Paul Stewart: The Red Line and the Two-Ref System

Stewie

Stop inundating us with common sense ideas, day after day, blog after blog. We as hockey fans can only handle so many ideas that make sense. I can only imagine how long ago the brain trust that runs the NHL had their heads explode.

Do it for the children.

Stewie

Stop inundating us with common sense ideas, day after day, blog after blog. We as hockey fans can only handle so many ideas that make sense. I can only imagine how long ago the brain trust that runs the NHL had their heads explode.

Do it for the children.
- MBFlyerfan

Ok. The two-ref system is good when there are injuries to other officials; basically a back-up, just in case like a back-up goalie. Then why not have this back-up ref sit somewhere in between the benches or someplace if he is called into action.

You see, I grew up in the 80's where there was only one ref. To me, it brought more of an in-game relationship between the ref and the two teams and their coaches. Was there a play missed? Perhaps. It was part of the game. Most of those "missed calls" were simply calls that just weren't made because that's how the game was played back then; a lot of clutching and grabbing, etc.

Now, with the two ref system, I strongly feel there are far too many ghost calls to simply justify both of the refs being on the ice. I see it way too much to think it does any good to have both refs on the ice. I see a play happen right in front of one ref and he lets it go, but the other who is half-way down the rink shoots his arm up to call the penalty.

I do not like the two-ref system and think it hurts the game. When I grew up, we all knew every ref in the game (from Stewart, to Fraiser, Shick, O'halleran, Koharski, McCreary, etc.). Names fans knew just as well as the players on the ice and had their own personallity and way of calling the game (and we the fans knew how the games was to be called with that official). Today, I am not sure I could even name a hand-full of refs nor know how the game is going to be called.

Out with the two and in with the few. The NHL should consider going back to the one ref system to, at the very least, add more personallity to each game.

Ok. The two-ref system is good when there are injuries to other officials; basically a back-up, just in case like a back-up goalie. Then why not have this back-up ref sit somewhere in between the benches or someplace if he is called into action.

You see, I grew up in the 80's where there was only one ref. To me, it brought more of an in-game relationship between the ref and the two teams and their coaches. Was there a play missed? Perhaps. It was part of the game. Most of those "missed calls" were simply calls that just weren't made because that's how the game was played back then; a lot of clutching and grabbing, etc.

Now, with the two ref system, I strongly feel there are far too many ghost calls to simply justify both of the refs being on the ice. I see it way too much to think it does any good to have both refs on the ice. I see a play happen right in front of one ref and he lets it go, but the other who is half-way down the rink shoots his arm up to call the penalty.

I do not like the two-ref system and think it hurts the game. When I grew up, we all knew every ref in the game (from Stewart, to Fraiser, Shick, O'halleran, Koharski, McCreary, etc.). Names fans knew just as well as the players on the ice and had their own personallity and way of calling the game (and we the fans knew how the games was to be called with that official). Today, I am not sure I could even name a hand-full of refs nor know how the game is going to be called.

Out with the two and in with the few. The NHL should consider going back to the one ref system to, at the very least, add more personallity to each game.
- mames11

The point Paul is making in today's blog is that if you want a one-ref game, the red line would need to be put back into the game.

The point Paul is making in today's blog is that if you want a one-ref game, the red line would need to be put back into the game.
- bmeltzer

...and I am totally okay with that. I grew up with no two-line passes, so I am fine with putting that rule back into effect.

The NHL wanted to increase scoring and eliminating the two-line pass rule does that, but not as much as they thought it would. What it really ended up doing is causing more teams to trap to eliminate those homerun passes.

...and I am totally okay with that. I grew up with no two-line passes, so I am fine with putting that rule back into effect.

The NHL wanted to increase scoring and eliminating the two-line pass rule does that, but not as much as they thought it would. What it really ended up doing is causing more teams to trap to eliminate those homerun passes.
- mames11

(frank) no. Removing the two line pass was one of the best things to happen to the modern NHL, let alone to hockey. The two-line pass increases the flow of the game. Why is it necessary to have teams have their neutral zone breakouts stifled by a silly, arbitrary rule? It's hard enough in today's NHL to make breakouts through the middle, why would you take away anything..for what..to have a 1-ref system? What? With how much stronger and better players are today, the NHL would be frustratingly boring with the rule still in place.

And my personal opinion on the matter, I do not want an option taken away from me to come through the neutral zone. Why should offensive players get punished because the other team didn't position themselves properly?

During my youth playing time, in the late 60s and 70s, there was some experimentation in Illinois using a system of 2 refs and 1 linesman.

In the current NHL, there seems to be more officials getting in the way of the play with 4 bodies on the ice.

Wasn't it a couple of years ago the league experimented with 1 official off the ice during the development camp in the summer?

(frank) no. Removing the two line pass was one of the best things to happen to the modern NHL, let alone to hockey. The two-line pass increases the flow of the game. Why is it necessary to have teams have their neutral zone breakouts stifled by a silly, arbitrary rule? It's hard enough in today's NHL to make breakouts through the middle, why would you take away anything..for what..to have a 1-ref system? What? With how much stronger and better players are today, the NHL would be frustratingly boring with the rule still in place.

And my personal opinion on the matter, I do not want an option taken away from me to come through the neutral zone. Why should offensive players get punished because the other team didn't position themselves properly?
- Blackstrom2

(frank) no. Removing the two line pass was one of the best things to happen to the modern NHL, let alone to hockey. The two-line pass increases the flow of the game. Why is it necessary to have teams have their neutral zone breakouts stifled by a silly, arbitrary rule? It's hard enough in today's NHL to make breakouts through the middle, why would you take away anything..for what..to have a 1-ref system? What? With how much stronger and better players are today, the NHL would be frustratingly boring with the rule still in place.

And my personal opinion on the matter, I do not want an option taken away from me to come through the neutral zone. Why should offensive players get punished because the other team didn't position themselves properly?
- Blackstrom2

Yup.