Referee Discussion (general official thread)

[Erick Estrada]

I don't buy the salary argument. If the officials have an alternate career opportunities where they can make more than $150 - $360k annually they wouldn't be working for the NHL. I highly doubt that increasing pay is going to make officials stop managing games, put away their biases towards certain teams/players, and all of a sudden turn on a magic switch of competence. In the NFL officials are punished steeply for making mistakes and we just don't see that in the NHL as the main problem as it always is with the NHL is that it's still an old boys club and this group of knuckle draggers would still like to operate things like it's still 1970. The old boys club likes game management and they are the ones that want the playoffs officiated differently. You only have to read those Colin Campbell's emails to know where this league really stands on player safety so I can understand that the officials are in a bit of a precarious position at times.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The biggest issue I have with the officials is game management. We know it happens but I suspect this is the way officials are instructed to call games by the league itself. That in turn leads to inconsistentcy.

There are plenty of articles out there by Kerry Frasier and many former officials who have written guest columns about officiating and why calls are made certain ways. There's always interesting stories about how they interact with player/coaches and everyone has a hearty chuckle when you hear the stories about refs getting back at a player/coach who tried to trick them.

But those stories honestly make my blood boil because it's clear admission that refs are calling games by their own personal feelings and not the rule book.

I'd love nothing more then to see a team get penalized all game long for stick infractions and whatever other acts should be called as a penalty. If it's a penalty in the 1st period in a 0-0 regular season game #4, it should a penalty in game 7 OT in the cup final.

But that would mean less comebacks. Less highlights on the evening replays. It would take the players/coaches a while to adapt to the ''zero tolerance'' policy, and during that span it would be a penalty-filled game that might drive away certain fans, which means less revenue coming in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; as long as old-school dinosaurs like Bill Daly and Gary Bettman are running the league with revenue as the main priority, there will never be changes made to officiating like fans want.

I think it's lame how some fans complain about how the refs are out to get them. CP in particular is really bad for it. But at the same time, it's a league-wide problem that literally every fan base complains about.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I've said it before and I'll say it again; as long as old-school dinosaurs like Bill Daly and Gary Bettman are running the league with revenue as the main priority, there will never be changes made to officiating like fans want.

Well, since hockey is a business, it's a good thing someone is concerned about revenue.

I'm not sure that fans really want a change to officiating. if you want more accuracy, you'll just have to have everything called in slow motion replay and let each game last 4 hours.

And I don't want a penalty called in the OT in the 7th game of the SC final on the same basis as the first game of the year. It sounds great in theory, but fans would howl aplenty if it actually happened.

[Johnny Makarov]

People on here has to accept the fact that NHL refs aren't biased to the Flames. They just suck in general for every team.

That said they are still better than the NFL refs. They completely destroyed the NFL this year.

[DeluxeMoustache]

nm

[GioforPM]

I still think they can use a ref above the ice, like in rugby. In rugby they mostly advise the on field ref. But I also think they could (in conjunction with that) call penalties after the play ends, or retract bad calls (like high sticking when it wan't the opponent's stick, etc). I don't think coaches should be able to request the "second opinion" - they would just have a different view of the play, and maybe one look at a real time replay.

[Dajazz]

My main gripe is the blatant game management. As I watch SHL and international hockey as well I can only use that as a yard stick, but that is enough for me to scream “game management”. NHL refs play an active role in almost every game and that is a bad thing.

[jlh2640]

Can it be fixed . . . . .

[Monahammer]

The best way to get them out of game management is to remove them from the ice surface. Added benefits that they don't clog up the corners and get in the way, and have the benefit of seeing all angles to make the correct calls.

I vehemently disagree with the "human element" of the game being stripped away by removing the refs from the ice surface- we're not watching the game for the human elements the refs bring, we're watching it for the human elements the players bring. I want to reffing to be spot on perfect and consistent. That will lead to a stronger product on the ice, and the subsequent bar talk and the like.

This is the structure I would argue for:

3 Permanent officials, 1 head and two others. They are sitting on the press level with a huge amount of cameras/ angles and tv screens, and a big buzzer button that will serve as the defacto whistle. also 2 (1 each) team reps to exist and advise/ ensure fairness. The ultimate calls will be the responsibility of the head ref.

2 Goon officials, released from the penalty boxes when the whistle sounds to break up any on-ice problems and keep the peace.

1 drone puck drop delivery system. That or the goon drops the puck and skates his ass back to the penalty box right away to get off the ice. I prefer the drone because it's cool.

