Why can't the players take it upon themselves to not dish out the cheap shots? Referees are not babysitters, especially when adults are playing. Referees do not control the actions of players. It's even in Hockey Canada's rulebook that coaches are responsible for the actions of their players. Obviously beer leagues don't have coaches, so that responsibility falls onto the players.
This is true.
But usually when a goal is scored against your team, it's rarely just one person's fault. The goalie should have stopped the puck, the forward shouldn't have turned the puck over, the defenseman was out of position and left the opponent wide open for a breakaway, the line was out on the ice too long, etc.
So it is also with officiating. No referee has 100% control over the players' actions on the ice, but they can influence how the game is played......and I find it somewhat disturbing that you as an official don't seem able or willing to recognize the role one can play in that.
Players acting like a-clowns are not the 100% responsiblity of the ref, but to the degree that a ref CAN prevent bad things from happening via their control over the game--even if only by 25%--that can be a tremendous benefit to the game and overall player safety.....if for no other reason than because it gets the a-clowns off the ice for 2 mins, 5 mins, or the game.
All players are responsible for their actions. But one of the biggest reasons we pay hundreds of dollars in league/tournament fees is to have impartial and somewhat competent third party individuals be responsible for administering the game according to its rules and enforcing violations of such. Sure, we could all just be responsible for not high-sticking or cross-checking or punching another player.....but if players just all did that of their own accord, then we wouldn't have needed to hire refs in the first place.
Yes, it is the player's responsibility not to cross-check someone in the head. But when even the 3rd party/unbiased official standing right next to the play watches a player take a cross-check to the back of the head in a non-checking league and effectively declares that to be a legal play in the game by refusing to enforce the rules.....that's a problem.
It is the players' responsibility not to cross-check, it is the other players' responsibility not to retaliate, and it is the refs' responsiblity to penalize such violations. If the ref's passivity (or desire to go home early) acts as implied support for more boderline dangerous play, well, then the ref is not living up to their (often paid) duty. That failure doesn't absolve the players of their responsibilities, but neither do the players' failures absolve the ref of his responsibilities.
If a ref called everything they could and kept the game under control and the players STILL threw cheap shots, that's totally on the players. If the ref blatantly ignored obvious infractions (some involving player safety) because that would slow the game down and he'd get home 10 minutes later, that contributes (not causes, not creates.....but "contributes") to a dangerous environment. The latter affects the safety of the game to a certain degree and is indicative of a ref who should find a different job.
Or a hack back, where fight or line brawl ensues...
