At least the refs and the linesmen have some dignity

Status
Not open for further replies.

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Marconius said:
Why drag the amount NHL refs make into the question? It's almost as if you seem to be muddying up the waters on purpose because you have no real point. What the refs make is not really related to anything. The point is that they refuse to take other jobs out of solidarity.

It matters what referees make (made), if they were starving they would be fighting for whatever paying (referee's) job they could get. And since a lot of referees in European leagues' are part-timer referees (for example teachers in real life) with a nominal fee+expenses paid, there's no demand for NHL-refs over there. So it's easy to present yourself as noble, when there's no great demand for a person's services. And not that NHL refs are consired so much better in Europe, that it's worth the money wasted on them. So it could be argued that they are way more overpaid (thanks to thet 90's strike) than the players, regarding what value they bring to the game (as compared for their possible and eventual successors).

As for NHL referees' standards, I would argue that no ref who hasn't sentenced at least 30 mins obstruction, hooking etc. penalties a game for the past 10 years (or whatever years he's been in the laegue) hasn't done he's job, and has is in his part responsible for bringing down the playing level to is current poor standard.

Perhaps allowing/forcing the refs to be financially more independent from the NHL (part-time, limiting max NHL referiing years to 5 years or so), perhaps they would make care more about the game than their own/families' NHL-dependant financial well-being. In every 5 years enough new refs would come around to be new NHL-standard refs.
 
Last edited:

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
gary69 said:
It matters what referees make (made), if they were starving they would be fighting for whatever paying (referee's) job they could get. And since a lot of referees in European leagues' are part-timer referees (for example teachers in real life) with a nominal fee+expenses paid, there's no demand for NHL-refs over there. So it's easy to present yourself as noble, when there's no great demand for a person's services. And not that NHL refs are consired so much better in Europe, that it's worth the money wasted on them. So it could be argued that they are way more overpaid (thanks to thet 90's strike) than the players, regarding what value they bring to the game (as compared for their possible and eventual successors).

As for NHL referees' standards, I would argue that no ref who hasn't sentenced at least 30 mins obstruction, hooking etc. penalties a game for the past 10 years (or whatever years he's been in the laegue) hasn't done he's job, and has is in his part responsible for bringing down the playing level to is current poor standard.

Perhaps allowing/forcing the refs to be financially more independent from the NHL (part-time, limiting max NHL referiing years to 5 years or so), perhaps they would make care more about the game than their own/families' well-being. In every 5 years enough new refs would come around to be new NHL-standard refs.

Wow, I'm sure you would get some A-1 professionals who would "care more about the game than their own/families' well being" Such a person would most likely be severely mentally disturbed, and I'm not sure I would want them to be entrusted with policing a big-league hockey game. Seriously, do you believe what you wrote??? Would you go to work and do your best and look forward to getting fired when your five years are up??? :shakehead :shakehead
 

BCCHL inactive

Guest
gary69 said:
It matters what referees make (made), if they were starving they would be fighting for whatever paying (referee's) job they could get. And since a lot of referees in European leagues' are part-timer referees (for example teachers in real life) with a nominal fee+expenses paid, there's no demand for NHL-refs over there. So it's easy to present yourself as noble, when there's no great demand for a person's services. And not that NHL refs are consired so much better in Europe, that it's worth the money wasted on them. So it could be argued that they are way more overpaid (thanks to thet 90's strike) than the players, regarding what value they bring to the game (as compared for their possible and eventual successors).

What makes you think an NHL referee would earn NHL dollars in another league?

If, for example, the German Elite League (DEL) had the option of hiring the next up-and-coming German referee, or Steven Walkom (NHL), my money is on the league giving the job to Walkom. He wouldn't get paid what he makes in the NHL, he would work part-time for their dollars. What the NHLOA sees as wrong in such a situation, is the fact that Walkom would be hurting the development of the up-and-coming German referee who would be bumped from his job.

gary69 said:
As for NHL referees' standards, I would argue that no ref who hasn't sentenced at least 30 mins obstruction, hooking etc. penalties a game for the past 10 years (or whatever years he's been in the laegue) hasn't done he's job, and has is in his part responsible for bringing down the playing level to is current poor standard.

