In Part One, we addressed the possible causes behind the current sorry state of NHL officiating. Today, we'll look at five solutions/improvements.
5. A Third Referee
Even if I'm completely wrong and NHL officials are 100% bias-free, the fact remains that the boys in stripes either miss calls or make the wrong call with alarming frequency. The game of hockey moves so fast that it seems even two referees can't keep up. A third referee on the ice would only get in the way, causing even more problems. On the other hand, a third referee in the press box (or perhaps in Pierre McGuire's spot between the benches), with two-way radio communication to the on-ice officials and access to the video feed, could catch many of those missed calls and utilize the video feed to help the on-ice officials make the right call.
How would it work? When the third referee sees an infraction which both of the on-ice referees failed to call, he keys his mic and says, for example, "Hooking, 29, white". The on-ice refs' arm goes up, whistle blows, and #29 in white goes to the box. Likewise, after the whistle blows, the third ref can review the video to ensure the correct call is made (as in Rick Nash's "no goal" against Detroit). To keep controversy to a minimum, the off-ice ref would have to have the authority to overrule his on-ice counterparts.
4. Coach's Challenge
Dale Tallon was right: NHL coaches should be able, on a limited basis, to challenge certain calls. How limited? Coaches should be allowed up to three challenges per game. If the first challenge fails, the challenging team is charged with a timeout. If the second challenge fails, a two-minute minor for Delay of Game is assessed. If the third challenge fails, a double minor is assessed. If the challenges are successful, no penalties are assessed. Ideally, though, the introduction of a third referee (as above) would make the Coach's Challenge unnecessary. That's predicated on the competence of the third referee, however.
3. Kill the "Intent to Blow" Rule
One of the most controversial rules in the NHL is the so-called "Intent to Blow" rule. In a nutshell, it means that the play is considered dead as soon as the referee decides to make a call (blow his whistle), as opposed to when the whistle is actually blown. In other words, play is stopped by the referee's intent, rather than his action. Many a goalmouth scrum has resulted in a good goal being waived off because of this awful rule. It's demise is long overdue.
2. Publicized Fines and Suspensions for On-ice Officials
When players and coaches are fined or suspended, those penalties are public record. Are NHL officials ever fined? Are they ever suspended? What sort of disciplinary measures are referees and linesmen subject to...if any? Who knows? On-ice officials would receive greater respect from fans, players and coaches if only we could see proof that they're subject to some form of discipline.
Referees are, and should be, held to a higher standard. Far too many nights, we watch them fail to meet that standard, seemingly without consequence. The net result is that referees are generally held in low regard. "Wow - wish I could do a lousy job every night, and get rewarded with a trip to the Stanley Cup Playoffs at the end of the year" is a common refrain. Publicizing penalties assessed to on-ice officials would be one way to let the public know the NHL is truly interested in producing the best possible product.
1. Actively Recruit On- and Off-ice Officials from Non-Traditional Markets
Bias among NHL officials is real. Sure, we all want to pretend that every NHL official treats the Atlanta Thrashers with the same respect and attention as they do the Montreal Canadiens, but that's simply not the case. As we've already seen this year, a blown call in a Thrashers-Panthers game won't receive the same level of scrutiny as it would in, say, a Maple Leafs-Canadiens game. In the Leafs-Habs game, many more people are watching; thus, the game is considered "more important". What NHL officials fail to understand is this: While there aren't as many fans of the Panthers, those who do care, care deeply. By the same token, the objective in non-traditional markets is to grow the game. It's difficult to turn casual fans into fanatics when they see the home team screwed repeatedly by capricious and disinterested officiating.
The NHL needs to actively recruit on- and off-ice officials from the non-traditional markets. I'm not suggesting, for example, the Dallas Stars should have a Dallas-born-and-bred referee for every home game; what I'm saying is that a referee from any non-traditional market would carry with him a greater level of respect for the Dallases, Phoenixes and Floridas of the world. In the end, the Atlanta-Florida game would be officiated with the same level of attention to detail as Toronto-Montreal. Bias is mitigated, controversy subsides, and non-trads succeed or fail on their own merits, rather than at the hands of an inattentive referee.
Take me back to On Goal Analysis.
