First, I apologize I didn't see this thread earlier.
Secondly, I was at the game in question, so I'll try to give my own take on the situation. I don't have any experience as an on-ice official. I have a layman's knowledge of the rulebook and I've never played hockey at a high-level. That being said, I am fortunate enough to have press credientials for the Mooseheads this season and have watched the majority of their home games to date. I also have watched enough hockey to have that general idea of 'oh, that looks like a penalty' or 'oh, that looks fine.' I'm not saying that I am in the best position to talk about what merits a call and what does not, but I feel I am in a good position to discuss this particular situation.
From where I was sitting, the fans weren't upset just because of the number of penalties called (but hey, no one wants to see the game interupted halfway through every play because of an infraction, but that all goes back to what Van is saying). I would say the main reason why the fans booed was the standard in which the game was being enforced. Which is to say, there was none.
There were numerous missed calls, (which I can understand, every game has a few, the officials can't see everything all the time). There was also an inconsistent quality to the calls (which again, goes back to the officials not being able to see everything all the time). In all, what looked like a penalty, sometimes wasn't a penalty and what looked like a regular play, sometimes garnered a whistle.
Basically, what it boils down to is the officiating in that particular game was in no way consistent with what I had seen in the rest of the games I have viewed this season (both before and after this particular game took place). Plays that I felt were penalties, based on what I had witnessed earlier in the year, were not called, plays that I felt were innocuous, again based on what I had witnessed earlier in the year, were called.
I understand that it is very difficult for officials to call everything word for word from the rulebook because, after all they are only human. But one would think that after 30 or so odd games under this new standard, a familiarity of sorts would begin to emerge. I only venture with that guess based on the fact that in other games that I have viewed, I have not had a problem with the way the game was handled. It is obvious that the fans, the players and the coaching staff have grown accustomed to a particular way that the game is officiated and it was just as obvious that night that the officiating was not anywhere close to being in line with the familiar style. The players on both sides were visibly confused, the coaching staff on both sides were visibly frustrated and the fans voiced their own opinion.
I defer to Van when it comes to most issues with refereeing and officiating the game, due to his personal knowledge of the job. However, in my viewing of the game, I must come to the conclusion that M. Arsenault (he has many less delicate nicknames that I have heard before and since, but that's a different story) had a particularly challenging night as an official.
If this is a problem with the training of the officials, then so be it. That is something that should be addressed somehow. But it is not fair for fans, the players, the coaching staff nor the officials themselves if the game is called differently each time the teams step on the ice.