Last year, Paul did a lengthy blog -- after he and I talked it over on the phone for about 45 minutes -- on the two-way street of accountability and acceptability in hockey.

According to Paul, officials need to earn acceptability with players, and vice versa. That is how someone can be forgiven for screwing up and the two sides just move on. When the acceptability is NOT earned, neither side gives the other the benefit of any doubt.

Stewart gives this as an example of how acceptability plays out: He once saw Joe Mullen, whom he never regarded as a diver, flip himself on a play. Stewy made no call either way but said something to Mullen. If it were Claude Lemieux, there would have been zero leeway because he embellished so frequently.
- bmeltzer

To me, that is an incorrect way to officiate. There's a difference between giving a player the benefit of the doubt and flat-out refusing to call the penalty. He mentioned something similar about not calling a penalty the first time a player flipped the puck over the glass because he didn't want to. It's not up to him to decide when to enforce a penalty and when not to. If he sees a penalty committed on the ice, it is his responsibility to call it. Whether or not a player has earned a reputation comes into play when he is on the edge of whether it was a penalty or not.

I think it's puts a lot of people off. He would be far better received if he also talked about errors and mistakes he made rather then he's always been right, and how others, especially his fellow refs and linemates, have been wrong.
- MJL

That's the response I would expect from a King! Don't let anyone challenge your standing!
- MJL

- mayorofangrytown

A+. Would view again.

- mayorofangrytown

Ouch.

Game prediction: Brian Boyle will take a cheap shot at one of the smaller Flyers' players, and then turtle when challenged to a fight by Wayne Simmonds.

To me, that is an incorrect way to officiate. There's a difference between giving a player the benefit of the doubt and flat-out refusing to call the penalty. He mentioned something similar about not calling a penalty the first time a player flipped the puck over the glass because he didn't want to. It's not up to him to decide when to enforce a penalty and when not to. If he sees a penalty committed on the ice, it is his responsibility to call it. Whether or not a player has earned a reputation comes into play when he is on the edge of whether it was a penalty or not.
- jmatchett383

Yes... the puck-over-the-glass incident in the AHL was one that Paul now admits he had no right not to call. He refused to enforce a new rule he disliked but that was not up to him to toss it out because he disliked it.

As far as the way games get called, you are theoretically right, but the reality is that no one wants every single technical infraction called.

A+. Would view again.
- jmatchett383

I liked the part when the pot met the kettle.

- mayorofangrytown

"That's your opinion on pots and kettles. I'm here to discuss the facts of pots and kettles."

Last year, Paul did a lengthy blog -- after he and I talked it over on the phone for about 45 minutes -- on the two-way street of accountability and acceptability in hockey.

According to Paul, officials need to earn acceptability with players, and vice versa. That is how someone can be forgiven for screwing up and the two sides just move on. When the acceptability is NOT earned, neither side gives the other the benefit of any doubt.

Stewart gives this as an example of how acceptability plays out: He once saw Joe Mullen, whom he never regarded as a diver, flip himself on a play. Stewy made no call either way but said something to Mullen. If it were Claude Lemieux, there would have been zero leeway because he embellished so frequently.
- bmeltzer

no question, this element exists in sports.
but the Claude Lemieux example is one rooted in on-ice reputation regarding how he played the game. The Lindros stuff was based on an off-ice, personal matter with a 19-year-old player. I find it troubling that a ref can let that cross over into the game, and affect calls over the course of an entire career.

"That's your opinion on pots and kettles. I'm here to discuss the facts of pots and kettles."
- jmatchett383

Technically, pots and kettles are the same thing.

Last year, Paul did a lengthy blog -- after he and I talked it over on the phone for about 45 minutes -- on the two-way street of accountability and acceptability in hockey.

According to Paul, officials need to earn acceptability with players, and vice versa. That is how someone can be forgiven for screwing up and the two sides just move on. When the acceptability is NOT earned, neither side gives the other the benefit of any doubt.

Stewart gives this as an example of how acceptability plays out: He once saw Joe Mullen, whom he never regarded as a diver, flip himself on a play. Stewy made no call either way but said something to Mullen. If it were Claude Lemieux, there would have been zero leeway because he embellished so frequently.
- bmeltzer

Personally, I would like officials to essentially act as robots. Call penalties if they're penalties, regardless of the offender. I think refs should be completely disconnected from the players. Otherwise a conflict of interest arises. Obviously is very difficult to be completely unbiased and objective but I think that's what should be striven for.

