Unacceptable officiating

In "A.J. Bassett" writes:

>On Dec 22, 9:33=A0am, Mad Ape wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>> > A.J. Bassett wrote:
>> >> On Dec 21, 9:49 pm, "A.J. Bassett" wrote:
>> >>> No need to go over tonight, we all know what happened. But for the
>> >>> life of me, it's been awhile since of seen so many badly blown calls
>> >>> or poorly called penalties in quite awhile.
>>
>> >>> Fundamentally, I'm seeing a general lack of consistency over the
>> >>> duration of a game - and it seems to me that the players are getting
>> >>> more frustrated (which we won't hear about, of course).
>>
>> >>> Here's to hoping the NHL front office is looking into this issue ...
>> >>> last thing the League needs is for the game to suffer over shoddy
>> >>> officiating.
>>
>> >>> May there be a growing interest for instant replay? Woulda come in
>> >>> handy tonight.
>>
>> >>> A.J.
>>
>> >> Before everyone pounces on me, that should be instant replay
>> >> *challenges* ... much like the football rule, for incidents such as a
>> >> call where the goal is waved off such as the 2nd (legitimate goal) on
>> >> the delayed penalty.
>>
>> >> Not that the officials would even dream of agreeing to go ahead with a
>> >> system that would correct bad calls. Can't have them looking
>> >> incompetent, ya know :)
>>
>> >> A.J.
>> > I think its a great idea. What I would do is allow each team one
>> > challenge per game to be used to challenge a goal or waived off goal. I=
>f
>> > you're wrong, 2 minute penalty.
>>
>> IMO giving a penalty is too harsh. I say they lose their timeout if the
>> have one left. No time out left...no challenge.
>>
>> BUT....
>>
>> Aren't all questionable goals viewed by command central in Torrana?
>> Wasn't the disallowed goal from last night reviewed? If so I don't see
>> how this idea has any merit. Please explain further.

>The problem is the disallowed goal on the (we believe) phantom touch
>by a 'Caines player is not reviewable, at least under the current
>system.

>What I'm suggesting is a variation on what's utilized by the NFL -
>whereas a coach could challenge a call (missed or wrong) made by an
>official for review. The challenge could be something minor, such as a
>missed icing, or more important such as a wrongfully disallowed goal
>due to officiating error.

>Anyway, to error is human, but surely there's a method for correcting
>the obvious, such as what we endured last night.

>A.J.

There is two principles in challenging the referee's decissions. The
old one is that the referee represents the god in the ame and what he
can see and judge is the final verdict. For example soccer is using it.
The first steps of reducing the referees authority was to start to
review the controversial goals. The next step would be to challenge some
other situations as well. The main point being to serve justice.

Before starting to challenge the referee's calls one should have more
accurate orders of interpretations. This case of dissallowed goal, that
was based to the referee's opinion that the Hurricanes player touched
the puck, but some demand "control" of the puck. The principle in this
situation is that the team quilty should not get an advantage of the
call. This means that the other team should not loose a scoring chance.
In this case the referee broke that principle as the Habs had a scoring
chance as long as the puck was bouncing in the front of the goal. Larry
Pleau (former Hab and now GM of the Blues) has suggested that the
delayed call should be blown after the defensive team gets the puck out
of their zone.

Another problematic situation is when the defensive team is pushing the
goal away from it's moorings. The international rules said (in the
fifties when I got my "referee card") that if the goal was pushed away
by the defensive teams the goal must be allowed if it crosses the goal
line in the area where the goal is. Later the interperetation was
relaxed, so that if the puck went into the goal, it was accepted without
regard of the location of the goal. I point out, if the shift from the
moorings was caused by the defensive team. If the offensive player was
pushed to the goal and he caused the removal, it was caused by the
defensive team. This was necessary in my opinion because the goal had
only smal spikes keeping it in position and it was easy to push it away.
Some goalies used to lift it a bit so that the spikes was not anymore in
their holes and even a soft push moved it. Today some players are quite
smart in getting relief of the pressure by pushing the goal from it's
moorings. If they are caught it is a minor for delay of the game, but in
many cases they slip the penalty.

The challenges of the call could be extended to penalties or missed
calls, like the J. Willimas high stick on Saku Koivu's eye. A douple
minor or a major could help the Canadiens to maintain their momentum,
that was lost with the loss of the captain and no call against the
offending player or team.

So a limited number of calls to the coaches would improve the level of
officiating and give better justice without too much affecting the flow
of the game. The NHL has already allowed a number of TV-timeouts so they
could allow for some challenges of the calls.

