McGarnagle said:
But I don't think the league really does have a mechanism for addressing "ongoing slight embellishment at the speed of the game which can't be readily identified without video review" (which I shall now coin as OSEATSOTGWCBRIVW) - which ideally would be called as a 2 min minor - and outright diving, which appears to have to be blatant enough for the league to make it worth fining/embarrassing the player and avoid blowback controversy from the players union.
Well, I guess I'd say that it sort of seems like you're trying to have it both ways here. If the league looks at what Kadri or whoever does and decides that it doesn't rise to the level of what they can penalize with a fine then the reason they don't have a mechanism for that is because they don't see the need for one(and, no, I don't think "union blowback" is a factor). If the NHL looks at what Kadri does and decides it's in some sort of grey area then it's their job to separate white from black, and either find a threshold for penalizing players that fits better with how they want to discourage embellishment or recognize that wherever the line is drawn players are going to push that line and decisions will need to be made.
McGarnagle said:
And I don't think its crazy to assume that when referees seem to notice a player regularly going down a bit too easy over the course of multiple seasons, that they talk, and a reputation/bias gets formed. Until the robots take over, the human condition is going to have to remain a factor.
Typically though when people talk about a human factor in officiating what they're referring to is refs getting calls wrong which I'm ok with. In fact, I tend to think the constant complaining about the refs in GDTs is pretty ridiculous. Hockey's a fast game, it's tough to call and things get missed. So long as there's not a bias one way or the other, and I don't for a second think there is, I accept that as part of the bargain.
So the problem I have with what you're saying isn't the inclusion of a human element, it's the idea that those biases should be able to form. I don't want referees to take it upon themselves to just decide on these reputations for a player or a team and, no, I don't think it's just a natural and unavoidable consequence of games not being called by robots. The league has a mechanism for determining if a player embellishes to often. If what Kadri does doesn't meet that standard then it's not the Refs jobs to decide that, actually, he does.
Because even if you think that's the case, that what Kadri's doing deserves or warrants or should allow for Refs to make a conscious decision to call things differently if he's involved based on these prior misdeeds, then I think what we saw at the end of last night's game is a pretty strong case that what they should do is just call Kadri for more unsportsmanlike penalties, not let legitimate penalties go if they're committed against Kadri. That's almost certainly going to lead to a game that's more out of hand, not less.