Thanks for confirming you know nothing about how to officiate a hockey game.

gary69 said:
Perhaps allowing/forcing the refs to be financially more independent from the NHL (part-time, limiting max NHL referiing years to 5 years or so), perhaps they would make care more about the game than their own/families' well-being. In every 5 years enough new refs would come around to be new NHL-standard refs.

1. Reducing NHL officials to part-time work will have a negative effect on the standard of officiating in the league. As I already mentioned, referees don't get to practice. Referees develop and improve during games. Cut their games in half, and they won't gain the experience to become better officials.

2. If referees should be forced to a maximum of 5 years working the league to take better care of their finances, then they should cap players off at 2 years, and the average player would still have much more money than the average official to take care of. See how much sense that makes? That's right...none.

3. Do you care about your job more than your family's well-being? If your answer is yes, then I suggest you get some help.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Bring Back Bucky said:
Would you go to work and do your best and look forward to getting fired when your five years are up??? :shakehead :shakehead

Again I can nothing but suggest to widen your horizons, for example soccer is quite a big sports in Europe and they have e.g. age-limits for referees (older referees in their late 40's are forced out of the international games), and nobody is hinting this is any great concern for refereing standards. Refereing standard concerns lie quite elsewhere than the number of years referees are employed.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Van said:
Thanks for confirming you know nothing about how to officiate a hockey game.



1. Reducing NHL officials to part-time work will have a negative effect on the standard of officiating in the league. As I already mentioned, referees don't get to practice. Referees develop and improve during games. Cut their games in half, and they won't gain the experience to become better officials.

I haven't been a hockey referee, but a referee in another team sports though, so I can mainly draw on that in this respect.

How on earth they ever get new officials to NHL, I doubt they hire them without any experience from any other hockey league?

If not, if a referee is showing promise let's say after 5 years being a ref in a minor league, I would think he'll probably be quite well equipped to have a shot in the NHL.
And do you honestly believe that after 4 years as NHL referee, a person has still a lot to improve or perhaps we have seen what he'll ever be. It's not like the world's most difficult job, which takes the learning of 5 years in the minors and 5 years in the NHL.
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
gary69 said:
Again I can nothing but suggest to widen your horizons, for example soccer is quite a big sports in Europe and they have e.g. age-limits for referees (older referees in their late 40's are forced out of the international games), and nobody is hinting this is any great concern for refereing standards. Refereing standard concerns lie quite elsewhere than the number of years referees are employed.

I suggest you widen your horizons if you think that a sport is important enough to anyone that they would travel North America all winter with little time to spend with their families because they think more of the game than their own life. That is simply ludicrous.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Bring Back Bucky said:
I suggest you widen your horizons if you think that a sport is important enough to anyone that they would travel North America all winter with little time to spend with their families because they think more of the game than their own life. That is simply ludicrous.

Then, I don't know how they find all those European refs who do just that in Europe (about equal in size geographically). Maybe the Euros are just so different?
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
gary69 said:
Then, I don't know how they find all those European refs who do just that in Europe (about equal in size geographically). Maybe the Euros are just so different?


You discuss "late 40's" in reference to soccer referees in Europe, whereas 5 years service and then figure out how to feed the family should suit an NHL referee. THAT'S WHAT'S SO DIFFERENT. Can you provide further information about the rules for European soccer refs, i.e. a link.?

I honestly believe your NHL officiating system would be full of drooling morons recently released by prison, as they may have been successfully programmed to enter a loser career with a 5 year shelf life. ;)
 

BCCHL inactive

Guest
gary69 said:
Again I can nothing but suggest to widen your horizons, for example soccer is quite a big sports in Europe and they have e.g. age-limits for referees (older referees in their late 40's are forced out of the international games), and nobody is hinting this is any great concern for refereing standards. Refereing standard concerns lie quite elsewhere than the number of years referees are employed.

