The forward referee can still make a call on the penalty, if he sees one, however. I would have thought, then, that the forward referee would have seen the interaction between Filppula and the defense, considering the puck was virtually right there. In a case such as that, it seems like the back referee should defer to the one who can better see what is going on. It isn’t as though it took place behind the play and away from the puck.

In any case, what’s done is done. Filppula probably should have been smarter than to put himself in a position to take a penalty and the Wings are fortunate it didn’t really come back to bite them.

I understand that the referee was trying to see the puck. I just don’t think he had to go into the crease to do it. He could have seen it just as well from outside the shooting lane. I don’t think the ref has any business in the crease while play is in progress. I would hate to see something like that happen when it actually means the difference between a win and a loss.

The officials are supposed to be invisible and generally do a good job of it. That was just one time where one guy didn’t.

The referee in the crease was trying to determine if Backstrom had the puck covered when his view was blocked by Backstrom and the puck was to the goalies left side. I actually prefer that to a quick whistle, when the puck is not frozen.

I don’t recall blaming the ref for anything beyond standing in the crease during a scramble around the net. With the Filppula penalty, I just expressed my displeasure with the call.

I only saw the replay the one time FSN showed it. Filppula’s hands never left his stick, though he did use his arm to gain position, which is legal until it impedes the progress of the other player. If that’s what the back ref determined was happening, than I can understand why he made the call, though I disagree with it.

Three things:

1) I hate it when the far ref makes a call on a play the near ref saw but did not call. It’s one thing when the penalty committed is egregious, but the center ice referee has little business calling offensive zone holding on a play going away from him when the other ref is right there. A referee should not be making calls on what he assumes happened, but on what actually did. A guy watching the backs of the players involved is necessarily going to miss things that are taking place on the other side of those players’ bodies. That’s why I hate it when a ref calls something he can’t have seen or at least have seen clearly.

2) Fil’s jockeying for position may have been holding by the current standard, but that doesn’t make the standard worthwhile. I would much rather see them let little things like that go, at least when the player involved is in the offensive zone.

3) Once Filppula had lost the puck and was fighting with the Wild D to regain possession, you could have called it either way. I would think the NHL, which glorifies goal scoring so much, would want to see the defenseman, rather than the forward, called in that situation.

The fact that the Wings were only 50% on the penalty kill would only be noteworthy if they’d gone 3-for-6 or 4-for-8. Heck, even 2-for-4 would mean something. But 1-for-2? I’m not holding that against them and I’m certainly not blaming the goal on the refs.

Wings wound up with 2 minors in a road game, Wild had 7 at home and you are trying to blame the refs because the Wings can’t do better than 50% on the PK. Get over it.