Paul Stewart: Speaking for the Voiceless

Is this serious?

Towards the end there you hit the nail on the head. Out with the old way of thinking and in with the new. The game has changed in so many ways and everyone has to adapt. Gone are the days when you had other cities/teams/fans only see in print what happened in a game. You can watch every aspect of virtually every game from the network provider or some dude in the crowd with a smart phone. Fans who pay big money want fairness and accountability. That's not too much to ask for my money that pays all these guys 10 times what I make in a year.

I should add that I don't need a ref who's a egomaniac just like a citizen doesn't want to deal with a policeman who is a egomaniac. Just do what's right and move on.

I 100% disagree with this article - a ref should make the correct calls but we're not looking for his personality to shine through.

If he has to make a controversial call of course he'll get more attention - thats bound to happen and sure they'll screw up sometimes. But to say 'a good official is one that no one ever notices" is 100 percent garbage spewed by people who never officiated a damn thing in their life and probably never played a game at a significant level, either.' is ridiculous.

80% of the games aren't going to have a crazy controversial call that brings lots of attention to the refs - the best games i've watched are the ones where the refs make the necessary calls and dont get involved in any other antics (looking at you watson).

What Mr. Stewart seems to miss is that "the best game is a game where no one notices the officials" is a way of saying that they should do their jobs and get calls right - something that seems to be beyond 90% of the officials in the league right now. It has nothing to do with personalities or styles - which is only in the limelight because one ref took it upon himself to step out of line - except for insofar as those styles and personalities should not result in missed, botched, or made-up calls. I really don't think that this is too big of an expectation...

As for refs speaking to the media, I would love to see refs having to get up in front of the media and answer questions about their previous game performance - just like any player or coach. Mr. Stewart might be correct in saying that the behind-closed-doors reviews that referees get are harsh and unforgiving, but it's about time that refs answer to the public for their actions (or lack thereof). The NHL has made an art of sweeping refereeing mistakes and general poor quality refereeing under the rug. The Prust-Watson incident was good because it put refereeing in the public eye. Fans are upset and from the temperature on these forums many life-long fans are sick of watching games. The more public attention that is devoted to the topic puts pressure on the NHL to make changes. But the NHL knows that so we'll never see refs having to answer for their actions in public (just like Watson has gotten off scot-free in the public eye).

So fans dish out hundreds of dollars to watch the refs put on a show?

I absolutely hate the "you didn't play (or play at a high enough level) so you don't know what you're talking about" take.

if everyone who didn't play stopped watching/going/paying for these games then there wouldn't be a sport.

I didn't go to law school either, but I know when someone is stealing from me.

I absolutely hate the "you didn't play (or play at a high enough level) so you don't know what you're talking about" take.

if everyone who didn't play stopped watching/going/paying for these games then there wouldn't be a sport.

I didn't go to law school either, but I know when someone is stealing from me
- mehetmet

I did. They never taught us this.

I absolutely hate the "you didn't play (or play at a high enough level) so you don't know what you're talking about" take.

if everyone who didn't play stopped watching/going/paying for these games then there wouldn't be a sport.

I didn't go to law school either, but I know when someone is stealing from me.
- mehetmet

A more apt analogy: I watch lots of Court TV so I'm qualified to give a professional opinion on a court case. I watch lots of medical shows, so I know how to do surgery. I watch lots of hockey so I know what's truly involved in officiating, playing, coaching, being a GM, etc.

Hockey has great fans. They have a tremendous appreciation for the game and loyalty. They know the lingo. But it doesn't mean they have the knowledge base to know what really goes on out there or especially behind the scenes. Nor should they.

A spade is a spade.

I didn't go to law school either, but I know when someone is stealing from me.
- mehetmet

..
wut.

I'm glad you mentioned Kerry Fraser as he is a ref who seems to think it is OK to make an educated 'guess' on a call. Do you agree with this rather preposterous notion?

Perhaps the NHL should show us just what they think of the officials. The NBA posts a review of every call in the last 2 minutes of the game. Here's the post of last night's Bulls - Cavs game.

