Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
If you ever want to stump your friends with a bit of hockey trivia, ask 'em this question: When the NHL adopted its modern-day two-referee system, which two referees worked the first game?
Answer: Paul Stewart and Kerry Fraser.
When people ask me how I feel about the two-ref system, I tell them that I am fine with it. In fact, it is a necessity as long as the two-line pass is legal. In the days when teams could not legally make passes across two lines, a ref trailing the play could "catch up" at the red line. Nowadays, that's impossible to do. Even so, the two-ref system requires both referees and all four officials on the ice to be on the same page to function properly together.
As with everything else in hockey and life, communication is paramount. In Europe, the officials wear wireless headsets to communicate. The NHL does not have this system, so they need to be able to get in synch on the ice via other methods to make sure they get the correct call.
When the NHL adopted the two-referee system -- actually re-adopted because, prior to World War II, they used a two-referee and one-linesman system -- it created some new challenges in delineating duties and getting calls right. Most non-officials automatically think I'm referring to penalties when I say that, but there are also challenges involving goal/ no goal rulings.
For example, what is the correct call when this situation arises? A referee behind the net (the "R1" in officiating parlance) signals for a good goal a fraction of a second after the trailing referee (the "R2") blows play dead for an attacking team penalty he spotted higher in the zone while the R1 is focused on the puck?
Answer: Since the penalty preceded the puck going over the goal line, it's no goal and a penalty on the attacking team.
Another, more common scenario involves this oft-asked question: "How can the official behind the play make a call that should belong to the referee closest to the play?"
I will explain how and why it happens. It is not automatically one referee's fault nor does it mean the two-referee system is inherently flawed. Sometimes, there is a mistake involved but sometimes it means the system is actually functioning as it should.
When the current two-referee and two linesmen system was introduced in the modern era, management had a theory about how it "should" work based upon the location of the puck. The rink is divided into thirds, with the neutral zone being "common ground" patrolled by both referees and the "action referee" (the R1) handling plays in their end of the ice.
However, nothing has EVER been codified in the NHL (or by the IIHF or by European pro leagues) about the assignments for each referee. The system that was never thought out and illustrated to us in an intelligent way. We officials were left on our own to figure it out. The communications aren't always seamless.
Guess what? What I quickly discovered is that there are times where it makes sense for the R2 to make a call and times where it doesn't. It is situation-based. Unless the NHL says the R2 must stop being an official one-third of the time and become a spectator when the puck crosses the far-side blueline, there are going to be times where the R2 steps up to make a call. Hopefully the right decision gets made.
I was involved in several of these situations myself, both from the R1 and R2 side.
One time during the playoffs, I was partnered with Paul Devorski. On the play in question, he was stationed on the side of the net opposite the player benches as the puck got shot in. I was in the neutral zone on the other side. I spotted a blatant boarding call that my partner referee was unable to see because he had been focused on the puck. I made the call.
You would not believe (or maybe you would) the amount of grief I caught for "overstepping my bounds". Don Cherry used it as a chance to get on a soapbox about how the two-referee system is a detriment to the game. I also got a call from my boss in Toronto, chewing me out and sending me home for the rest of the playoffs.
The galling part to me was that I made the correct call. No one even disputed that part of it, and that's what really should matter.
Oddly enough, a few weeks earlier, I had been involved in bookending pair of calls with Devo. In one situation, he was the "action ref" and I was the R2 making the call. Next game we worked together, the roles were reversed.
In the first game -- a match between New Jersey and Pittsburgh -- Lyle Odelein and Matthew Barnaby ran their mouths at each other the entire game but nothing further developed. That is, not until late in the game. Devo was the R1 but he had to duck in self-protection as a puck got deflected near his head. Spotting an opportunity, Barnaby cross-checked Odelein. I saw it and made the call.
Afterwards, my partner referee and I argued about the call. Devorski was livid at me for making a call on "his" side and I stressed that the correct call was made and I made the call because he hadn't been able to see it.
"I'm not saying that it wasn't a penalty, Paul," he finally said. "I'm saying that it goes against our philosophy."
As luck would have it, we worked a game together the very next night in Philadelphia. This time, I was the R1 on the play in question. I got whacked in the head with a puck, getting knocked to one knee. As I was down, my partner spotted a high stick.
He made the call, and then grinned at me. After the game, I gladly shook his hand. He had made the right call when I was unable to see or make it.
There are, however, times where an R2 really should NOT be making the call and ends up making the wrong ruling on a play that was directly in front of the R1.
For example that happened one time when I was partnered with a different referee (I won't mention his name because he is still active). He was 130 feet behind a play that was right in front of me and which I saw perfectly.
Even so, I had no choice but to go along with it. One of the cardinal rules of hockey -- and this goes for both players and officials -- is that you never throw a teammate under the bus by showing him up. It does NOT mean being dishonest about the play, but it does mean there is a time and place to discuss it.
The penalized team's bench squawked and the penalized player tried to plead his case. I actually couldn't blame them. It shouldn't have been a penalty. Nevertheless, I had to back up my partner, and we weren't about to change the call.
"Get in the box!" I ordered.
I then told complaining head coach John Tortorella that I would speak to him after the period. I also privately spoke to the other referee.
"Look in my eyes for a second. Did I lose a contact lens?" I asked him. "Did it roll up in my eye? Are my eyes bloodshot? Is my balance off?"
Not catching my drift, my partner referee said, "No, why?"
"Because that play was right in front me," I said. "I saw it all the way, so I want to know why you, from all the way over there, think you saw something I didn't."
"Don't be that way, Stewy," he protested. "I saw a hook, and I called it."
"Yeah, well, even if there was a hook, I don't want it called from where you were. It's one thing if it happens out of my line of sight. If that happens, you call it. It's something totally different if it's on my side and I see the play right in front of me but you make the call anyway. That can't happen," I said.
Looking back, it was an honest mistake born of a then-young ref's overzealousness. Even so, it shouldn't happen. As officials we are constantly striving not only for self-improvement but for betterment of teamwork and communication. It's a perpetual progress. The key is to learn from experience, and to minimize the mistakes.
This job should never be about ego. It's about teamwork and giving your team the best chance for success in getting calls right. Positioning sells calls, so if one ref is in better position and sees the play right in front of him, it's his call. The other ref, however, can and should be of assistance if there's something he sees that the other cannot see.
************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC at both the Division 1 and Division 3 levels.
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains 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.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»