Yes... the puck-over-the-glass incident in the AHL was one that Paul now admits he had no right not to call. He refused to enforce a new rule he disliked but that was not up to him to toss it out because he disliked it.

As far as the way games get called, you are theoretically right, but the reality is that no one wants every single technical infraction called.
- bmeltzer

Absolutely. He also did a blog about either he or another ref calling the game by the book and having an absurd number of penalties to make a point (i.e. every small hook, hold, slash, etc.). While I don't want that, because there's already enough penalties called in the game today, I would want the same rule book for every player, and like I said, only use a player's reputation when you're on the fence about a call.

Yes... the puck-over-the-glass incident in the AHL was one that Paul now admits he had no right not to call. He refused to enforce a new rule he disliked but that was not up to him to toss it out because he disliked it.

As far as the way games get called, you are theoretically right, but the reality is that no one wants every single technical infraction called.
- bmeltzer

I understand making calls you see but maybe see it differently than what actually happened. But what happened last night was akin to turning around and seeing a guy on the ice, you have no idea what happened, but you see a player skating away and assume he did something so you call a penalty on him.

There should be no room for guessing. You see it you call it. You don't see it, you ask for help.

Personally, I would like officials to essentially act as robots. Call penalties if they're penalties, regardless of the offender. I think refs should be completely disconnected from the players. Otherwise a conflict of interest arises. Obviously is very difficult to be completely unbiased and objective but I think that's what should be striven for.
- NickTheKid87

Soon..

I understand making calls you see but maybe see it differently than what actually happened. But what happened last night was akin to turning around and seeing a guy on the ice, you have no idea what happened, but you see a player skating away and assume he did something so you call a penalty on him.

There should be no room for guessing. You see it you call it. You don't see it, you ask for help.
- MBFlyerfan

That's why the retaliation is always called and the initial shot is seldom called.

Final thing I will say on the topic: I have gotten to know Paul well over the past year and we have become friends. He is a complex person. Those who see him only as the guy with the funny "tough guy" stories or as thin-skinned and "bitter at the NHL" don't really know him. Paul actually still loves the NHL, which is why he is so vocal about the things he dislikes.

There are three sides to every story, though, whether it's Paul Stewart vs. Colin Campbell or Bryan Lewis, Kerry Fraser (whom I've also gotten to know) vs. Campbell or Bill McCreary or whatever the case may be.

Paul has a forum to tell his side of personal stories, and does so. Kerry generally steers away from those things in public forums. That's why their officiating blogs are so different, yet they see the game and the state of officiating in much the same way.

There should be no room for guessing. You see it you call it. You don't see it, you ask for help.
- MBFlyerfan

Can't argue with that.

Final thing I will say on the topic: I have gotten to know Paul well over the past year and we have become friends. He is a complex person. Those who see him only as the guy with the funny "tough guy" stories or as thin-skinned and "bitter at the NHL" don't really know him. Paul actually still loves the NHL, which is why he is so vocal about the things he dislikes.

There are three sides to every story, though, whether it's Paul Stewart vs. Colin Campbell or Bryan Lewis, Kerry Fraser (whom I've also gotten to know) vs. Campbell or Bill McCreary or whatever the case may be.

Paul has a forum to tell his side of personal stories, and does so. Kerry generally steers away from those things in public forums. That's why their officiating blogs are so different, yet they see the game and the state of officiating in much the same way.
- bmeltzer

Thanks, Bill!

I do agree with all them that Colin Campbell is awful.

Thanks, Bill!

I do agree with all them that Colin Campbell is awful.
- johndewar

And that Kerry Fraser was the lone reason that the Maple Leafs didn't win the 1993 Stanley Cup.

I do agree with all them that Colin Campbell is awful.
- johndewar

Can't believe he still works for the league... hockey seems eager to reward incompetence at all levels.

Related (maybe): Kerry Fraser deems the Flying-V legal:

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...ally-legal-165547160.html

I disagree. Taking the offside aspect out of it, there are clear examples of interference by the "protecting" players as they attack the net. While the (poorly defended) zone entry was legal, the way that players "plowed the road" for him would result in a 4-minute 5-on-3 penalty kill.

- mayorofangrytown

Well played, sir

Can't believe he still works for the league... hockey seems eager to reward incompetence at all levels.
- Tomahawk

Stewy calls it the Soupy Axiom to the Peter Principle.