Note that 3 of 12 (25%) were ruled by the league to be incorrect calls (or incorrect non-calls).

http://ak-static.cms.nba....CLE-CHI-5-8-15-GAME-3.pdf

I think most fans would be happy with correct calls in the 90%+ range. Those would be officials that nobody notices.

That stuff about "a good official is one that no one ever notices" is 100 percent garbage spewed by people who never officiated a damn thing in their life and probably never played a game at a significant level, either.

Wow. Just wow.

Unfortunately the author doesn't understand one basic fact. There wasn't / isn't / won't ever be a ref, no matter if the coach thousands of games, as important to the game as any player that ever suited up for a team.... even if that players nhl resume is that the rode the bench for one game. Players are what people pay to see. If you can't just go out there, do your job in as inconspicuous and impartial a manner possible you don't deserve to wear the stripes. Nobody is looking for Judge Judy on the ice.

Unfortunately the author doesn't understand one basic fact. There wasn't / isn't / won't ever be a ref, no matter if the coach thousands of games, as important to the game as any player that ever suited up for a team.... even if that players nhl resume is that the rode the bench for one game. Players are what people pay to see. If you can't just go out there, do your job in as inconspicuous and impartial a manner possible you don't deserve to wear the stripes. Nobody is looking for Judge Judy on the ice.
- ChrisMS

Hogwash.

I played in the NHL, albeit briefly. I played in the WHA when it was the "other" major league. I refereed in the NHL for 17 years. I am very proud that I lived out my dream in both careers. If I ever join my grandfather as an inductee in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame -- and I'm not holding my breath on that one although I've been nominated a few times -- it would be because of the weight of BOTH careers and being the only American to accomplish both. However, individually, my officiating resume stands out more than my playing career.

Yes, fans pay to see the players. They also want a good game with good flow. The skilled work of the officials has something to do with that -- more than most folks realize. There is an art to officiating as well as (very imperfect) science.

I've seen this game from every possible side. Apart from playing it and officiating it professionally, I was employed for a time by the Bruins (and interviewed for the GM job before Chiarelli got it). I've been on the broadcasting side. I've been a hockey writer now for two years. I've directed officials at the collegiate level and overseas in the KHL.

So I do think I'm a wee bit more qualified than the average Joe to know how this game operates at all levels and exactly what the officials' role in all of it is. I think I am a wee bit more qualified to say what's really going on on the ice, the dressing room and the league office than people who've never done this for a living.

I am also not blinded by rooting interest for a team.

The number one thing I've found out in 40 years of doing this: I'm forever learning new things about hockey and finding out there's more to learn. The less you know, the more you THINK you know and the more you actually know, the more you realize there's a hell of lot you still need to learn.

It must be great for the all-knowing armchair experts to judge what the players ought to be doing (despite most having never played more than beer league hockey as an adult), what the coaches ought to do (despite having never coached), how to do a better job than the officials (despite never having officiated and not really knowing the rule book) and how teams and the league really run (despite having never been employed by a team or in the dressing room or involved in any of the meetings, etc).

If that offends your sensibilities, I'm sorry. It's also the truth.

Hogwash.

I played in the NHL, albeit briefly. I played in the WHA when it was the "other" major league. I refereed in the NHL for 17 years. I am very proud that I lived out my dream in both careers. If I ever join my grandfather as an inductee in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame -- and I'm not holding my breath on that one although I've been nominated a few times -- it would be because of the weight of BOTH careers and being the only American to accomplish both. However, individually, my officiating resume stands out more than my playing career.

Yes, fans pay to see the players. They also want a good game with good flow. The skilled work of the officials has something to do with that -- more than most folks realize. There is an art to officiating as well as (very imperfect) science.

I've seen this game from every possible side. Apart from playing it and officiating it professionally, I was employed for a time by the Bruins (and interviewed for the GM job before Chiarelli got it). I've been on the broadcasting side. I've been a hockey writer now for two years. I've directed officials at the collegiate level and overseas in the KHL.

