.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@VanKingsFan,
p.s. Sourced from NHL.com
[Reply]
SafariChecker Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
@VanKingsFan, Thank you!
Matthew Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
@VanKingsFan, Hope Brownie can afford the $200 if the league doesn’t rescind it :-/ hah
[Reply]
rontheking Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
@SafariChecker,
if they rescind it–as they should–then Dustin Brown should get one free pass for the next game…or at least the next time the kings play either the ducks or red wings….
[Reply]
I think this is right. The league reviews all these plays to determine discipline, and they ALREADY take a long time to make their decisions (granted, they HAVE that extra time to review it).
But it just doesn’t make any sense to me for a ref to call a penalty, then go look it over and say “never mind”. That’s rather… chaotic and disorderly, not to mention the reaction that would get from the crowd if the penalty is called against an opponent player.
As I’ve said a few times: the refs were in a position last night where they basically had to make the penalty call. There really was no way around it (and if it had happened the other way around, you’d all be SCREAMING through your TVs for the refs to call that same penalty). Whether it was shoulder/shoulder (like it appears) or not, nobody can blame the refs for calling the penalty.
[Reply]
PakiFan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@Kevin Y,
I agree. I don’t think anybody on this blog who watched that game could say that they were able to see if it was contact with the head or shoulder while viewing the play live on TV. The Ref’s get a lot of things wrong, but it still amazes me, how often they get things right, when the play happens so quickly on the ice.
You see how long instant replay takes to review goals, now imagine if we added major penalties to that and now we’d have a lot more stoppages and a lot longer delays and a lot longer games. That would just plain suck!
[Reply]
Kevin Y Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@PakiFan,
I tweeted, right after the hit (before seeing any replays), “Hate to say this… That was the right call
”
Based on what I saw with the naked eye, it appeared to be a headshot. Based on what the refs saw with the naked eye, it appeared to be a headshot.
That’s all that needs to be said. No replay, the refs get it right most of the time. And based on what anybody could see in real time, the refs did in this case, as well.
[Reply]
I respectfully disagree. Way way too important of a call to leave it up to the Mk1 eyeball. Deciding whether a player can finish a game or not in combination of a 5 min major is about as important as it gets.
[Reply]
Belexes Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
@KC23,
This is so right. I don’t agree at all with those saying that because it was a bang-bang play, it’s quite alright that it was called, even though it wasn’t a head hit. This is not ok, this was a bad call and could have cost us the game, and did cost us one of our top players for most of the game.
[Reply]
johnjuan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@Belexes,
Totally agree!
The fact is they are easier to see in real time on the ice than on television. replay let all of us know the refs blew the call.
Eddie O summed it up nicely on Versus. He said the guy was caught in a high traffic zone shoulder to shoulder.
In my opinion, you take that out of the game and what have you got?
Whatever it is, it aint NHL Hockey!
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@KC23,
FOFLMAO!!!!!!!
Just three questions:
What is a MkII eyeball?
Do they come in pairs? (I’d prefer to keep my set matched…)
And, where can I get my MkIV eyeballs? (I remember the Lincoln MkIV and loved it!)
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy,
The only problem with the MkIV eyeball is you gotta stick the spare on the back of your skull, like the Continental spare tire bulge.
I don’t think you’d prefer that set make up. I believe your ears have to face the other way like the suicide doors back then.
I’m just saying! =)
[Reply]
Matthew Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
@KC23, I’m torn on whether the head hits should be reviewable as a major is a huge penalty, but then you have to start reviewing two vs. five minute boarding calls. One thing to remember is this is the first year the rule has been in place and both players and referees are going to adjust with time. Players will start instinctively letting up if they’re anywhere near the head and referees are going to get more and more accurate with their calls. Let’s allow the rule to be in place for a year or two before we start worrying about the necessity of replay as once it’s there, it’ll probably never go away.
[Reply]
Actually, at full speed I was shouting, “What’s wrong with that? He hit him shoulder to shoulder!” I scared my dog.
[Reply]
jamesonafterawin Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@PRMan, HA! Same here. Then my damn dog wouldn’t go back to bed. Maybe the peeps that couldn’t see it was a clean it need a bigger t.v.!
[Reply]
off topic, but interesting
Kane has been moved to the third line to match the Kings balanced lines. WE have them right where we want them.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
@jet, Love that teams are adjusting to us, instead of the other way round
[Reply]
http://twitter.com/helenenothelen/status/28815479674
No suspension.
Per LA Times
[Reply]
Belexes Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
@dailymehow,
Wow really? no suspension for a clean shoulder on shoulder hit? amazing….
