Welcome to the Hotstove! As always, I'm your host, Travis Yost.
On Wednesday, six bloggers - including Richard Cloutier of the Edmonton Oilers, John Jaeckel of the Chicago Blackhawks, Pete Tessier of the Winnipeg Jets, Bill Meltzer of the Philadelphia Flyers, Adam French of the Phoenix Coyotes, and Travis Yost of the Ottawa Senators - gathered to discuss the state of officiating in light of Henrik Sedin's scathing commentary.
What did Henrik Sedin say to get the blogosphere buzzing? Read the quoted:
"This might be the only sport where rules change throughout the season depending what game you are playing and if it's playoffs or whatever."
With how much flak officiating teams have caught this year, it's pretty safe to say Henrik Sedin isn't the only one who holds this opinion. The question, though: Is it fair to heap such negative judgment on the officials? And, if the league's officiating is so porous, what can be done to fix the quality?
We've weighed in below. Make sure to do the same.
--
Richard Cloutier: Sedin has it all wrong. The rules don't change regardless what time of year it is. The rules change depending on which teams are playing in a game. Get it right.
As the Oilers blogger, I watch a lot of hockey. We're talking a relationship-ruining amount of games each week (ask my significant other Susan, who hates hockey and keeps asking me when the season is over so we can watch something else). I can say with complete confidence that the Oilers get the shaft from the refs quite intentionally.
What's funny about Sedin's comments is, the Canucks are one of the teams the league cheers for. We all know the Bruins get preferential treatment, but there are other teams who seem to get away with whatever because the league wants them to win. Here's a small example: The Oilers/Sharks game on Monday...first Sharks goal actually should have been an interference penalty. Was it? Nope. Sharks player kicked Dubnyk out of position, but the Sharks missing the playoffs is bad for the league, so the refs looked the other way. That goal was the difference between a Sharks win and a Sharks loss. I think I've seen 10 games this season that ended up being Oilers loses instead of wins because the Oilers winning is not a league priority.
The Canucks are the dirtiest team in hockey, and refs should be all over them for the stuff they pull. Never happens. Won't happen until they win a cup first. No Canucks player should ever complain about the way the NHL officiates games.
I know what Sedin was getting at...the rules seem to change from game-to-game, and some of that depends on the ref's personality and philosophy. Some refs are very legalistic in how they call a game (by the book) while others try to let on-ice mood and not the rules determine how strictly calls are made. Is there a right answer? No. The NHL has been this way forever, and it isn't about to change.
I don't actually care if a ref calls the game by the rules or by personal feel. What bothers me is the clear and obvious preferential treatment certain teams get. Until Sedin starts talking about that, I wouldn't get too excited about his comments. He's just another whiny player crying with a full stomach.
Bill Meltzer: On a fundamental level, Sedin is clearly right. It's also nothing new. Games have always been called inconsistently: from one official to the next, from the start of the season vs. the end, and even frequently from period to period (some refs swallow the whistle in the third, especially this time of the season).
Theoretically, the rules should be interpreted and enforced the same way all the time. But they're not -- have never been, and probably never will be.
The phenomenon is not truly exclusive to hockey. For instance, different baseball umpires have different strike zones, and pitchers with reputations for good control often get the benefit of the very same marginal calls that rookies and pitchers know for wildness don't get. On a practical level, it's up to the players to adjust.
That doesn't mean that the NHL (and other leagues) should not work harder to improve the quality of officiating. Just as players have different levels of skating ability and hockey sense so, too, do the officials and it shows.
In terms of repercussions on the Canucks for Sedin's comments, I'm sure there will be none. First of all, he indicted the sport as a whole, and didn't single out particular referees in public. Secondly, it's nothing the officials haven't heard countless times before.
John Jaeckel: Here's where Chicago and Vancouver fans agree to a great extent. And I suspect, there are fans of many other teams who concur.
When Colin Campbell was the head of league discipline, there was a problem with referee "discretion" being more important than the game itself. Referees would miss calls, then call "make-good" penalties, perhaps also exercising a double standard for one type of player versus another.
Today, it really hasn't changed that much. And it's sad to say. Although Brendan Shanahan seemed to be setting a different tone when he started out, it really seems very little has really changed, other than televised explanations that—to Henrik's point—don't seem very consistent.
There have been robust arguments here on the HB Hot Stove and all across the internet about rules, enforcement, empowering officials, etc. But at the end of the day, if you want to make dangerous head shots out of the game, you need to start simply applying the rules, swiftly and evenly.
