Eleven Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 ESPN.com article about match-fixing in that other winter sport We've heard time and again that the casual fan has no idea what is or is not a penalty in the NHL, and how that hurts the league as a whole. We've also heard, time and again, that the NHL tells refs what to do because it might want certain series to last longer, or certain games to go one way or another. In Buffalo, many believe that Bettman desperately wanted hockey success in nontraditional markets, and that accordingly, the Game 6 (1999) award of the Cup to the Asterisks was hurried. Elsewhere, we need look only to the last series to see some very questionable calls against Detroit at key points in the game. A Vancouver columnist even commented on it after the series here , and Vancouver had no interest in the thing either way. Leagues do silly things, to say the least, to promote. (Now, the NHL is giving a "state champs" title to the Pens! see this one! Of course, the Avs win that title every year in Colorado, right? And the Canadiens, in Quebec?) But I think we're seeing patterns in officiating in the NHL and NBA that are more troublesome. And I think it's happened in the NFL, too--I can recall a certain comeback game where a certain wide receiver was out of bounds, but his TD catch stood. (So no, this isn't a "everyone hates Buffalo" thread--the calls go our way, too.) Any football fan also knows that the "tuck rule" was invented on-the-spot to benefit a certain team from Boston, and that the Seahawks were screwed when the league wanted the Steelers to win a Super Bowl for Bettis. So, and I mean across all sports, is it worth our attention anymore? Is it so manipulated that we needn't bother watching? Or are the conspiracy theorists wrong? Or is it somewhere in between? Gentlemen (and if connee and monkeygirl return, then ladies), the debate is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I liked the Hart Trophy revelation partway down... Sorry for the hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 To get back to the OP's point...I have no problem per se with blown calls. Blown calls have always happened and always will happen, as long as there is human involvement in officiating. Heck, half the fun is being able to second-guess officials, complain about bad calls, etc., - the old shared misery unites a fanbase. The only things I ask for are: --that they use whatever measures available/possible to do the very best they can to limit bad calls (replay, asking other officials for help, streamlining/clarifying rules); --they work to weed out bad on-field/court/ice officials; --and probably most importantly - to keep things on the up-and-up, and let the chips fall where they may. There is too much $$ at stake to think that there isn't at least the temptation to tilt a series, game, draft lottery in the favor of a big market team, so I don't doubt there are rogue officials out there. But if it gets to the point where I believe that games and playoff series are regularly being influenced, then they'll lose me as a fan and a customer. I'll take my $150 for Center Ice or $250 for Sunday Ticket and find something better to do with my time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am a big-time skeptic when it comes to these kinds of things ... fixing a lottery, maybe I can see ... Ewing and Crosby were a bit convenient ... the result can be guaranteed to come out the way you want and the number of people actually involved in such a fix could be kept to a minimum. But when it comes to calls by officials in games and such, I don't buy it, and here's why: 1. Too much is out of your control. For instance, if the NHL tells the officials "We'd really like a game 7, hint hint, wink wink ... " Osgood could still stand on his head or Fleury could still let in a softie (this kind of happened) or Datsyuk just makes some unbelievable play and scores despite being mugged with no call and you do not get the desired result. 2. Given that you can't guarantee an outcome, it's not worth the risk to do this ... all it takes is one official to need money and spill his guts to 60 minutes (or be facing jail and decide to sing to the DA, like Donaghy) and the whole league comes crashing down. Yes there is money in a Game 7 or on a certain team winning, but is that enough cash to risk the entire industry? It's easy to say "there's so much money out there, the league MUST be fixing games" but the opposite can be argued just as easily ... there's SO much money already being made, it's not worth risking it. Granted the NHL could benefit from a marquee star like Crosby winning, but they also now have Pittsburgh fans hooked, win or lose in the finals, and ready to pay through the nose in a new building to watch this team play the next 10 years ... why risk that, and everything else, if they can still lose and it gets out you tried to fix a series? 3. I think we can all agree officiating as a whole SUCKS. Some of the calls, particularly the goalie interference calls against Detroit called from the parking lot and not by the ref 15 feet away, were horrible, agreed ... but have we not seen those same brutal calls made when Nashville plays Columbus on a Tuesday night in November? Or when L.A. plays Phoenix when both teams are playing out the string in Marchand nothing is at stake? Are we to believe the refs have huge money on the Coyotes? The point is, we can generally agree that it's a VERY difficult game to officiate and in general they are not very good at it. They are inconsistent and often not on the same page from game to game or even period to period ... and yet they can all of a sudden get their act together and DECIDE WHEN to suck in the Stanley Cup Finals? And do it enough to overcome the variables noted in #1 but not quite enough to make it obvious? I don't think so. That's giving them way too much credit. I'm not saying leagues don't ROOT for outcomes ... just saying it's too hard to flat out fix a game or a series, it's not worth the risk just to "influence" it, and I am not convinced the refs could do it right even if it was worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Gentlemen (and if connee and monkeygirl return, then ladies), the debate is on. So 'cheese' is officially a dude now? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 So 'cheese' is officially a dude now? :unsure: I don't think I know that person.... Pipes's reason No. 2 is the best anti-conspiracy theory out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Pipes's reason No. 2 is the best anti-conspiracy theory out there. Thanks but I heard another good one on the radio this morning ... I guess it was actually in a column in the LA Times ... the writer pointed out that if the NBA is fixing games they are pretty bad at it considering San Antonio has won 4 titles since 1999 and we have had finalists like Cleveland, New Jersey, Indiana and Utah in the last 10 years ... And if they are fixing games, why did the league basically decide playoff series against New York and Phoenix (much more marketable team than boring San Antonio) by suspending players on ticky-tack leaving the bench calls? Officials just suck at what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.