Proposal: How to fix the officiating

[DominicT]

No anti-Bruins conspiracy theory

No pro-Habs conspiracy theory

Just solid honest to goodness proposals for a solution that has plagued not just the NHL but hockey around the world from the IIHF to the AHL to the CHL

My ideas are simple

http://ohlwriters.com/articles/how-do-you-fix-the-officiating-problem

Yours?

Click to read more...

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

I don't think you'll ever see challenges used to reverse penalties called. They don't do that in the NFL for a reason, and I think that same reason ports over to the NHL.

Frankly I think there is no good solution to the problem that the NHL will actually use, but your article is a good one.

Also holy !@^%#$!@ my avatar is back. Praise Claude!

 

[Grasshopperking]

I like the 'team of officials' thought. If there were a way to build each team to be consistent, a more conservative ref with a more call-happy and maybe it would even each out. God forbid two penalty-ravenous officials are paired together and the game becomes a special-teams contest.

I really wouldn't mind an off-ice official. I mean, there are usually a couple thousand on any given night anyway!

Also, call 'embellishing' more please. Thanks

 

[Ozamataz Buckshank]

I don't think you'll ever see challenges used to reverse penalties called. They don't do that in the NFL for a reason, and I think that same reason ports over to the NHL.

Frankly I think there is no good solution to the problem that the NHL will actually use, but your article is a good one.

Also holy !@^%#$!@ my avatar is back. Praise Claude!

Agreed on the penalties. The refs are league employees, and the NHL certainly wouldn't want to see coaches essentially undermining officials by challenging their calls on penalties

I like the 'team of officials' thought. If there were a way to build each team to be consistent, a more conservative ref with a more call-happy and maybe it would even each out. God forbid two penalty-ravenous officials are paired together and the game becomes a special-teams contest.

I really wouldn't mind an off-ice official. I mean, there are usually a couple thousand on any given night anyway!

Also, call 'embellishing' more please. Thanks

Embellishing/diving can be really hard to see at game speed. NHL should be analyzing that kind of stuff post game. However as seen with James Neal they still aren't willing to hand out suspensions for embellishment like they agreed to.

 

[ProdigalFan]

Great article, Dom, and speaks to everyone involved in the sport.

Personally, I like Toronto having the "final say". They can be much more impartial than the refs at the game, who have to deal with fans, coaches and players yelling at them, and therefore tend to even up calls to appease everyone. Plus as Fraser noted, there can be competition between the refs as well.

I wish Toronto would review goals. Between GI, encroachment in the crease, and "dead in the head", every team has been screwed by calls that can and do affect the game's outcome. In the playoffs this obviously can be critical.

 

[patty59]

All they need to do is stop guessing. Only make the call if you are 100% sure and you'll never have a problem.

 

[ap3lovr]

What I would like to see

- All goals are subject to video review
- The "I meant to blow the play dead" rule is removed from the books
- Distinct kicking motion is removed from the books, a player can put it in with his chest or head on purpose, but heaven forbid he redirects his skate.
- Off Ice official can call a penalty following the whistle (High sticking, clearing a players stick out of the area of play)
- Delay of game penalty is reviewed
- Diving becomes a standalone penalty - 2 minutes + 10 minute misconduct

I have no issue with the way the game is being called for the most part. You will never get consistency on stick infraction penalties. Hooking can be obvious or not so obvious. Interference can be subtle or not so subtle. So a certain amount is tolerated in order to allow the game to flow. If it starts to get out of hand, it gets called.

What bothers me is when I see someone get a high stick to the face, or Campbell clearing a players stick out of in front of the net. These are obvious penalties that are easy to get right. There is no grey area with them, so having an off ice official would ensure that it gets called right. If the play by play guys can pick up on it, the refs should be able to off ice.

What we end up with is refs seeing the infraction on the jumbotron and making a make up call for these infractions. They then call some incredibly mild play like that hold against Lucic the other night. It then makes the refs look really bad as that play has happened 100 times during the game, and players and fans are left scratching their heads saying "So what is a hold and what isn't?".

Get the easy ones right, get the scoring plays right and I'll be happy with the officiating.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

going back to 1 ref would be my first move

 

[TCL40]

I would like to see all goals reviewable and goaltender interference reviewable.

I would like to see more open accountability for refs-fines, suspensions for excessive bad calls (missed or phantom).

I would like to see plays where there is a clear injury reviewable-like High sticks where there is clear injury (blood is a good indication).

I think there should be a graduated fine system for diving/embellishment. I think suspensions make the refs less likely to call the embellishment.

I really don't want a bunch of video reviews in game.