If a referee is still capable of officiating with competence and can still pass the physical tests required, why should age force him from the game?

FIFA's age restriction means that Pierluigi Collina, who is widely regarded as the best soccer referee on the planet, can no longer work international matches.

That is wrong. In fact, it is age discrimination.


gary69 said:
How on earth they ever get new officials to NHL, I doubt they hire them without any experience from any other hockey league?

If not, if a referee is showing promise let's say after 5 years being a ref in a minor league, I would think he'll probably be quite well equipped to have a shot in the NHL.
And do you honestly believe that after 4 years as NHL referee, a person has still a lot to improve or perhaps we have seen what he'll ever be. It's not like the world's most difficult job, which takes the learning of 5 years in the minors and 5 years in the NHL.

Why get rid of good and experienced officials to bring in the ones who are ready? It only makes sense to get rid of the officials who have not shown the desired improvement since their hiring, no matter how old or young they are. That is who you drop in favour of the new officials who are ready for the jump.

My dad has worked as a plumber/gas fitter with the local school board for over 30 years. It's not like he has much to learn about his job. Should he have been forced out of it 25 years ago?


gary69 said:
Then, I don't know how they find all those European refs who do just that in Europe (about equal in size geographically). Maybe the Euros are just so different?

Wake up.

Referees in Europe don't travel the entire continent all season long. They work part-time in their own domestic leagues. In the Swiss league's case, their officials are full-time, but they travel throughout tiny Switzerland.

The only times European officials do any significant travelling, are for IIHF tournaments.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
The reason NHL officials cannot take other peoples jobs is because they are not good enought to take anyones job. Some of the worst officials in pro sports, it was most evident during the 03/04 playoffs.
 

BCCHL inactive

Guest
Go Flames Go said:
The reason NHL officials cannot take other peoples jobs is because they are not good enought to take anyones job. Some of the worst officials in pro sports, it was most evident during the 03/04 playoffs.

I guess my question has been answered.

No Van, people cannot read in this thread. :dunce:

:lol
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Van said:
If, for example, the German Elite League (DEL) had the option of hiring the next up-and-coming German referee, or Steven Walkom (NHL), my money is on the league giving the job to Walkom.

I agree with a lot of what you say about the officials, but not this. The difference between an official and a player is that the officials are hired by the league and the players by teams. I don't think the AHL would hire Walkom either, partly because as you say, they have a development program. Despite that, they might hire him if Walkom agreed to a contract for the whole year. He wouldn't.

It is one thing for a Swedish team to hire Brendan Morrison to fill the rink while the NHL is locked out. They make more money as long as the labour dispute drags on. When Morrison bails, he is replaced and the crowds go back to what they were. It isn't that big a deal for a team.

But the AHL or the SEL does not make more money because Walkom is refereeing and no league wants to be in the position of trying to fill officiating vacancies on short notice halfway through a season. It isn't practical. A league hires its officials for the season.

The league generates expenses not revenues and they won't want to pay the hiring costs twice. The benefit of hiring a Walkom is small relative to the hassle of trying to replace several Walkoms if the NHL settles. They won't even do it if the season is cancelled because they probably have to pay the other officials anyway.

Walkom has options if he doesn't want to keep his NHL job. Otherwise, he has to be ready to go in January or whenever there is a settlement. What league would hire him in those circumstances?

Tom
 

BCCHL inactive

Guest
Thank you for providing a valid point.

What I will say, is that not all leagues hire officials for the full season. Most developmental leagues will cut back its officials roster on a few occasions as the season goes by. This is to ensure that deserving officials get the more important late-season and playoff assignments. Unlike the NHL, a lot of minor leagues don't contract their officials to a minimum number of regular season games.