Showing posts with label NHL Officiating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHL Officiating. Show all posts
Saturday, February 12, 2011
1. 4.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Why is the Best NHL Referee "None"? (part 1 of 2)
If it’s a day ending in “y”, it must be time to discuss the sorry state of NHL officiating. Sadly/Unfortunately/Infuriatingly (take your pick), it seems there’s much more to complain about this season than in any other post-Lockout campaign. In a recent survey of the NHLPA, “none” was the most popular answer to the question, “Who is the best NHL referee?” There’s a reason for that.
Today, in Part One of this post, we'll identify the problem(s). Because it's just plain bad policy to gripe without also offering solutions, Part Two will deliver five ways in which to improve NHL officiating. For the sake of brevity, we will only discuss the bad on-ice calls, and save the NHL's mercurial suspension "policy" for another time. With that, let the dissection begin! Here’s a sampling of what we’ve been subjected to this season:
Friday, 4 FEB 2011 – Columbus @ Detroit: Henrik Zetterberg gets tangled up with goalie/teammate Jimmy Howard, allowing Columbus’ Rick Nash to shoot the puck into an open net. Referee Francois St. Laurent signals “no goal” and sends Derick Brassard to the sin bin for goalie interference.
Wednesday, 2 FEB 2011 – Detroit @ Ottawa: Chris Neil stuffs the puck into the Detroit net during a scrum in the crease, then inadvertently pulls the puck back out of the net. Puck ends up underneath Jimmy Howard. After a War Room review, it’s “no goal”, because “…the puck was under the goalie, who was then pushed into the net.” Replays clearly showed this was not the case. Neil’s goal would’ve tied the game at 6 with just under eight minutes remaining in the 3rd; instead, Detroit adds an empty-netter to win, 7-5.
Wednesday, 5 JAN 2011 – Atlanta @ Florida: With Atlanta leading, 3-2, late in the 3rd, Florida Captain Bryan McCabe scores the tying goal…or not: Somehow, both the on-ice officials and the War Room missed Atlanta goalie Ondrej Pavelec fishing the puck out of the back of the net after the whistle. Atlanta wins, 3-2.
Tuesday, 28 DEC 2010 – Boston @ Tampa Bay: Game tied, 3-3, late in the 3rd, when Steven Stamkos is sent to the box for “Boarding” – in this case, a clean, shoulder-on-shoulder hit. Boston scores on the ensuing PP, wins 4-3.
Tuesday, 26 OCT 2010 – Florida @ Toronto: At 11:02 of the 3rd period, with the score tied at 1, Colton Orr flattens Panther goalie Scott Clemmensen. Tim Brent sends the puck toward the now-empty net, and it deflects off Orr and in. Former NHL Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom says it’s a “good goal”, Leafs go on to win, 3-1.
Sunday, 10 OCT 2010 – Florida @ Edmonton: Florida trails, 2-0, early in the 2nd period, when Marty Reasoner scores for Florida to make it 2-1. 1:09 later, Oiler Shawn Horcoff kicks the puck past Tomas Vokoun. The War Room says “good goal” after a lengthy review, Edmonton goes on to win, 3-2. Horcoff’s “goal” is the game-winner.
Anyone notice a pattern here? Before we get to that, Dirk Hoag at On The Forecheck had a very interesting post last week regarding post-Lockout suspensions, which asks the question, “Do the NHL’s Original Six franchises receive special treatment?” Again, we aren’t discussing suspensions today, but Hoag’s post caused the proverbial light bulb to come on over my head. What do I mean? Well, about that pattern…
In five of the six examples above, the beneficiary of the bad call was either an Original Six or a Canadian club. Likewise, in five of six examples, the party which was injured by the bad call was a non-traditional market club. This, combined with Hoag’s post, raised a question: In the eyes of NHL officials, is there a distinct hierarchy of teams? If so, it probably looks something like this:
Am I suggesting NHL officials are biased? Absolutely. It’s common knowledge around the league that rookies – both players and coaches – have to “pay their dues” before referees will give them the same treatment veterans receive. If refs are biased against rookies, why wouldn’t they be biased against non-traditional market teams? After all, they’re only human, and overwhelmingly Canadian:
Why does nationality matter? Because the overwhelming majority of Canadian hockey fans are offended by the very idea of NHL clubs in non-traditional markets, just as American baseball fanatics are still upset over the Toronto Blue Jays’ World Series wins in 1992 and 1993. While I’m not suggesting Canadian-born NHL referees and the War Room staff in Toronto are actively conspiring to keep the “non-trads” down, I think it’s safe to say their feelings toward those clubs mirror those of Canadian hockey fans, ranging from “barely concealed hostility” through “general contempt” to “It’s Florida/Atlanta/Phoenix/et al; who really cares?” How else can some of these calls/non-calls be explained? Put another way, why aren’t the Torontos of the world victimized by bad calls as often as the Floridas?