 

[DominicT]

Embellishment is already covered by rule 64.1 to 64.3 and doesn't require a penalty on the ice to be called.

It is a suspendable offence to repeat offenders so the lack of the penalty doesn't have anything to do with refs not calling it because of suspensions but it's in the way they interpret it - it's a judgement call.

The problem is with Hockey Ops not following their own rule to the letter of the law.

64.3 Fines and Suspensions - Regardless if a minor penalty for diving / embellishment is called, Hockey Operations will review game videos and assess fines to players or goalkeepers who dive or embellish a fall or a reaction, or who feign injury. See also Rule 28 – Supplementary Discipline. The call on the ice by the Referee is totally independent of supplementary discipline.

The first such incident during the season will result in a warning letter being sent to the player or goalkeeper. The second such incident will result in a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine. For a third such incident in the season, the player shall be suspended for one game, pending a telephone conversation with the Director of Hockey Operations. For subsequent violations in the same season, the player’s suspension shall double (i.e. first suspension – one game, second suspension – two games, third suspension – four games, etc.) See also Rule 28 – Supplementary Discipline.

Hand out a few suspensions and the refs won't have to even think about making the call. Players will learn

 

[qc]

I hate the makeup call, even when it benefits the Bruins; games can be heavily compromised because of it. All it takes is a single dumb call, early in the game, to initiate the snowball effect.

Just my .02

 

[SerenityRick]

I hate the makeup call, even when it benefits the Bruins; games can be heavily compromised because of it. All it takes is a single dumb call, early in the game, to initiate the snowball effect.

Just my .02

Make up calls, evening up calls and reffing the score is abhorrent.

If a team is up by a handful of goals, the chances of them getting another PP is reduced exponentially.

Same if one team already had 3 or 4 power plays.. the chances of them killing the next penalty increases exponentially.

That kind of expectation is awful.

You see a penalty, you call it. You miss a penalty? Oh well.. you missed it. Don't look for ticky tack stuff to make up for it. Keep doing your best (and frankly, your job) to call the next legitimate penalty.

I mean, that kind of suggestion is totally subjective so I don't know if wishing really hard for them to just do their job is a viable solution, haha.

 

[jasonbaz77*]

It's no "conspiracy"...even Pierre said this on NBC. The Bruins don't dive. The sport is broken and needs to be saved. It has become dangerous when teams like the Habs are so competitive by diving to get PP's. That is the only way they can stay in games.

The 2013 twist this year is the holding of sticks to get power plays. It has become an epidemic. You can say "Conspiracy theory" and "tin foil hats" but that is so tired.

There is no deterrent to diving. Right now if you dive the ONLY risk is getting a MATCHING call. Ref's need to be rehabilitated to call dives as the only call on a play. Why would not NOT dive if you are behind in a critical part of the game? It's actually silly that the Bruins don't dive when they are behind. It's bad strategy.

 

[Replicator]

So, how many challenges do you allow a team?

...then there should be no limit.

How do you prevent teams from abusing the challenge?

Obviously, without some sort of deterrent, there will be coaches using the challenge to their advantage – such as using it as a time out. To prevent that, you give the team asking for a review a minor penalty (maybe even a one minute penalty) for delay of game for an incorrect challenge- much like a minor penalty for asking for a stick measurement and getting it wrong.

Well, the teams do each have a timeout already. That could be removed by a bad challenge, similar to the NFL. However, I think it is reasonable to set a limit on the number of coaches challenges. I don't think a challenge system is designed to get every call correct, it's just there to make sure the game-changing calls correct. More than a few challenges per game will drag the game out and ruin the fan experience. So you don't need to have many challenges.

Based on that, you could limit it to goals & major penalties. Alternately, you could open everything up for challenge and allow the coaches ~3 challenges each, and allow them to decide what is worth spending those on. Or possibly both. As I've said before, goals (both allowed & disallowed) already result in a stoppage of play, and it seems a no-brainer to have a review every time.

There is also a problem inherent in the rules of the NHL. Many rules are subjective. Take the kicked-in puck rule. What is "a distinct kicking motion"? How is it different from a "distinct stopping motion" or a "distinct turning motion"? Can it be rewritten as "If the skate is not in contact with the ice or leaves the ice after contacting the puck"?
Removing subjectivity removes disagreements.

I also wouldn't mind seeing penalties be consistent with the stupidity of the action, not the result. You want to penalize intent rather than results where possible. The double minor for shedding blood? So is a high-stick twice as stupid if it cuts someone's lip than if it slowly bruises someones cheekbone? Is an elbow to the head less suspension-worthy if the player doesn't get a concussion?

