Inconsistent refs

[OpinionatedMike]

Originally Posted by Van

Add players, coaches, managers...everybody involved in the game except the fans who think they know everything about hockey.

Really? How many players and coaches and managers do you talk to? Or better yet listen too? How many interviews with Quinn have I heard where he has said that a penalty shouldn't be called, and another one called? Why may I ask do you think he feels that way......

I'll tell ya, it's because the refs are inconsistent. They'll call one penalty and NOT another of the same penalty, and it's not their fault, it's the fault of Game Management.

Ever hear of Jean Beliveau? I'll help ya out, over 1100 NHL games, over 1200 NHL points. He said that a stick is used to pass and shoot a puck, it's not used to hook players or hold them up and if they JUST called that the game would be fine. I suppose the old man doesn't know what he's talking about anymore, I mean once you hit 70 it's all down hill from there right?

I suppose that you can't call every hook and hold, just like you can't stop everyone who speeds, but when everyone is doing it, I'd like to think that they'll call enough people to get the message across...but then that would infrindge on Game Management!

How many players do you talk to? No seriously, how many do you talk to on the phone? or in person? You friends with any NHL players? I know I'm not, but I do have MANY friends that are (I know it's not me, but heck these people are pretty well respected, and have no reason to lie) they are friends with a lot of NHL players, they don't like the way the game is being called. They don't know what hook is a penalty and what hook isn't a penalty....but I suppose they haven't looked at the book and seen that Game Management is to blame...

I'll help ya out more:

man·age·ment ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(mnj-mnt)
n.

1. The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis; management of factory workers.
2. The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.
3. Skill in managing; executive ability.


Re-read it. 2. The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.
I suppose both refs better be on the same page with each other, or else wouldn't that be mismanagement? If one ref says that hooking in front of the net is fine as long as the player doesn't fall down, then shouldn't the other ref think and act the same, or vise versa? That would be proper management of that situation. If it was called differently at different times of the game by different refs, then that would be POOR management of that situation.

Also I guess managing a game would also have to mean that they would 1.The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis.

So the refs will handle, supervise and control the on ice product.
Then why the need for enforcers? If everything is controled then why fighting?
Why would Bertuzzi feel the need to punch Moore, why would Havlat cross check Recchi if the game is controled and supervised? Could it because Game Management hasn't changed since 1970, and we are in the year 2000?

Now, I do understand hockey, I understand it's a tough spot with contact, and I do understand fighting for the most part, sometimes it does appear players will fight for the sake of fighting..but that's not the point...The point is that Game Management doesn't work the same way anymore, why would their be a brawl in a game? Wouldn't the refs, if using proper game management see it coming it? Couldn't the refs tell the players they'll get suspended? Fined? Why wouldn't players listen to the Supervisors of the game?

So the refs report to their boss at the end of the day, and he says, "Good Game Management out there tonight, too bad a brawl broke out, but you managed the game the way the book says, and since we wrote the book it's pretty much flawless"

Why wouldn't the refs ask for the book to be rewritten, stiffer penalties to players, different rules, new rules, why wouldn't they mention to their boss that this isn't working, because like I said, everyone except for the refs, don't see a problem.

Refs = Sheep

[BCCHL inactive]

Originally Posted by navigator

are you so sure about that? do you really think that when they were putting together the first leagues and trying to get people to officiate they actually said "you need to manage this game"? does the term "game management" actually appear in the official rule book, or only in a ref's operations manual? are there provisos next to rules that say "this act shall be punished with a minor penalty, unless is is conflict with the official's feelings toward the management of the game"?

i think that its important to realize that the idea of game management must have developed in response to conditions encountered on the ice in previous games. this does not mean that it is a bad thing, or a good thing, but it does mean that the conditions that necessitated thecreation and adoption of a "game management" philosophy/strategy must be taken into account. so, to me anyway, the question seems to be, what would happen without game management? you operations manual, as smokey astutely pointed out, assumes that each game occurs in a vacuum. but, if "game" management is possible, why not "sport" management, in which officials call every penalty that they see, and players learn not to commit them over the course of the history of a sport?

You must also think about how the rulebook is written. There is room for judgment on almost all penalties in the book. It is up to the referee to decide whether or not what he sees is a violation of the rules.

Originally Posted by OpinionatedMike

The point is that Game Management doesn't work the same way anymore, why would their be a brawl in a game? Wouldn't the refs, if using proper game management see it coming it? Couldn't the refs tell the players they'll get suspended? Fined? Why wouldn't players listen to the Supervisors of the game?

As a referee, I have dealt with many tough situations that I could see coming from the opening minute of the game. Fact is that there are many such times where no matter how many penalties we call, that tough situation will still happen.

In the NHL, do you think a player making seven figures will be worried about sitting a game or two and forfeiting a few thousand dollars?

Originally Posted by OpinionatedMike

So the refs report to their boss at the end of the day, and he says, "Good Game Management out there tonight, too bad a brawl broke out, but you managed the game the way the book says, and since we wrote the book it's pretty much flawless"

So if a brawl breaks out, it is automatically the referee's fault for not managing the game well?

I'm not saying a referee cannot lose control of a game, but like I said already....there are situations that occur that a referee couldn't prevent by calling a thousand penalties.

Originally Posted by OpinionatedMike

Why wouldn't the refs ask for the book to be rewritten, stiffer penalties to players, different rules, new rules, why wouldn't they mention to their boss that this isn't working, because like I said, everyone except for the refs, don't see a problem.