Taking it a step further, only two of the American NHL referees were born outside of traditional hockey markets: Dennis LaRue (Savannah, GA) and Brad Meier (Dayton, OH). Among American linesmen, only one doesn’t come from a traditional hockey area (Bryan Pancich, the pride of Great Falls, MT). American hockey fans in traditional markets are largely guilty of the same biases as their Canadian counterparts.
Bias aside, NHL officiating has never been more than "adequate", and this season, is much closer to "putrid". A combination of inexperienced referees (relative to past seasons) and increased game speed are partly to blame. What can be done about it? Tune in tomorrow for Part Two…
Take me back to On Goal Analysis.
Today, in Part One of this post, we'll identify the problem(s). Because it's just plain bad policy to gripe without also offering solutions, Part Two will deliver five ways in which to improve NHL officiating. For the sake of brevity, we will only discuss the bad on-ice calls, and save the NHL's mercurial suspension "policy" for another time. With that, let the dissection begin! Here’s a sampling of what we’ve been subjected to this season:
Friday, 4 FEB 2011 – Columbus @ Detroit: Henrik Zetterberg gets tangled up with goalie/teammate Jimmy Howard, allowing Columbus’ Rick Nash to shoot the puck into an open net. Referee Francois St. Laurent signals “no goal” and sends Derick Brassard to the sin bin for goalie interference.
Wednesday, 2 FEB 2011 – Detroit @ Ottawa: Chris Neil stuffs the puck into the Detroit net during a scrum in the crease, then inadvertently pulls the puck back out of the net. Puck ends up underneath Jimmy Howard. After a War Room review, it’s “no goal”, because “…the puck was under the goalie, who was then pushed into the net.” Replays clearly showed this was not the case. Neil’s goal would’ve tied the game at 6 with just under eight minutes remaining in the 3rd; instead, Detroit adds an empty-netter to win, 7-5.
Wednesday, 5 JAN 2011 – Atlanta @ Florida: With Atlanta leading, 3-2, late in the 3rd, Florida Captain Bryan McCabe scores the tying goal…or not: Somehow, both the on-ice officials and the War Room missed Atlanta goalie Ondrej Pavelec fishing the puck out of the back of the net after the whistle. Atlanta wins, 3-2.
Tuesday, 28 DEC 2010 – Boston @ Tampa Bay: Game tied, 3-3, late in the 3rd, when Steven Stamkos is sent to the box for “Boarding” – in this case, a clean, shoulder-on-shoulder hit. Boston scores on the ensuing PP, wins 4-3.
Tuesday, 26 OCT 2010 – Florida @ Toronto: At 11:02 of the 3rd period, with the score tied at 1, Colton Orr flattens Panther goalie Scott Clemmensen. Tim Brent sends the puck toward the now-empty net, and it deflects off Orr and in. Former NHL Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom says it’s a “good goal”, Leafs go on to win, 3-1.
Sunday, 10 OCT 2010 – Florida @ Edmonton: Florida trails, 2-0, early in the 2nd period, when Marty Reasoner scores for Florida to make it 2-1. 1:09 later, Oiler Shawn Horcoff kicks the puck past Tomas Vokoun. The War Room says “good goal” after a lengthy review, Edmonton goes on to win, 3-2. Horcoff’s “goal” is the game-winner.