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@Belexes,
Now I guess I won’t have to trade in my eyeballs, after all… (see above)
[Reply]
Also off topic but interesting:
Right now the Kings have more WINS than anyone in the league at 6, yet Nashville is the best team after having 5 wins and 3 losses in OT/SO. Not trying to poke around an old, worn debate, just another observation on the quirk of the loser point.
[Reply]
Terry Crisp's Tie Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@Cricket, Don’t worry about it.
[Reply]
Cricket Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@Terry Crisp’s Tie,
no worries, just another observation. I’m just happy to see the Kings with the most wins. Even after only 8 games it feels good.
[Reply]
Terry Crisp's Tie Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
@Cricket, we’ll find out who’s the better team in 10 days
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@Cricket, Anomalies show up in the stats in the beginning of the season, and usually smooth out after about a quarter to half a season. I don’t think you’ll find such a distortion after 82 games, and if so, it’s going to be a real rarity.
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@Cricket,
Just watch the GAF (Like Henry Fonda used to hawk–loved that commercial!)…
–Games Above Five-hundred. That’s what counts when the season is over and everybody has played the same number of games.
[Reply]
Why not review the game misconduct aspect during the 5-minute penalty? It can’t end by a goal anyway. Plenty of time to review from Toronto without any delay in the action. It only affects whether there is an ejection. Worth a review IMO.
[Reply]
Kevin Y Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@Naturallawyer,
You know… that’s actually not a terrible idea. Not sure the league would go for that, but I don’t see any flaws with that plan.
[Reply]
Brandon Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@Naturallawyer, 110% agree. They need to at LEAST be able to review the game misconduct during a TV timeout or intermission.
[Reply]
OttoKing Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
@Naturallawyer, That’s actually a fantastic idea. The penalty is served either way, and in the case that it was unwarranted, the misconduct can be overturned without any stoppage in play. I guess the only problem is that it may take more than 5 minutes (10 minutes in real time) to determine it. Also, not sure how the refs would feel about it. Still though, it would only be the misconduct itself that is under review, and with a greater focus on headshots, these calls are likely to happen far more often this year, including a lot of questionable calls.
[Reply]
Rich, off-topic but hows the weather in Chicago right about now? Sunny and dry with not a hint of wind I bet LOL I hear Chi-town is shut down right now with a low pressure that is equal to a category 3 hurricane. How bout some pics Rich of the typhoon that is Chicago right now? Thanks Brother
[Reply]
I wonder if TM and I are off season neighbors…
Maine’s a big state, though.
[Reply]
Why have referees at all if you want every tiny thing up to review?
It’s understandable as a fan to want every single play to be 100% accurate. However, shouldn’t the fact that most coaches, players and GMs disapprove of reviews like that have some bearing on your opinion?
Also let’s not forget that if we start reviewing penalties and things of that nature we ourselves would have far less PPs since Brown is one of the biggest divers in the league
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Tiny? You’ve never seen a team take a major and a gamer and give up two or three goals? Tiny?
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
…and how about in the playoffs?
[Reply]
Belexes Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
@Juniordog,
The biggest divers in the league are the Sedin sisters, Brown is not even close.
[Reply]
If you can review a goal, you can review a penalty which results in a game misconduct, five-minute major, and potentially two or three goals.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Additionally, as someone pointed out, it doesn’t have to be a stoppage, but they have to be willing to take power play goals off the board and put time back on the clock if they find out the call was wrong.
[Reply]
johnjuan Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?,
Ditto.
[Reply]
A wrongful ‘tiny’ hooking call can sway a game just as easily as a 5 minute major.
[Reply]
Brandon Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@Juniordog, Yeah, but no one gets ejected for a hooking call.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@Juniordog, I disagree. The difference is three minutes more power play and as many more goals as you can score, making it considerably far from “just as easily,” in my opinion.
[Reply]
This coming off-season, TM needs to put a paper bag full of “something” on McCauley’s porch, light it on fire, ring the doorbell, and run.
[Reply]
Brown made a similar hit just moments before and nothing was called. Both hits were clean (as we now have confirmed by the leagues non-ruling).
My question is, how come neither were called charging? Does that only get called now when the player leaves the ice when making the hit?
Don’t get me wrong, I love DB, but if someone took a run at a King like DB did on either of those hits, I’d be super-pissed.
[Reply]
Terry Crisp's Tie Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
@We B Ilya’n, Both clean hits. The Zebra made a mistake. That’s hockey.
[Reply]
Not sure if this is a stupid idea or not but I will offer an alternative option. Why not hand down a 5 minute major and a 10 minute misconduct to the player for his infraction. While the game is in progress, have the off ice officials in Toronto review the hit to assess the actual play. If it is deemed an actual major penalty against the new rules then bump up the 10 minute misconduct to a game misconduct. Thoughts????
[Reply]