Re: Whistlemania! -- Are we fixing something that isn't broken?
Earlier in the thread a poster made a comment that it “seems like most of the calls being made aren’t about player safety at all” (thoughts on how to improve that in the next post
-- although E.J. Smith addressed many of them in his 7:30am post today ). That’s because the area being addressed isn’t about player safety but rather allowing players to move freely on the rink without being illegally impeded. Obviously, some fans (and at least a few coaches) are questioning whether there was a significant enough issue to require the heightened focus on these types of potential infractions. I would argue that the significant increase in restraining fouls actually being called indicates that things had, in fact, “slipped” a little in this area. The reality is that officials, guided by feedback from supervisors and coaches had, over the last 5-10 years, allowed the “old school” application of these restraining fouls – hooking, holding, interference, and slashing to the arms and hands to creep back in. Meaning, they were calling it based on the “spirit of the rule” versus the black and white definition of it. If an action didn’t create or remove an obvious advantage -- cause a clear change of possession, prevent a desired pass from being made or, take away a definite scoring opportunity -- it wasn’t called. Especially if a team was already short a player or, it was late in a game and the teams were within a goal or two of each other.
The difference is that the new emphasis is requiring officials to also call penalties for actions that may only partially impede the player in question. And, more importantly, to call them regardless of current on ice strength or time of the game or score. This is a pretty significant change, both for the officials and the players. Are actions being called that aren’t penalties? Absolutely. But, the NCAA and, more importantly the conferences, have instructed the officials to “make the calls”. For the average official, the result, at least initially, will be a tendency to overcall these actions to ensure they’re meeting the expectations of their supervisors. That doesn’t mean each official isn’t trying to get it as right as possible. I’m confident, there’s not an official out there that isn’t literally trying to be as “perfect” as possible every game. And, with the help of post-game video review, they’ll improve as the season progresses.
Considering its speed and the extremely unique skill required to officiate it – the ability to skate effectively – makes this sport THE most difficult to officiate (nothing is even close). So, it’s often difficult enough to get the “obvious” penalties correct. Unfortunately, the challenge for officials in enforcing this directive is that these types of calls are the most difficult to make. In that, they are extremely subjective based on the sight line of the official at the instant the “action” occurs. Especially if an individual referee is a little shorter and is having to look around or through players at a given instant to see if a slight hold or hook caused a player to mishandle or lose control of a puck or, it was just that player’s lack of stickhandling skill or maybe a bump in the ice that caused it.
What makes this initiative even more challenging to sell to the coaches, players, or the average fan is that, even the slightly elevated sight line of standing on a bench (in the case of a coach) can create a dramatic difference in how the potential penalty or action is judged in that moment. Not to mention the fact that the coach (or player at ice level) might have a completely different sight line angle (opposite side of the rink) which can also alter one’s judgement as to whether an action warrants a call or not (why the back referee sometimes calls something the deep referee doesn’t even though the deep referee is much closer). Now, consider the change in sight line for the average fan (between 10 and 50 feet above the ice) and it’s no wonder they often can’t believe a call was or wasn’t made. Any official will tell you that the absolute best place to officiate a game is from 20 rows up! Unfortunately, they don’t have that luxury. If you could put a camera at every corner at ice level, one up high at the red line on each side of the rink, and a Go Pro on each referee, you would be amazed at how different the exact same action looked from the various angles. On many, you would swear it wasn’t even the same play. That’s why this job is all about achieving the best sight line possible. Which, requires very strong skating ability. The officials that tend to struggle with restraining fouls tend to be those that are weaker skaters or, who simply don’t work hard to achieve the best sight line.
To be fair, some of the complaints expressed about individual/specific situations are valid. Whether it’s the stick lift that, especially on replay, clearly didn’t get hands but, is called a hook. Or, the heavy but legal body check called as a “rough”. Or, when a player simply puts his hand on a player’s waist but doesn’t actually pull on or grab him yet still gets called for holding. There’s also more embellishment creeping in and that will be the next thing officials are directed to be diligent for. The reality is that, at ice level, this game is now so incredibly fast and these things happen in literally splits of a second. The official only gets one shot at it. At least as it relates to restraining fouls. And, if they happen to glance at something else for even a fraction of a second, it’s very easy to miss some of these partial restraining fouls. Or, worse yet, think you saw something that really wasn’t there. Based on that, fans need to come to accept the reality that every official at some point in almost every game is going to make at least one or two mistakes (and maybe even more). And usually at a point where you as a fan feel it’s most detrimental to your team.
As for the differences in average numbers of calls between the West and East; there has always been a slight “cultural” difference between eastern and western officiating. To be fair, in general that difference exists at the behest of most of the coaches. Still, considering the information that every conference, coach, and official has been presented with, it is a little odd that there has been that much of a difference to this point. My guess is that will even out over time. Remember also that, considering how many college players now move on to the NHL, they are very supportive of this effort as this is the way their games are called in respect to restraining fouls – at least during the regular season.
Although it seems to have diminished over the last few years, it’s interesting to see how often people on these boards criticize the officials. Especially considering most have never even officiated a Squirt game. Remember, these are part time officials operating in an environment where their decisions can have significant consequences for some people’s full-time livelihood’s. There is far more pressure on a Div. I college hockey referee during the regular season than any NHL official in their regular season. Why? In college hockey, due to the way the NCAA tournament field is selected, every game truly matters! So, every mistake or perceived mistake is magnified tremendously. In the NHL, there’s 82 games and the teams – especially the coaches – don’t have more than a day or maybe two to worry about the last game because there’s another game coming up. Whereas, in college hockey, they have 5 days to analyze every little play and send it in to the league. Plus, NHL officials are contracted employees with a very strong union to back them up. College hockey officials are part-time, independent contractors. Meaning, although most have an allegiance to a particular league, if they make even just one bad “mistake” – as perceived by a coach or commissioner or supervisor -- they might simply never work again with no opportunity to contest it.
To Be Continued...
).
