ShareThis Page
Mark Madden: Blaming refs is bad look for Bruins | TribLIVE.com
Mark Madden, Columnist

Mark Madden: Blaming refs is bad look for Bruins

1264477_web1_1264477-099111a7f28e423c924e4e09982d0328
AP
A Boston Bruins fan shouts during the closing minutes of Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final between the Bruins and the St. Louis Blues on Thursday, June 6, 2019, in Boston.

Can one poor officiating decision decide a game?

Sure, if the losing team lets it.

The New Orleans Saints couldn’t overcome a pass interference no-call in the NFC championship game. But the St. Louis Blues lost Game 3 of the NHL’s Western Conference Final to San Jose when the Sharks scored directly off a hand pass in overtime, yet the Blues somehow made the Stanley Cup Final and beat Boston in Game 5 on Thursday thanks to a no-call on a trip that resulted in a St. Louis goal.

They say it evens up. It doesn’t.

Boston’s Noel Acciari clearly got tripped by St. Louis’ Tyler Bozak. No call. The foul resulted in possession for the Blues. David Perron scored 9 seconds later.

Boston did not react calmly.

Bruins president Cam Neely fired a water bottle across the executive suite. (“Find a happy place. Find a happy place.”) Coach Bruce Cassidy was apoplectic: “(The NHL is) getting a black eye with their officiating in these playoffs.” The Bruins locker room echoed the feelings of Neely and Cassidy.

It was even worse in the stands. Boston fans littered the ice with debris. They beat each other up. One die-hard flipped off the Blues as they left the ice. Pure class.

To be fair, all that might have happened anyway. It’s Boston, after all.

These days, it’s a race to see who plays the victim. Right now, it’s Boston’s turn. Give the finger, and point the finger. It’s somebody else’s fault.

But here’s an idea: Score more than one goal.

Bozak definitely committed a penalty.

But it’s a judgment call. No referee in any sport (but especially hockey) enforces the whole rulebook all the time. The officials practice willful ignorance. It’s for the sake of preserving the game’s flow. Not bogging things down with too many infractions.

That’s what happened Thursday.

It was 1-0 in the third period. The referees saw Bozak trip Acciari but didn’t want to affect the game. But when the call wasn’t made, the game was drastically affected. Had Perron not scored, that non-call would barely be remembered. But Perron scored.

The refs saw that trip. There was no way not to. They chose to overlook it.

That rarely results in something cataclysmic. But this time, it did. Incidents like this are routine, except when they aren’t.

Will Boston bounce back? The Blues did after that hand-pass decision in the conference final, a bigger absurdity than Thursday’s trip.

But judging by the post-game reaction, it sounds like the Bruins are ready to use what happened as an excuse for finishing runner-up.

Replay and social media are the real villains here.

The use of replay in sports has made too many believe every single thing should be subject to review, perhaps even the scoring of the fights in the stands at Boston. Outrage gets into social media’s echo chamber and spirals out of control.

The Bruins had plenty of opportunity to win Thursday. They outshot St. Louis, 39-21, and had three power plays to the Blues’ one. Boston is probably the better team.

But a 60-minute game got boiled down to one trip, and the subsequent 9 seconds. Because that lets us get mad.

“Our play should define us. Not a call,” Cassidy said.

Correct. But that was up to the Bruins before and after Bozak’s trip. My advice: Put on a fresh set of Pampers and get ready for Game 6.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.