So I do think I'm a wee bit more qualified than the average Joe to know how this game operates at all levels and exactly what the officials' role in all of it is. I think I am a wee bit more qualified to say what's really going on on the ice, the dressing room and the league office than people who've never done this for a living.

I am also not blinded by rooting interest for a team.

The number one thing I've found out in 40 years of doing this: I'm forever learning new things about hockey and finding out there's more to learn. The less you know, the more you THINK you know and the more you actually know, the more you realize there's a hell of lot you still need to learn.

It must be great for the all-knowing armchair experts to judge what the players ought to be doing (despite most having never played more than beer league hockey as an adult), what the coaches ought to do (despite having never coached), how to do a better job than the officials (despite never having officiated and not really knowing the rule book) and how teams and the league really run (despite having never been employed by a team or in the dressing room or involved in any of the meetings, etc).

If that offends your sensibilities, I'm sorry. It's also the truth.
- Paul Stewart

Your time playing in the nhl trumps your importance to the game compared to your time reffing. Its very ok to be proud of your career. The venders that sell beer and cotton candy should be proud of their careers as well. The taxi drivers that take people to the games. But the second a ref tries to make themselves a part of the competition they cross the lines. Its worse in other sports, i.e. baseball, but its pretty bad in hockey. Fraser being one of the worst culprits. The truth? The truth is that nobody pays a dime to see the refs. When the refs start losing perspective on that they should be shown the door immediately for the next person who might be able to do their job more professionally.

Thanks Paul. Honesty, and the ability to be a diplomat are important characteristics for a ref, in my opinion. Nobody, should be able to try to influence, or intimidate a ref on or off the ice. Let the ref make the call, and explain his call to the coach as needed. It is then the coach's job to explain to the players what happened. The players shouldn't have access to the refs, period.
In turn, the refs need to be of mild temperament, and not so easily upset. It's hard when you have a lot of other things on your plate, but it will make things a lot easier to deal with if you can keep your cool.
Also, my brother is a coach, and he asked the ref about a call during a game, and the ref told him to "buzz off, and if he didn't like the call to go jump in a lake." Really? He didn't shout at the ref, and he didn't abuse the ref. Did he deserve that?
Both players, coaches, and refs have to remember that everyone is a person, and deserves to be treated as such. A ref is not a God, and neither are the players or coaches. Respecting one another is important. Tempers might flair, but a fairly coached or called game is respected. And, when the game is over, I agree that maybe the refs, and coaches should talk to one another. It's ok to disagree. It's not ok to mistreat one another.
I don't mean to sound like a "tree hugger," but I think that a little common sense could go a long way.

I like some of the articles you write about actual hockey Paul. I think your delusional about what a ref's job should be.

Paul Stewart: Speaking for the Voiceless
- Paul Stewart

He's right about one thing - politics is as much or even more a part of the NHL as it is in everyday life.

Hogwash.

I played in the NHL, albeit briefly. I played in the WHA when it was the "other" major league. I refereed in the NHL for 17 years. I am very proud that I lived out my dream in both careers. If I ever join my grandfather as an inductee in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame -- and I'm not holding my breath on that one although I've been nominated a few times -- it would be because of the weight of BOTH careers and being the only American to accomplish both. However, individually, my officiating resume stands out more than my playing career.

Yes, fans pay to see the players. They also want a good game with good flow. The skilled work of the officials has something to do with that -- more than most folks realize. There is an art to officiating as well as (very imperfect) science.

I've seen this game from every possible side. Apart from playing it and officiating it professionally, I was employed for a time by the Bruins (and interviewed for the GM job before Chiarelli got it). I've been on the broadcasting side. I've been a hockey writer now for two years. I've directed officials at the collegiate level and overseas in the KHL.

So I do think I'm a wee bit more qualified than the average Joe to know how this game operates at all levels and exactly what the officials' role in all of it is. I think I am a wee bit more qualified to say what's really going on on the ice, the dressing room and the league office than people who've never done this for a living.