Anyone notice a pattern here? Before we get to that, Dirk Hoag at On The Forecheck had a very interesting post last week regarding post-Lockout suspensions, which asks the question, “Do the NHL’s Original Six franchises receive special treatment?” Again, we aren’t discussing suspensions today, but Hoag’s post caused the proverbial light bulb to come on over my head. What do I mean? Well, about that pattern…
In five of the six examples above, the beneficiary of the bad call was either an Original Six or a Canadian club. Likewise, in five of six examples, the party which was injured by the bad call was a non-traditional market club. This, combined with Hoag’s post, raised a question: In the eyes of NHL officials, is there a distinct hierarchy of teams? If so, it probably looks something like this:
1. Original Six clubs
2. Non-Original Six Canadian clubs
3. “Traditional Market” American clubs (i.e., Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Buffalo, etc)
4. “Non-Traditional Market” clubs (Phoenix, Columbus, Florida, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Nashville, Dallas, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose)
Am I suggesting NHL officials are biased? Absolutely. It’s common knowledge around the league that rookies – both players and coaches – have to “pay their dues” before referees will give them the same treatment veterans receive. If refs are biased against rookies, why wouldn’t they be biased against non-traditional market teams? After all, they’re only human, and overwhelmingly Canadian:
On the NHLOA website, the list of 39 referees includes 1 Swede, 6 Americans and 32 Canadians (note: four referees have no birthplace listed, but three of them have distinctly French-Canadian names, so we’ll call them all Canadian). Of 33 linesmen on the site, 1 has no birthplace listed (I’ve requested a copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii), 8 are American and 24 are Canadian.
Why does nationality matter? Because the overwhelming majority of Canadian hockey fans are offended by the very idea of NHL clubs in non-traditional markets, just as American baseball fanatics are still upset over the Toronto Blue Jays’ World Series wins in 1992 and 1993. While I’m not suggesting Canadian-born NHL referees and the War Room staff in Toronto are actively conspiring to keep the “non-trads” down, I think it’s safe to say their feelings toward those clubs mirror those of Canadian hockey fans, ranging from “barely concealed hostility” through “general contempt” to “It’s Florida/Atlanta/Phoenix/et al; who really cares?” How else can some of these calls/non-calls be explained? Put another way, why aren’t the Torontos of the world victimized by bad calls as often as the Floridas?
Taking it a step further, only two of the American NHL referees were born outside of traditional hockey markets: Dennis LaRue (Savannah, GA) and Brad Meier (Dayton, OH). Among American linesmen, only one doesn’t come from a traditional hockey area (Bryan Pancich, the pride of Great Falls, MT). American hockey fans in traditional markets are largely guilty of the same biases as their Canadian counterparts.
Bias aside, NHL officiating has never been more than "adequate", and this season, is much closer to "putrid". A combination of inexperienced referees (relative to past seasons) and increased game speed are partly to blame. What can be done about it? Tune in tomorrow for Part Two…
Take me back to On Goal Analysis.
Monday, December 21, 2009
What I Want for Christmas - by Big Tex
That's right - it's that time of year again. Ahhh, Christmas. There is
nothing like the spirit of the season. (That includes the spirit in the
eggnog.) Children laughing, sometimes crying. Carols playing in every
crevice of every mall and department store. Christmas lists to fill.
On Goal Analysis has the spirit! Eggnog (and Wassel!) are being prepared,
and carols are hummed off key as we chase around the crying children to line
them up and tell Santa what they want for Christmas.
Man, we can see by the line Santa sure is busy. This year, we big kids don't
think we will add to the Jolly Man's sleigh-delivered burden. There is
someone we can ask for some cheer, however.
O favorite deliverer of our favorite sport, Gary Bettmanclaus, can you please consider the lists we OGA Boys humbly send forward over the next three days? Let's start with the one from Big Tex...
Dear Gary Bettmanclaus,
How are you? I am fine. I have been a relatively good boy this year – better than Jim Balsillie, not as good as Pavel “I’ve won the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy four straight years” Datsyuk. As such, I believe I am owed three Christmas gifts (per the CBA). I know you’re a busy man, so I’ll skip any further chit-chat and cut to the chase. Here’s what I want:
1. Better officiating, both on- and off-ice. Seriously. There’s no point to filling page after page with examples of bad, stupid, or nonsensical calls, non-calls and suspensions, because you and I both know that the officiating needs work. Off the ice, the suspension policy is simultaneously mysterious and pure crap. While we’ve come to expect that from the league office, what we didn’t see coming is cause for alarm: Blown calls from the War Room in Toronto. How can you watch the slo-mo replay from multiple angles and still screw the pooch? On ice, the “intent to blow” rule, well, blows. Too many good goals have been lost this season alone to that well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided rule. Overall, officiating (particularly on the ice) has improved significantly since the Lockout, but that has only elevated it to a level best described as “somewhat better than the NBA”. The Great Game deserves better.