In reality, there is at least one "star" player— notorious (for years) for head shots, raised elbows, feet leaving the ice— who to Shanahan's thinking apparently does not deserve severe discipline yet. I am leaving the player's name out of it in order to avoid partisan bickering.
It's ridiculous. If a player routinely raises his elbow to an opponent's jaw or head, while leaving the ice with his feet, he is trying to injure his opponents. Period. And I don't care if every other or every third hit, he uses his shoulder and doesn't leave the ice. That mitigates nothing.
If you don't have consistent (or at least approaching consistent) application of the rules and discipline, you have none at all.
Henrik is 100% correct.
Pete Tessier: Not that I'm biased (I am) but Sedin is correct and right. If the zebras in the NFL can make a grounding call for a safety in the biggest game of the year at the opening, the NHL refs can call hooking in June.
It makes no sense to not call these things. Do fans like the battles sure but why is the NHL so afraid of a reputation of perhaps the 'officials' having an impact on the game?
Officials should be supported in their quest to uphold the rules and the daft media and broadcasters need to get off of them for doing so. Officials are there to uphold the rules of the game to the best of their ability. Why should they not be rewarded for calling the games better, like cops and traffic ticket quotas?
Take it a step further, get rid of unsportsmanlike conduct or 'diving' make it a 1o minute misconduct call. Put some teeth in the consequences.
Also when is the last time a coach got tossed? That should happen more frequently too and add a fine, say $25k, to the team if your coach gets tossed.
Draconian? Yes and it should be. Why you ask? Because the NHL does nothing but screw up the game because they are too afraid of tradition and old thinking. The brain trust is numb and it needs to be shook out.
I hate consultants, as far as I'm concerned they are just a legal term for corporate prostitutes. They are paid to come in and screw up your business but they are exactly what the NHL needs, because the business is beyond screwed right now.
They need to have a group of them analyze the game, the metrics, the advanced stats and determine over a season what is the best way to improve the game. I bet it comes back to officiating and the NHL needs to give the refs a reason to be consistent. Fix that problem and you don't have make 5 minor 'tweaks' every other season.
Adam French: I don’t think he’s out of line. It sounds like a frustrated guy venting. Most players will probably be pissed at many calls but won’t say anything, in fact most seem upset on the ice and downright enraged. It can be confusing as it’s a game of referee discretion and based on human ability, nobody can be perfect or spot on every time, they can’t see every angle of ice. Bad calls and no calls are going to happen. He’s right in my opinion, but it’s also necessary unless we want to turn this into a sport where we pause the game on every call, to look in Toronto’s war room for 15 minutes seeing it from 1000 angles to gauge if it should be a call.
I can’t see any changes being made except for either calling all games like a playoff series or vice-versa. Personally I would love the playoff style calling throughout the season but it isn’t happening, the NHL wants exciting fast paced hockey and that means Power Plays. Will it hurt the Canucks? I hope not, that would be a real Richard move if that caused a bounty on his head. But like the Burrows incident last season it never really came back to hurt them.
Travis Yost: If you're expecting a dissenting opinion to close this out - well, you're going to be sorely disappointed. I've almost went out of my way to avoid talking about officials in the years I've written about hockey, but 2011-2012 has really been a new low, and it's all fundamentals.
To begin, I'm really not sure that a number of these officials are prepared for the speed and physicality of the National Hockey League game. You hate to single certain guys out when it's collectively a problem, but referees like Tim Peel just look completely overwhelmed on the ice.
The biggest issue, though, is exactly what Sedin talked about: Aside from the very-obvious kill shot, rules are no longer black-and-white. Some get called, some don't - and it varies from game-to-game. How can players expect a competently officiated game when they have no idea what does and doesn't constitute a penalty?
For an example, look no further than the laughable instigator penalty. Referees have separated themselves into sub-groups when it comes to calling this one. First, there's a group that refuses to admit the rule exists, and will always award two combatants with equal five-minute majors. Next, there's a group that admits the rule exists, but refuse to call it on principle. Usually, they opt for an additional two-minute roughing. Last, you have the referees that simply call it when the fight's been instigated.
Seriously, how ridiculous is that? It can change the outlook of an entire game. And that's just one rule.
The only way to combat this issue is to turn the rulebook into one that's far more definitive by definition, then mandate a far more strict review policy of each official's game-to-game and season-to-season work.
--
Thanks for reading!
Join the Discussion:
»