- Lauri Tarkkonen
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

In "bloke" writes:

>>I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
>>going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
>>goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
>>declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
>>consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
>>wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
>>incidental contact.
>>
>The NHL needs to move out the veteran officials
>to give the younger officials a chance to establish
>themselves. They insist on dressing the older...

I think that if they had a transparent review system, where all the
referees would have a performance card, updated after the games and if
the performance slips, no more assignments before some training. The
salaries cold be based on the performance card, a basic salary and a
bonus after the season based on the performance.

The training could be homework: Write an essee analyse the performance
of the referees in say 3 games (on tape), write down the rules the
decissions are based, and your own interpretation of the situation.

If you think about the ridiculous amounts they play some players, it
would be sane to invest a bit more in the referees and refereeing.

- Lauri Tarkkonen
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

> I think that if they had a transparent review system, where all the
> referees would have a performance card, updated after the games and if
> the performance slips, no more assignments before some training. The
> salaries cold be based on the performance card, a basic salary and a
> bonus after the season based on the performance.
>
> The training could be homework: Write an essee analyse the performance
> of the referees in say 3 games (on tape), write down the rules the
> decissions are based, and your own interpretation of the situation.
>
> If you think about the ridiculous amounts they play some players, it
> would be sane to invest a bit more in the referees and refereeing.
>
I think the league has a review process for the
performance of the officials. They are ranked
and only the top ranked ones get to work in the
playoffs, this is progressive such that in theory
only the top rated officials end up in the later
rounds or finals. I don't know if they use the
performance rating/ranking to trigger any extra
training but in theory, the poorer officials work
less games. I have also heard that they review
bad calls and discuss it with the offenders.

The league is pretty closed about the rankings
and their extra meetings with poor officials so
the only evidence we see of that is who ends
up working the important games. Perhaps the
league should publish the game by game and
overall ranking of its officials. They do it for
the players. Fans might appreciate seeing the
league give the ref a bad game rating after an
obviously poor performance (although it is
often the case that fans notice the bad calls
against their own team more often that those
against the opposing teams).
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

"bloke" wrote in

>>>>I still see little point having two refs on the ice, if they are not
>>>>going to position themselves to be able to better track where the puck
>>>>goes. There is little consistency in the length of time it takes Refs
>>>>declare that they have lost sight of the puck. Same lack of
>>>>consistency also applies to puck possession during penalty cals, some
>>>>wait for clear possession while others will blow the play dead on
>>>>incidental contact.
>>>>
>>> The NHL needs to move out the veteran officials
>>> to give the younger officials a chance to establish
>>> themselves. They insist on dressing the older...
>>>
>> It's not automatically young versus old. It's ...
>>
> I was just replying to Chuck with a Chuck'ism and I
> forgot to add the smiley. It seemed funny at the time
>
>
>

Oh!
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating 

In "bloke" writes:

>> I think that if they had a transparent review system, where all the
>> referees would have a performance card, updated after the games and if
>> the performance slips, no more assignments before some training. The
>> salaries cold be based on the performance card, a basic salary and a
>> bonus after the season based on the performance.
>>
>> The training could be homework: Write an essee analyse the performance
>> of the referees in say 3 games (on tape), write down the rules the
>> decissions are based, and your own interpretation of the situation.
>>
>> If you think about the ridiculous amounts they play some players, it
>> would be sane to invest a bit more in the referees and refereeing.
>>
>I think the league has a review process for the
>performance of the officials. They are ranked
>and only the top ranked ones get to work in the
>playoffs, this is progressive such that in theory
>only the top rated officials end up in the later
>rounds or finals. I don't know if they use the
>performance rating/ranking to trigger any extra
>training but in theory, the poorer officials work
>less games. I have also heard that they review
>bad calls and discuss it with the offenders.

I know there is some system of surveillance. But I said it must be
transparent and it is important that the referees have to process the
situation and because that is the way they learn about their mistakes.

>The league is pretty closed about the rankings
>and their extra meetings with poor officials so
>the only evidence we see of that is who ends
>up working the important games. Perhaps the
>league should publish the game by game and
>overall ranking of its officials. They do it for
>the players. Fans might appreciate seeing the
>league give the ref a bad game rating after an
>obviously poor performance (although it is
>often the case that fans notice the bad calls
>against their own team more often that those
>against the opposing teams).

It should be as open as the players statistics. No players are happy to
hear that they were on the ice for 3 goals or tookd 5 stupid penalties.

- Lauri Tarkkonen
 >> Stay informed about: Unacceptable officiating