What I think is missing as much as consistency is accountability. Who reviews these guys' performance? In the NFL, the coaches rate the Refs after each game - they fill out a post-game sheet, rating the overall performance and call out particular plays that were particularly troublesome (or well called). Does that happen in the NHL? Are there consequences for being lousy?

 

[smithformeragent]

Less camera angles

No more HD

No internet

I mean honestly, with the game being as fast paced as it is, there are going to be missed calls. There always have been and always will be. The difference is now with instant media, clarity of hi def, social media to discuss, etc. the magnifyng glass is just more prominent.

 

[Replicator]

Embellishment is already covered by rule 64.1 to 64.3 and doesn't require a penalty on the ice to be called.

It is a suspendable offence to repeat offenders so the lack of the penalty doesn't have anything to do with refs not calling it because of suspensions but it's in the way they interpret it - it's a judgement call.

The problem is with Hockey Ops not following their own rule to the letter of the law.

Hand out a few suspensions and the refs won't have to even think about making the call. Players will learn

It also requires someone to actually review the play. There are what, 30/2*82=1280 games per season? To call this consistently on review, you need to review every game. That's a big investment of reviewers' time. There needs to be more demands for that review to happen.

 

[Mount KilimanChara]

Embellishment is already covered by rule 64.1 to 64.3 and doesn't require a penalty on the ice to be called.

It is a suspendable offence to repeat offenders so the lack of the penalty doesn't have anything to do with refs not calling it because of suspensions but it's in the way they interpret it - it's a judgement call.

The problem is with Hockey Ops not following their own rule to the letter of the law.



Hand out a few suspensions and the refs won't have to even think about making the call. Players will learn

Thanks for this rule quote and for the stellar article, Dom.

After perusing the rule, I think you are right in that the only issue is with enforcement. The letter of the law is actually appropriate. It works like compounding interest. Assuming they are keeping track in this manner, they must reset every season, or we would have seen some suspensions by now. Suspensions is the only way to take care of it. It's time to see some.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

IMO the only way to fix the reffing problem is to tear down the wall that they officials are allowed to hide behind.

The reffees should be subject to talking to the media like the players are and we should hear about when a referee is punished/hear about how they are graded behind the scenes.

 

[DominicT]

It also requires someone to actually review the play. There are what, 30/2*82=1280 games per season? To call this consistently on review, you need to review every game. That's a big investment of reviewers' time. There needs to be more demands for that review to happen.

Every single game played has at least two sets of eyes watching in Toronto every night. Sometimes there are 30 people watching every single minute of every game. Plus a supervisor (usually Mike Murphy).

Every goal that is scored is automatically reviewed. Which is why sometimes why you'll hear the horn sound calling the refs to the box because they want to take a longer look at it. Review happens almost immediately and most times it's just confirmation and never disrupts the game.

I would argue that by the time a coach challenges the ref's call and "throws the flag or whatever" that Toronto has already taken a look at it.

Before Shanahan decides a situation is worthy of a suspension, or at least review. it's done in Toronto by those watching the games and the Supervisor(s) there in Toronto who then notify Shanahan and Player Safety.

I would argue there is no waste of investment in reviewers time. They are already there reviewing every single play of every single game.

Here's a good article on how the war room works

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...o-review-headquarters/article534451/?page=all

 

[dredeye]

I remember hearing the NHL is setting up some kind of clinic to hire an additional 40 officials and have even reached out to european officials. They need new blood.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Dom, you are praised here frequently for the kind of information you provide to the board and the type of conversation that it can bring in speculation. But this is the best hockey topic conversation I've seen on the Bruins board all season long.

A couple of things:

1) Has the idea of an officiating "team" come up in meetings or is it a topic of debate among those you speak with who are connected with hockey on a professional level? And if so, what are the reasons against going to such a system? It's the best idea I've heard in some time to increase the accuracy of our officials, but I believe (and I could be wrong) that there isn't a current major sport that employs that strategy. I'm curious to know what the opposition to it would be that couldn't be considered "nitpicking" or impossible to navigate.

2) I'm not sure how I feel about a coach's challenge. In any improvement I would suggest for this issue, it would be to make the officiating for lack of a better word, less prevelant. I want the players to be able to play the game as safely as the rules allow it, without infractions becoming more present than the game itself (as we see they often are). I fear the ability to dispute calls would be a step in the wrong direction.

I think "dead in the head" is a rule that HAS to go. But that between the whistles, it is the official's responsibility AND their right to call the game the way they see fit. However, review every goal like one does every touchdown. If it can be proven that the puck has crossed the line before the play has been whistled dead, then the referee should have his call overturned.

 

[DominicT]

...