If an NHL official were to take a European or a N.American minor-pro job, if the lockout were to end, all that would need to be done is simply cut the NHL officials on the other league's roster and it shouldn't disturb their normal operations.

Not all leagues work like this, so your point is a good one.

The only part I didn't agree with was mentioning attendance in relation to hiring new officials. Of course officials aren't hired to sell tickets. Nobody has suggested that is the case.

And for the record, no, the AHL wouldn't hire Walkom because the AHL doesn't hire officials. All AHL officials are on contracts with the NHL and are NHLOA members (I'm pretty sure on the NHLOA part anyway). Some work AHL only, some have two-way NHL/AHL contracts, and the others are on strict NHL contracts...so some guys who worked the NHL last season are working AHL games this season. Steven Walkom is not one of those officials.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Van said:
If a referee is still capable of officiating with competence and can still pass the physical tests required, why should age force him from the game?

FIFA's age restriction means that Pierluigi Collina, who is widely regarded as the best soccer referee on the planet, can no longer work international matches.

That is wrong. In fact, it is age discrimination.




Why get rid of good and experienced officials to bring in the ones who are ready? It only makes sense to get rid of the officials who have not shown the desired improvement since their hiring, no matter how old or young they are. That is who you drop in favour of the new officials who are ready for the jump.

My dad has worked as a plumber/gas fitter with the local school board for over 30 years. It's not like he has much to learn about his job. Should he have been forced out of it 25 years ago?




Wake up.

Referees in Europe don't travel the entire continent all season long. They work part-time in their own domestic leagues. In the Swiss league's case, their officials are full-time, but they travel throughout tiny Switzerland.

The only times European officials do any significant travelling, are for IIHF tournaments.

While I agree that Collina is considered by many amongst the best (although personally I've preferred a few others, e.g. that tall Danish guy, Kim Milton Nielsen), and could probally contribute at least for a few years more, I don't think him retiring makes too much a difference (if any) to the game. Let alone that fans/clubs/owners would be asked to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to have him around instead of the next best guy. But if they choose to pay, then so be it, I just don't see any need to do that.

As for age discrimination, if it were illegal, wouldn't they have been forced to get ride of it, or maybe they have an exemption? Either way, I don't think it matters a whole lot to the standard of the game.

The travelling part, I don't quite follow you, are you suggesting that referees' travelling is a value in itself and worth paying for, or that NHL couldn't come up with a system where referees didn't need to travel a lot. If the Europeans can do it, surely it is also possible in the N.A. as well.

I don't know how plumbers got into this, the point I was trying to make that it is widely accepted (in democratic societies at least) that staying in certain officies/positions (especially positions with power, like politics) for too long, people tend to lose focus on what they were supposed to do in the first place, and grow more interested to secure their own well-being. Or not upsetting the people, who have great influence over their future, regardless whether this kind of action is for the common good. In short, I believe it might be useful for hockey to look into this regarding referees, and try to minimize even the likelyhood of this happening. Since I don't know too much about plumming business, I can't comment whether these kind of doubts are relevant there.

Just to remind you, that my first comment was a reply to an argument that referees' comments should not be seen in context of what money they have made, what their future career options are, where their loyalties lie etc. This should be always considered with any person's comments, IMO.
 
Last edited:

BCCHL inactive

Guest
gary69 said:
The travelling part, I don't quite follow you, are you suggesting that referees' travelling is a value in itself and worth paying for, or that NHL couldn't come up with a system where referees didn't need to travel a lot. If the Europeans can do it, surely it is also possible in the N.A. as well.

European officials don't travel much because the leagues are domestic and the countries over there are very small in comparison. There are likely some games where an official can leave in the early afternoon, drive to a closeby town, ref his game and be back home later at night, thus avoiding hotel expenses.

If they set up a system where NHL officials don't have to travel as much, that means regionalization would have to take effect, meaning teams would see the same small group of officials all season for their home games. The NHL does this somewhat for linesmen, but not for referees. At the NHL level, that can be just as negative as it can be positive for both teams and officials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->