Paul Stewart: Minding Your Ps and Qs, R1s and R2s

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.

This is exactly what is wrong with officiating in the NHL. When you are an official, you should put loyalty to a fair game above loyalty to your partner. Instead, officials seem to care more about looking correct than actually being correct. Someone else having a better view and changing your call isn't getting shown up and thrown under the bus. But that is how you describe it and how officials treat it.

What makes it worse is that it just doesn't work. Fans, and I imagine players, don't respect officials more for sticking to their guns. It's clear as day officials are more concerned with avoiding appearing wrong than they are with actually being correct. Tonight, for instance. A Blues player got hit by a high stick and doubled over. The whistle went, and immediately the linesman went to check the player for blood for a double minor. The linesman then went to report to the ref, who apparently missed the high stick and blew the whistle only for the player being in distress. Everyone watching and on both teams knew at least one of the officiating crew had seen the high stick, but because the person who blew the whistle was too proud to change the fact he didn't signal a call when informed he missed a clear penalty, he lost respect. And the other official refusing to force the issue and make the call lost it with him.

Paul-
You state that the call in Saturday's game was the "right call" but you never explain why. From viewing the game on television with replay, I saw Bernier's blocker over but not on top of the puck. I can only assume the R1 saw the same thing and didn't blow the play dead becasue he always had the puck in his sight. The R1 next indicated a goal. Now, the R2 who is 64+ feet away most likely saw Bernier covering the puck with his blocker but because of his location (over 64+ feet) lost sight of the puck and blew the play dead. Both R1 & R2 made the correct call but shouldn't R1's decision override R2's since R1 was closer to the play. This situation seemed similar to the one you referenced regarding your partner making a hooking call from 130 feet away while the play was right in front of you. As you stated "times where an R2 really should NOT be making the call".

From what I saw it looked to me as if R1 never did lose sight of the puck, knew it wasn't covered, and thus did not blow the play dead. He indicated a goal was scored. He was in the correct position to make the call.

I think R2 made a few mistakes. He lost sight of the puck from 60 feet away, he didn't trust his partner to make the right call, he put R1 in a bad spot of having to back up R2 for jumping the gun.

I agree with the previous posts, the end result should be getting the call right, NOT protecting your partners feelings or reputation.

The Flyers got hosed because of an overzealous ref making a call he shouldn't have because he didn't trust his partner to do the right thing.

By the way, LOVE your blogs Stewie, they are appointment reading every day. Your insight on the game is awesome for us regular fans.

In my eyes the 4 man system while it has its issues, say with 2 officials who see the game differently, its much better than the alternative 1 and 2 system. Case in point look at the Olympics. Sure the men's tournament had the 4 man system but the women's did not. There were issues with the ref being "out of position". However in that system where she was at the time is where she was supposed to be (because of the system worked). I work the 4 man system, the 2 and 1 and the 1 and 2. The 4 man is by far the most effective in my eyes. Sure issues happen but I would argue and I think Stewie would agree that there are more instances where the R2 has helped a lot more than hindered. Things that don't get noticed by fans (and why would they?) are the things that make their jobs easier, like a scramble at the net where the R1 is focused on the puck and the R2 catches a clear cross check that the R1 would never see, or if a puck is loose and there is communication involved. People like Cherry who for some reason still has pull with the NHL, have no idea what the ins and outs of officiating are, does more damage when he gets on his soap box. The game is too fast too skilled for just one person to handle the responsibility of calling the entire game. The 4 man system is here to stay.

I have no issue with referees being able to make penalty calls on both sides of the ice because, as you say, there are times where a play happens out of the line of sight of the "R1" referee. However, when it comes to things like goals, crease-covered penalty shots, and a goalie covering the puck, that should be a play called only by the R1 referee. The job of a referee is to blow play dead whenever he loses sight of the puck, and there's no way that a referee who is (for example) 60 feet away of the opposite side of the ice can ever see if a puck is loose from a close-angled shot. I understand there's not perfect system, but a tweak here and there wouldn't hurt. Then again, when a referee from 100 feet away calls a phantom hook that a referee 10 feet away didn't call, I guess a lot of tweaks wouldn't hurt.