Dom, you are praised here frequently for the kind of information you provide to the board and the type of conversation that it can bring in speculation. But this is the best hockey topic conversation I've seen on the Bruins board all season long.

A couple of things:

1) Has the idea of an officiating "team" come up in meetings or is it a topic of debate among those you speak with who are connected with hockey on a professional level? And if so, what are the reasons against going to such a system? It's the best idea I've heard in some time to increase the accuracy of our officials, but I believe (and I could be wrong) that there isn't a current major sport that employs that strategy. I'm curious to know what the opposition to it would be that couldn't be considered "nitpicking" or impossible to navigate.

2) I'm not sure how I feel about a coach's challenge. In any improvement I would suggest for this issue, it would be to make the officiating for lack of a better word, less prevelant. I want the players to be able to play the game as safely as the rules allow it, without infractions becoming more present than the game itself (as we see they often are). I fear the ability to dispute calls would be a step in the wrong direction.

I think "dead in the head" is a rule that HAS to go. But that between the whistles, it is the official's responsibility AND their right to call the game the way they see fit. However, review every goal like one does every touchdown. If it can be proven that the puck has crossed the line before the play has been whistled dead, then the referee should have his call overturned.

I haven't heard the "officiating team" concept discussed anywhere, but it doesn't mean it hasn't taken place.

The Idea came to me after talking to an on ice official after the opening game of the London/Guelph series on Friday night when Guelph was assessed 3 minor penalties within a minute of each other which allowed London to come back from a 4-0 deficit.

Off the record? That official's exact words were "When you work with a different partner almost every night, you have to make adjustments." Now, the conversation went further and probably not one I should talk about since it was off the record, but I just thought at the time that if you worked with the same crew night in and night out, you wouldn't "have to make adjustments."

I'm not suggesting my idea(s) are the way to go. In fact, they could be way off base. But I see this complaint about officiating daily and want to get some serious ideas from anyone who has them as to how to solve the problem.

As for the coaches challenge, obviously it would have to be more defined than the way I wrote in the article. I mean, I don't have all the answers LOL.

And I don't think coaches would challenge every single call, especially if they are penalized for "getting it wrong." But take the Bruins' disallowed goal the other day. While it wasn't reviewable under the current rules of review, what would have happened if Julien was to challenge the ref's interpretation of that call? Most certainly would have been a goal.

The missed high stick on Hamilton? I would bet that Toronto had already watched it by the time the next whistle had come and if Julien challenged it, Toronto would have an answer to them in seconds.

I get that there is a human element and that some don't want that taken away. But the point is, if you don't want that taken away, you (not you specifically) shouldn't complain when the wrong call is made - that's the human element.

The league says they want to use review to get it right. Well, it's not working when you allow certain goals to be reviewed and others not.

Just my opinion though Scott

 

[patty59]

Less camera angles

No more HD

No internet

I mean honestly, with the game being as fast paced as it is, there are going to be missed calls. There always have been and always will be. The difference is now with instant media, clarity of hi def, social media to discuss, etc. the magnifyng glass is just more prominent.

IMO, the missed calls aren't nearly as bad as the wrong ones that are made.

 

[Bruinator]

I think the coaches challenge is a no brainer. Like you said Dom, assess a minor if the call is not overturned by Toronto or even the two officials on the ice with a video monitor if thats what you prefer. That way, teams would only challenge when they are quite certain the call was wrong. If 95% of the challenges are reversing incorrect calls and getting them right, how can that be a bad thing? As far as goals go, have the league review them all and if they see any reason one should have been called off, have them notify the officials I believe they currently will call down if they believe a puck may have crossed the line undetected, but why stop there. They have all the video tools needed to get every goal and disallowed goal correct, why not utilize them. As a fan,(especially one with money riding on the game lol), there is nothing more frustrating than witnessing the debacle in Toronto the other night which clearly dictated the outcome of the game.

 

[talkinaway]

I love the idea of officiating teams - nowadays, it just makes sense to pair a vet with a rookie, and a whistleblower with a Stevie Wonder. Rookies can learn from vets, and trigger happy officials will learn to tone it down, while timid refs will become more bold with the whistle, hopefully reaching a happy medium.

To play devil's advocate, I can see how this could go a little wrong. You get a team of officials that's been together for too long, and they stop calling each other out on their own errors, and might start backing up each other to an unhealthy degree.

Fun fact: players can be refs and linesmen if the officials are a no-show or injured and the teams can't agree on an alternate set of refs/linesman. I would pay good money to see that rule in action just for the giggles that would ensue. Chara blowing the whistle on a Subban dive would be a dream come true.