One of the great debates among NHL fans is whether certain referees tend to favor or go out of their way to penalize a specific team. Many fans think -- and some are truly convinced in their hearts -- that the officials are "out to get" their favorite team.
In terms of perceived favoritism, pretty much ever since the Richard Riot in 1955, there has been a common claim around the league that officials give the Canadiens the benefit of the doubt on calls in home game. Toronto is another venue about which fans of rival teams often make similar claims. Sometimes it is a player or coach unwisely tossing out that accusation on the ice.
In an upcoming blog about the late Pat Burns, I will talk about an incident that happened in a game involving the Boston Bruins -- as most of you know, I'm a Boston native -- where I got accused of "reverse bias". Suffice to say for now that, as much as I love to joke around, I take my integrity very seriously.
Folks, officials have a job to do on the ice and they do it. Period. I can honestly say that I never cared one iota what building I was in or which two teams were playing. That's how any official who achieves longevity treats the game. As a player, I was never intimidated by any other player, a hollering coach or any hostile crowd. I was the same as a referee.
I will never deny that there's a human relationship dynamic at work in officiating. On every team, there are some players with whom you have a better rapport than others. There are also some coaches, GMs and other people tied to the various organizations that you like more than others. However, as Kerry Fraser has said -- and I agree with -- even if you get mad at a player or coach, you are not going to deliberately punish the entire team. If you do that, you're also punishing the ones you like. That's just real-life human psychology.
Good officials come to realize over their careers that the players and coaches are under pressure to win and competitive by nature. Most of them are good people off the ice. Well, the opposite is also true. The savvier players and coaches come to realize over their careers is that most officials are good people off the ice and have a tough job to do in the ice. That's how acceptability gets developed, and relationships move on without grudges being held for things said and done on the ice.
There are certain locales around the NHL where the games instantly have more visibility and scrutiny: places like Montreal, Toronto, New York or Philadelphia. The passion is intense and
every controversial play or call gets scrutinized and magnified that much more. I always found those atmospheres to be exciting and fun.
Strange things have a way of happening on the ice, no matter where or what level the game is being played. The only difference is that when these things happen in an NHL game in a locale like Montreal or Toronto, many more people see and talk about it. Within NHL circles in general and across Canada, the wide visibility of these teams has long produced a sort of "water cooler chat" effect the day after a big game.
Tell ya a little story about a Canadiens versus Capitals game that I worked in the early stages of my career. This was before the use of replay.
The game was a scoreless deadlock in the third period when the Habs finally got a shot past Washington goaltender Pete Peeters. I had to disallow the goal because the Canadiens' Guy Carbonneau was in the crease -- actually above the crease, as he jumped to let the puck go through -- and prevented Peeters from having a fair shot at making the save.
I skated over to the scorer's table to explain that the would-be goal would not count. As I am standing there, the phone on the bench rings.
"It's [Habs GM] Serge Savard," the scorer said. "He wants to talk to you."
"It's Savard," I said to linesman Ron Asselstine.
"Don't talk to him!" Asselstine said.
I reached for the phone anyway. Ron shot me a disgusted look.
"Stewy, you have to allow that goal," Savard said. "There was no good reason to wave it off."
"Serge, there was a real good reason to disallow it. Carbonneau was in the crease and he prevented Peeters from having a chance to make the save. Over and done."
Savard persisted. "He wasn't in the crease. He jumped out of the way."
"C'mon Serge," I said. "You know that the crease area extends from the ice to the height of the crossbar. Carbonneau might be a good athlete but he's not a gazelle. He can't leap over the crossbar! Second of all, you've gotta know that I'm not about to change my ruling now."
"If you're so sure of what happened and already got your mind mind made up, why would you even take the phone?" Savard demanded.
"Well, Serge," I said, "I thought you were going to tell me you were bringing me pizza after the game and asking what I wanted on it. 'Cause there's no need to debate this call."
I hung up the phone. The game ended in a 0-0 tie.
Back in the officials locker room, Asselstine and I disagreed about the wisdom of me picking up the phone in the first place.
"Stewy, that's going to look horrible to everyone," Ron said.
"How is anyone going to know who I was talking to at the scorer's table?" I shot back.
"Word travels, Stewy," Asselstine said. "People are gonna say we bent over backwards for the Canadiens."
"Well, first of all, talking to someone at the scorer's table is hardly something all that unusual. I talk to people a lot, and..."
Asselstine interrupted. "Yeah, but not to one of the team's GMs during a game."
"Hang on, I'm not finished," I said insistently. "Did I change the call?"
"No."
"OK then. Do you think I cared the least bit that we're in Montreal?" I asked.
"No, but I still think it looks bad," Asselstine sad.
Ron and I agreed to disagree in this situation. The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that there were certain people in hockey that I knew I could talk to during a game and others I couldn't talk to. Savard, much like Bill Dineen and some others, was one of the folks I could have an in-game rules discussion with even if they had a personal interest in the outcome of a game. I'd have extended the same courtesy to "the Senator" if he was on the Capitals side and the call went the other way.
A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door. It was Serge Savard, holding a box in his hands.
"I brought you a pizza," he said. "But I forgot to ask what you wanted on it."
Coming on Monday, I will talk about my views on diving and how the way it gets called nowadays reflects today's politically correct rulebook. Have a good weekend, everyone!
************
Recent Blogs by Paul Stewart
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
A Little Reffing Psychology Goes a Long Way
A Ref's View: Exuberance vs. Showboating
Jump in the Fire: My NHL Reffing Debut
Tales from the End of the Bench
************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born person to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the only American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart is a judicial and league discipline consultant for the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and serves as director of hockey officiating for the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC).
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials, while also maintaining a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Stewart is currently working with a co-author on an autobiography. 
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»