This way we will get the right call every time, refs wont feel the need to manage the game because they will be removed from the action and can focus on doing their actual job by being impartial and judging each situation in the situation and not relational to past calls during the game or the scoresheet. Also encourages transparency for the fans and the clubs.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Well, since hockey is a business, it's a good thing someone is concerned about revenue.

I'm not sure that fans really want a change to officiating. if you want more accuracy, you'll just have to have everything called in slow motion replay and let each game last 4 hours.

And I don't want a penalty called in the OT in the 7th game of the SC final on the same basis as the first game of the year. It sounds great in theory, but fans would howl aplenty if it actually happened.

That is true. I certainly don't fault them doing what's best for business. But as is with any business, things don't always align with what customers (ie. fans) want.

So if there is a choice between changing the rules to make the sure refs call everything they see, versus keeping things the way they are but it results in a more 'exciting' product, it's an easy choice to make from a business perspective.

[Philly06Cup]

There have been studies to show that game management is real. Teams generally have close to the same number of penalties each game -- or at least closer than what would be statistically likely. Teams who trail also tend to get more favorable calls, as do home teams.

That said, that is such a small detail to nitpick. I don't even know if fans at large want consistency. People verbally shout for 'make-up' calls all the time when a non-call goes their way. Teams know that if they take a penalty in OT, they have to watch themselves -- fans will eagerly anticipate an even-up call. Game management is hardly ruining the NHL.


My gripe is that rules and officiating should help make the game better and showcase skill. We know about how slashes to the wrist occur frequently and cause injuries. Cross-checking along the boards or in front of the net is an accepted part of the game. Extending a free arm to obstruct a player happens all the time. These are all unskilled plays that don't add anything to the game. The rules allow them to be called but they rarely are. The league would be smart to change the mandate on these kinds of calls.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

There have been studies to show that game management is real. Teams generally have close to the same number of penalties each game -- or at least closer than what would be statistically likely. Teams who trail also tend to get more favorable calls, as do home teams.

That said, that is such a small detail to nitpick. I don't even know if fans at large want consistency. People verbally shout for 'make-up' calls all the time when a non-call goes their way. Teams know that if they take a penalty in OT, they have to watch themselves -- fans will eagerly anticipate an even-up call. Game management is hardly ruining the NHL.

To some extent it may be illusory. A team that's trailing will push harder and the leading team will play defensively. The penalties will result accordingly.

The problem for me is the consistency within a single game.

[btimbit]

I don't blame the refs, I believe it's a direction from the league to keep games close and slightly favour the home team. Only solution I have is get rid of game management and just call the damn rule book.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

3 Permanent officials, 1 head and two others. They are sitting on the press level with a huge amount of cameras/ angles and tv screens, and a big buzzer button that will serve as the defacto whistle. also 2 (1 each) team reps to exist and advise/ ensure fairness. The ultimate calls will be the responsibility of the head ref.

A lot of action can go on from the time an event happens until the refs review the pay on the numerous TV's with multiple angles and discuss it fully with each team ref.

The game will never end. And there would be just as many arguments over the interpretation of the rules concerning each event.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

A lot of action can go on from the time an event happens until the refs review the pay on the numerous TV's with multiple angles and discuss it fully with each team ref.

The game will never end. And there would be just as many arguments over the interpretation of the rules concerning each event.

That’s why the structure of the coach’s challenge for certain plays works in a way, right?

Both teams have eyes on many views upstairs, they can interject if they deem it worth prolonging the game, and there are consequences for being wrong.

It works in a sense.

But the issue people seem to have are with consistency of penalty enforcement.

Not sure what to do.

Can’t call everything. It’d be an unwatchable parade to the box.

Can’t review every call, it would interrupt the flow too much.

Some players are still going to try to fool the refs for their own team’s advantage. And will get away with it. Can’t sully the league’s image by publicizing the offenders, advertising themselves as a league of cheaters.

[sketchyt]

I think as the game speeds up, the more difficult it becomes to be a ref. This is why we are seeing such frustratation with reffing.

Some valid points discussed in this thread, but ultimately I believe an NHL referee is the toughest officiant-related job in professional sports.

This game is insanely fast. I changed my tune on NHL referees after sitting next to the glass one game and from my peripheral vision saw Matt Stajan get blatantly high sticked in the face. I saw it happen a few feet from me.

But it was so incredibly fast that my brain paused for a full couple seconds before I could even comprehend that it was a high stick. The puck was already well into the other zone before I could think, "hey, that was a high stick!"

I can't imagine how the pro's do it. I don't care that there's four of them out there. There's no way you'll be able to catch everything or close to it.