It's not up to the officials to ask for the book to be re-written. The game is about the players, not the officials.

If NHL players were to be polled about what is more wrong with the game, and given the two options of, "Lack of respect from one player to the other", or, "Quality of officiating", I am willing to bet that the result would be at least 70-30 in favour of lack of respect.

[Steve L*]

Originally Posted by Van

You must also think about how the rulebook is written. There is room for judgment on almost all penalties in the book. It is up to the referee to decide whether or not what he sees is a violation of the rules.

Of course, it is also not up to the ref to decide to ignore that fact:
if the penalised team is already on the PK:
if the penalised team have have the previous 4 penalties called against them
if it is game 7 of a playoff series
if it the last minute of a game
if it is Yzerman penalty on a goon.

A rules violation is not dependant on any of these factors, yet you fail to see this time and time again, your ignorance is astounding.

[Lobstertainment]

Originally Posted by Zippy

Regardless of what the author's motivation was, the original quoted article is essentially correct. The problem is that the refs decide when it's "ok to call something" and when it isn't, based on irrelevant factors such as time remaining, game implications and a host of other factors.

Rules are rules. As so many people here have correctly stated this season, we don't so much need a whole host of new rules and rink changes and equipment changes, as we just need the refs to call things like obstruction every single time they see it, regardless of when they see it.

It's not their job to analyze the effect of the call on the game, it's their job to make sure when players ignore the rules, they end up in the box. PERIOD.

YES, because they have done such a horribly inconsistent job in recent years, doing this NOW would have the effect of bogging down the games with penalties. This DOES NOT mean calling those penalties is wrong. It means the players are completely undisciplined and used to getting away with all kinds of rule infractions. Thus -- AT SOME POINT -- the refs will have to start doing their jobs and CONDITION the players to once again respect the rules.

They often try this at the beginning of seasons, but it invariably wears off. Until the players know that the refs will call x, y and z every time they see it, they'll continue to play undisciplined hockey.

I agree 100% well said

[BCCHL inactive]

Originally Posted by Steve L

Of course, it is also not up to the ref to decide to ignore that fact:
if the penalised team is already on the PK:
if the penalised team have have the previous 4 penalties called against them
if it is game 7 of a playoff series
if it the last minute of a game
if it is Yzerman penalty on a goon.

A rules violation is not dependant on any of these factors, yet you fail to see this time and time again, your ignorance is astounding.

Tell me where I have said that any of those factors are involved in Game Management?

Game Management, in short, is how we officiate the game. The factors we consider in our Game Management are the instructions we are given from whatever league(s) we are working for.

[Liquidrage*]

Against Dallas last week Brashear got a penalty for high sticking. Problem was it was a Dallas player that sticked his own teamate and Brashear wasn't even close to the play.

Yesterday, Brashear got a roughing penalty for checking someone. It was such a bad call the ESPN announcer questioned if the integrity of the league over it.

Right now the league's reffing is in shambles. I don't think it's the refs. I think it's the league office. I can watch game after game players on both team HOOK. HOOK HOOK HOOK HOOK HOOK and then they HOOK. Then, when they are done HOOKING, they GRAB GRAB GRAB GRAB GRAB. Then they hold a stick.

I saw a Tampa - Boston game yesterday. Mind you I can't stand either team. LeCavalier had a great scoring chance. He was flying down the wing. Gill had to hook him, he was beat. So he hooked him and hooked him. The ref wasn't calling anything. LeCavalier took a dive. The ref called the hook then and the dive. But the ref wasn't going to call ANYTHING until there was a dive. HE IS WATCHING THE PLAY ENOUGH TO CALL THE DIVE AND THE HOOK. BUT HE WASN'T GOING TO CALL WHAT HE KNEW WAS A HOOK UNTIL HE SAW THE DIVE.

That is crap. That isn't game management. It's letting players break the rules. And it's forcing players to take dives to try and get the calls they deserve to get.

[Dr Love]

Originally Posted by Liquidrage

Against Dallas last week Brashear got a penalty for high sticking. Problem was it was a Dallas player that sticked his own teamate and Brashear wasn't even close to the play.

IIRC, the #2 guy in the officiating office was at that game. I bring that up only because...

Originally Posted by Liquidrage

Yesterday, Brashear got a roughing penalty for checking someone. It was such a bad call the ESPN announcer questioned if the integrity of the league over it.

[Pangolin]

Originally Posted by Van

Tell me where I have said that any of those factors are involved in Game Management?

Game Management, in short, is how we officiate the game. The factors we consider in our Game Management are the instructions we are given from whatever league(s) we are working for.

So game management is different from the BCHL and the AHL and the NHL?
If they do, then what do you know about game management in the NHL?
Give us the low down on that. We're complaining about the NHL reffing. Nobody here cares about the BCHL.
If you can't, then you should be less condescending. Your opinion are not better than the others.
And people have given you names on players who were quoted as saying refs = bad. And you've given us nothing but imaginary polls. Work on that too.

[Steve L*]

Originally Posted by Van

Tell me where I have said that any of those factors are involved in Game Management?

Game Management, in short, is how we officiate the game. The factors we consider in our Game Management are the instructions we are given from whatever league(s) we are working for.

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=49933

"For the referees to call a penalty this late in a close game, they obviously felt that they were blatant enough infractions that they could not let them go unpenalized. They still used their Game Management."

"it means the referee judged the infraction to be worthy of a penalty in the given situation."

Clear enough for you?