blues2112 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 21:07 pm
Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.
Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.
In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.
I think Torpo spit out his coffee after reading this- probably where the scalding occurred.
If his knee was any less "out" he would be checked for knock knees. When two humans collide all sorts of body parts are going to and that happens hundreds of times per game. If a linesman saw something else they should have their vision checked.
blues2112 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 21:07 pm
Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.
Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.
In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.
I think Torpo spit out his coffee after reading this- probably where the scalding occurred.
If his knee was any less "out" he would be checked for knock knees. When two humans collide all sorts of body parts are going to and that happens hundreds of times per game. If a linesman saw something else they should have their vision checked.
TAFKAP wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 14:58 pm
I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?
They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.
The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.
It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.
Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.
No I get it. It was a response to the 2019 Vegas/Sharks playoff debacle when the Sharks got a five minute power play for Cody Eakin cross checking Pavelski when it should have been a 2 min. I understand why they made the rule, and generally agree. I just commented as a response to the guy who said that Kerbs and Joey didn't mention it. They did, they had no idea how they could replay a penalty that wasn't called. that's the only reason i know about it.
Yeah I don't disagree with any of the 3 of you. They didn't call the penalty because they didn't see a penalty they only saw what appeared to be a major injury so there had to be a penalty.
blues2112 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 21:07 pm
Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.
Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.
In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.
I think Torpo spit out his coffee after reading this- probably where the scalding occurred.
If his knee was any less "out" he would be checked for knock knees. When two humans collide all sorts of body parts are going to and that happens hundreds of times per game. If a linesman saw something else they should have their vision checked.
Apparently he didn’t even hit the knee. Hit him in the quad/thigh and has a really bad boo-boo.
“Upon further review of the clip, it looks like Alexey Toropchenko's knee actually made contact with the outside of Cooley's thigh, which explains why it was a charley horse rather than any structural damage. Considering how hard the contact was and how much pain Cooley was in, he was fortunate that Toropchenko didn't hit on the outside of his knee.”
TruBlueFan_1970 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2025 14:55 pm
Apparently he didn’t even hit the knee. Hit him in the quad/thigh and has a really bad boo-boo.
“Upon further review of the clip, it looks like Alexey Toropchenko's knee actually made contact with the outside of Cooley's thigh, which explains why it was a charley horse rather than any structural damage. Considering how hard the contact was and how much pain Cooley was in, he was fortunate that Toropchenko didn't hit on the outside of his knee.”
zuck698 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 14:00 pm
I have a question on why the NHL even has a rule book. I have watched hockey forever and for the life of me, I cannot remember a replay review being initiated when there has no been no penalty called on the ice. Sure, refs can consult with linesman and maybe change a no call on the ice to a high sticking call, but I have never seen them do a replay review for this, when there was no penalty called on the play. So how did the replay review get initated last night? All the research I can find says that the only time a referee can only initiate a replay review, when no penalty is called on the ice, is to review a goal/no goal situation. That is supposedly the only time they are allowed to do so. Am I missing something here? And if not, why wasn't it brought up last night by someone affiliated with either the Blues or the Blues broadcast team. Never mind Kerbs or Vitale, as they were still discussing ear holes, but was mainly thinking Bernie or Pronger would have mentioned something about the call. And the kicker is, the replay showed that it wasn't even knee to knee contact, and they still chose to call the penalty! Somebody should be held accountable here or I guess refs can just make the rules up as they see fit! The rule is 20.6 in the NHL rulebook and it clearly states a call must be made on the ice for any review to occur. Sorry for the long post.
NHL added a rule that if a five minute penalty was called it can be reviewed to see if it should be reduced. It was based on a five minute penalty which should not have been called in the 2019 playoffs.
The issue I have is neither called the five minute penalty. To me the review was initiated in response to an injury not what the refs saw. My only guess is the linesman told them they saw something do they decided to review it.
To me they completely messed it up and overreacted based on injury. Not convinced they followed proper protocol to be allowed to review it.
zuck698 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025 14:00 pm
I have a question on why the NHL even has a rule book. I have watched hockey forever and for the life of me, I cannot remember a replay review being initiated when there has no been no penalty called on the ice. Sure, refs can consult with linesman and maybe change a no call on the ice to a high sticking call, but I have never seen them do a replay review for this, when there was no penalty called on the play. So how did the replay review get initated last night? All the research I can find says that the only time a referee can only initiate a replay review, when no penalty is called on the ice, is to review a goal/no goal situation. That is supposedly the only time they are allowed to do so. Am I missing something here? And if not, why wasn't it brought up last night by someone affiliated with either the Blues or the Blues broadcast team. Never mind Kerbs or Vitale, as they were still discussing ear holes, but was mainly thinking Bernie or Pronger would have mentioned something about the call. And the kicker is, the replay showed that it wasn't even knee to knee contact, and they still chose to call the penalty! Somebody should be held accountable here or I guess refs can just make the rules up as they see fit! The rule is 20.6 in the NHL rulebook and it clearly states a call must be made on the ice for any review to occur. Sorry for the long post.
NHL added a rule that if a five minute penalty was called it can be reviewed to see if it should be reduced. It was based on a five minute penalty which should not have been called in the 2019 playoffs.
The issue I have is neither called the five minute penalty. To me the review was initiated in response to an injury not what the refs saw. My only guess is the linesman told them they saw something do they decided to review it.
To me they completely messed it up and overreacted based on injury. Not convinced they followed proper protocol to be allowed to review it.
Correct. They didn't follow their own rules! That is why I asked, why even have a rule book if they are just going to make up the rules as they go. The kicker on top of it, Torpo didn't even hit him in the knee, but rather the thigh.
I've started to post my thoughts here a few times, and I keep deleating everything I type. I've been around forever and believe me. The NHL will never fix itself as far as the rules go.
(Oh and by the way NHL. If you're reading this, I'm actually a Blackhawks fan)