Stewie-
Last nights Sabres-Hawks game had a classic play where ref's need to confer. As Ennis skates across the crease the goalie fell and Ennis scored. R1 was directly behind the goal. He called a hooking penalty, no goal. He could not possible have seen what happened on the play, he was behind the 4' wide (sarcastic (another topic), but goalies are too big nowadays) goalie. Terrible call, maybe R2 didn't see it but if he did it should have been overturned. Though I am against replay except to see if pucks cross the line I can see where a proponent of it would use this play as an example. Game ended 2-1 with this tieing goal not allowed.

"The Flyers got hosed because of an overzealous ref making a call he shouldn't have because he didn't trust his partner to do the right thing."

Couldn't agree more. If R1 clearly signals a goal, it means he never lost sight of the puck and never thought it was covered. Why would R2 overrule him? I would think R2 actually looses sight of the puck on most scrambles around the net.

There are some things that you just know wrong, even if it's in the rulebook. This is one of them.

"The Flyers got hosed because of an overzealous ref making a call he shouldn't have because he didn't trust his partner to do the right thing."

Couldn't agree more. If R1 clearly signals a goal, it means he never lost sight of the puck and never thought it was covered. Why would R2 overrule him? I would think R2 actually looses sight of the puck on most scrambles around the net.

There are some things that you just know wrong, even if it's in the rulebook. This is one of them.
- danham92

Exactly, if it were that simple, he would have to blow play dead every time the puck was up against the back of the net. No way he can see from out in the neutral zone.

A very insightful and instructional blog on how the dynamics of officiating in the two referee system actually works, how communication can both work and break down, and how it can be improved. Thanks Stewy.

Stewy, Great blog and insight on the officiating.
I do know from coaching that during the game at the far net it's very hard to see when a goalie actually covers the puck. Goals have even been scored that I had no idea were actually in the net except for the ref's signal. Especially when there are a lot of players in front of the net.
I really think r2 should make calls he can see ( especially behind the play penalties ) but he (or she) should not make the ones he cannot see. If he is not 100% sure he should let r1 make the calls.

"The Flyers got hosed because of an overzealous ref making a call he shouldn't have because he didn't trust his partner to do the right thing."

Couldn't agree more. If R1 clearly signals a goal, it means he never lost sight of the puck and never thought it was covered. Why would R2 overrule him? I would think R2 actually looses sight of the puck on most scrambles around the net.

There are some things that you just know wrong, even if it's in the rulebook. This is one of them.
- danham92

In this case if R1 had of seen the puck the entire way he would have over ruled R2 what happened is that R1 couldnt see what was happening with the puck as he skated from the other corner around the net the first thing he saw was a puck in the net so he signalled goal after conffering with R2 who could see the play it was determined that the goalie had the puck covered for an appropriate amount of time and blew it dead as R2 had a better vantage point.

kerry fraser also writes about this call but actually tells you why the right call was made on the ice
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445814

I hate to say it but ego has a lot to do with these on ice issues. There are select guys I work with here that don't want you to make the call thats in their zone even if its the right call and that really pisses me off. Same goes for a linesman and high sticks/hand passes. There are refs that if the call is in their zone then its up to them and even if you know 100% what you saw they will female dog and tell you its there call that was wrong.

To me that makes this become a dysfunctional "team" if you can even call it that at that point. I love working with guys who work out there like my self, to have fun, call the fairest game possible, and get a workout. I tell my linesman and partner before most if not every game, make the right call, all that matters is getting it right.

getting it right segues perfectly into the video review process. at no point in this day and age should a game ever be decided on a bad goal, ie LA game earlier this season where the puck clearly hits the netting then quick in the back and game over.