Hockey is a game with too many variables too. There's a f-ton of rules, sticks, the speed of skating, a tiny puck, the little games within the game, unwritten rules, etc... this game is (wonderfully) insane. I feel like trying to put more rigour around policing insanity will create more frustration.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

I think as the game speeds up, the more difficult it becomes to be a ref. This is why we are seeing such frustratation with reffing.

Some valid points discussed in this thread, but ultimately I believe an NHL referee is the toughest officiant-related job in professional sports.

This game is insanely fast. I changed my tune on NHL referees after sitting next to the glass one game and from my peripheral vision saw Matt Stajan get blatantly high sticked in the face. I saw it happen a few feet from me.

But it was so incredibly fast that my brain paused for a full couple seconds before I could even comprehend that it was a high stick. The puck was already well into the other zone before I could think, "hey, that was a high stick!"

I can't imagine how the pro's do it. I don't care that there's four of them out there. There's no way you'll be able to catch everything or close to it.

Hockey is a game with too many variables too. There's a f-ton of rules, sticks, the speed of skating, a tiny puck, the little games within the game, unwritten rules, etc... this game is (wonderfully) insane. I feel like trying to put more rigour around policing insanity will create more frustration.

A long time ago I reffed basketball - way slower, but still hard to catch, ID a penalty and blow a play down. Another guy told me "If you see something that looks wrong, blow it down and then figure out what it was". It seemed like good advice - not sure if it works for hockey.

[brocoli]

I will start by saying that I am biased towards the officials as I have been one for near 20 years.

I think that if there is something that replay has showed us is how often officials are correct on close calls. My main concern with removing officials from the ice is losing the communication factor. Everyone in this thread has a different idea of what certain penalties are as they are up for interpretation. Most are a grey area. But the way to avoid the grey and keep the flow of the game is to have someone talking to a player as they are upset when they feel they have been fouled upon.

If you were to have refs off the ice and treat it like rugby where you call the penalty after the whistle, then you best have some blatant way of calling penalties on delay to try and prevent retaliatory penalties or melees.

You will start to see more and more technology introduced into the game to provide assistance to the refs, but with how the rules are written and whether there is a person on the ice or in the press level, the human element will remain due to the grey area.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

I think the officiating in the last two years has been pretty bad, egregiously bad in many cases - the 5 minute major for the weird Pavelski incident, that kind of thing. There has to be a way to remedy this in nearly real time.

Totally agree with this. The officiating has been worse the last couple of seasons than I can ever remember in 30+ years of watching the game. Just so many bewilderingly poor decisions. Adding to it were all the weird goalie interference calls that had a guys toe barely knicks a pad on what should be a perfectly good goal.

I've mentioned before that the NHL needs to put together a task force to get officiating figured out. Yes, its a tough game to ref, but other sports are too. There's no excuse for the level of inconsistency in the game. I don't believe the refs are bad at what they do, I just think the league has tinkered so much with rules over the years they've lost a lot of clarity on what the game is anymore.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Totally agree with this. The officiating has been worse the last couple of seasons than I can ever remember in 30+ years of watching the game. Just so many bewilderingly poor decisions. Adding to it were all the weird goalie interference calls that had a guys toe barely knicks a pad on what should be a perfectly good goal.

I've mentioned before that the NHL needs to put together a task force to get officiating figured out. Yes, its a tough game to ref, but other sports are too. There's no excuse for the level of inconsistency in the game. I don't believe the refs are bad at what they do, I just think the league has tinkered so much with rules over the years they've lost a lot of clarity on what the game is anymore.

I agree with the comment about tinkering. A couple of simple examples come to mind

- Icing - the intent as I understand it is to deter the defending team from simply dumping the puck the length of the ice to alleviate pressure.
Now, you have so many times where there are attempted stretch passes, intended to generate a scoring chance, that barely miss the target, and then icing is called. More stoppages, less offence!

- like someone mentioned, getting a stick knocked out of your hand. I get it if a stick breaks, that usually means there is excessive force. To me, there is an argument that if a guy hits your stick and you drop it, too bad for you. You weren’t holding your stick, or paying attention.

- offsides - was the toe up or down, seeing if the player is on side
To me, offsides don’t need to be down to the fraction of the second. Use the plane, or basically determine that if it takes more than a second of viewing video to review, the call on the ice stands. This is not players trying to cheat and get ahead of the line. They are trying to be onside. And they don’t practically affect the play by the hundredth of a second where their skate blade is 1 cm above the line