2. Stability and success for all non-traditional market teams. I want this for several reasons: First, because the NHL as a whole stands to benefit from financially stable/healthy teams in Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, etc. Second, because I live in a non-traditional market (Dallas), and I remember well the dark ages before the NHL came to town. Third, because successful non-traditional market teams will inspire kids in those markets to lace up skates, and some of those kids will end up in the NHL. It’s already happening, in fact. And fourth, because the resulting increase in size of the talent pool will help my third Christmas wish come true…
3. Two expansion teams for Canada. That’s right: TWO expansion teams for Canada. These teams won’t help grow the game like the non-traditional market clubs do (because they’ll be “preaching to the converted”), but they will put the league on more solid financial footing. While the traditionalist in me would love to see the second coming of the Jets and Nordiques, I’d settle for the Jets and a second team in Toronto…And in 2030, when the Winnipeg Jets win the Stanley Cup, Canada will rejoice…And when the Cup is hoisted by the Jets’ Captain – who played his youth hockey in Atlanta, where he grew up idolizing Ilya Kovalchuk – we can all rejoice.
Take me back to On Goal Analysis.
nothing like the spirit of the season. (That includes the spirit in the
eggnog.) Children laughing, sometimes crying. Carols playing in every
crevice of every mall and department store. Christmas lists to fill.
On Goal Analysis has the spirit! Eggnog (and Wassel!) are being prepared,
and carols are hummed off key as we chase around the crying children to line
them up and tell Santa what they want for Christmas.
Man, we can see by the line Santa sure is busy. This year, we big kids don't
think we will add to the Jolly Man's sleigh-delivered burden. There is
someone we can ask for some cheer, however.
O favorite deliverer of our favorite sport, Gary Bettmanclaus, can you please consider the lists we OGA Boys humbly send forward over the next three days? Let's start with the one from Big Tex...
Dear Gary Bettmanclaus,
How are you? I am fine. I have been a relatively good boy this year – better than Jim Balsillie, not as good as Pavel “I’ve won the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy four straight years” Datsyuk. As such, I believe I am owed three Christmas gifts (per the CBA). I know you’re a busy man, so I’ll skip any further chit-chat and cut to the chase. Here’s what I want:
1. Better officiating, both on- and off-ice. Seriously. There’s no point to filling page after page with examples of bad, stupid, or nonsensical calls, non-calls and suspensions, because you and I both know that the officiating needs work. Off the ice, the suspension policy is simultaneously mysterious and pure crap. While we’ve come to expect that from the league office, what we didn’t see coming is cause for alarm: Blown calls from the War Room in Toronto. How can you watch the slo-mo replay from multiple angles and still screw the pooch? On ice, the “intent to blow” rule, well, blows. Too many good goals have been lost this season alone to that well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided rule. Overall, officiating (particularly on the ice) has improved significantly since the Lockout, but that has only elevated it to a level best described as “somewhat better than the NBA”. The Great Game deserves better.
2. Stability and success for all non-traditional market teams. I want this for several reasons: First, because the NHL as a whole stands to benefit from financially stable/healthy teams in Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, etc. Second, because I live in a non-traditional market (Dallas), and I remember well the dark ages before the NHL came to town. Third, because successful non-traditional market teams will inspire kids in those markets to lace up skates, and some of those kids will end up in the NHL. It’s already happening, in fact. And fourth, because the resulting increase in size of the talent pool will help my third Christmas wish come true…
3. Two expansion teams for Canada. That’s right: TWO expansion teams for Canada. These teams won’t help grow the game like the non-traditional market clubs do (because they’ll be “preaching to the converted”), but they will put the league on more solid financial footing. While the traditionalist in me would love to see the second coming of the Jets and Nordiques, I’d settle for the Jets and a second team in Toronto…And in 2030, when the Winnipeg Jets win the Stanley Cup, Canada will rejoice…And when the Cup is hoisted by the Jets’ Captain – who played his youth hockey in Atlanta, where he grew up idolizing Ilya Kovalchuk – we can all rejoice.
Take me back to On Goal Analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