I am also not blinded by rooting interest for a team.

The number one thing I've found out in 40 years of doing this: I'm forever learning new things about hockey and finding out there's more to learn. The less you know, the more you THINK you know and the more you actually know, the more you realize there's a hell of lot you still need to learn.

It must be great for the all-knowing armchair experts to judge what the players ought to be doing (despite most having never played more than beer league hockey as an adult), what the coaches ought to do (despite having never coached), how to do a better job than the officials (despite never having officiated and not really knowing the rule book) and how teams and the league really run (despite having never been employed by a team or in the dressing room or involved in any of the meetings, etc).

If that offends your sensibilities, I'm sorry. It's also the truth.
- Paul Stewart

This article has nothing to do with us armchair experts (also known as fans - the people who pay for the whole league to run) thinking they ought to know what the players, coaches, refs, or gms should do. It also has nothing to do with you being able to be proud of your profession - lots of people are proud of what they do thats great.

This has to do with the fact that a ref is not the reason anybody watches hockey - it has to do with the fact that refs personalities should not shine through in their officiating. I think almost everyone agrees that they want a ref to make the right calls at the right time - i think we all also agree there will be screwups because a ref is human. But what we dont expect to see is a ref yelling at players or trying to (whether intentionally or not) affect the outcome of a game.

Kerry Fraser has the best lettuce. No contest.

Hogwash.

I played in the NHL, albeit briefly. I played in the WHA when it was the "other" major league. I refereed in the NHL for 17 years. I am very proud that I lived out my dream in both careers. If I ever join my grandfather as an inductee in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame -- and I'm not holding my breath on that one although I've been nominated a few times -- it would be because of the weight of BOTH careers and being the only American to accomplish both. However, individually, my officiating resume stands out more than my playing career.

Yes, fans pay to see the players. They also want a good game with good flow. The skilled work of the officials has something to do with that -- more than most folks realize. There is an art to officiating as well as (very imperfect) science.

I've seen this game from every possible side. Apart from playing it and officiating it professionally, I was employed for a time by the Bruins (and interviewed for the GM job before Chiarelli got it). I've been on the broadcasting side. I've been a hockey writer now for two years. I've directed officials at the collegiate level and overseas in the KHL.

So I do think I'm a wee bit more qualified than the average Joe to know how this game operates at all levels and exactly what the officials' role in all of it is. I think I am a wee bit more qualified to say what's really going on on the ice, the dressing room and the league office than people who've never done this for a living.

I am also not blinded by rooting interest for a team.

The number one thing I've found out in 40 years of doing this: I'm forever learning new things about hockey and finding out there's more to learn. The less you know, the more you THINK you know and the more you actually know, the more you realize there's a hell of lot you still need to learn.

It must be great for the all-knowing armchair experts to judge what the players ought to be doing (despite most having never played more than beer league hockey as an adult), what the coaches ought to do (despite having never coached), how to do a better job than the officials (despite never having officiated and not really knowing the rule book) and how teams and the league really run (despite having never been employed by a team or in the dressing room or involved in any of the meetings, etc).

If that offends your sensibilities, I'm sorry. It's also the truth.
- Paul Stewart

Well Mr. Stewart those "arm chair experts" are the people that were paying your salary. There is not a hockey fan alive that pays to go see a ref or better yet wants a referee to decide a game. Call penalties as you(not you specifically obviously) see them not when you deem it's time to make a call to help with the "flow" of the game or to make it more exciting. That actually destroys the sport and is one of my least favorite aspects of NHL hockey. I know for a fact that most fans agree with this sentiment. I mean no disrespect with this but a refs job is to call the game not decide it and certainly not to "entertain" the audience that payed to watch the players not the referees.

This article has nothing to do with us armchair experts (also known as fans - the people who pay for the whole league to run) thinking they ought to know what the players, coaches, refs, or gms should do. It also has nothing to do with you being able to be proud of your profession - lots of people are proud of what they do thats great.

This has to do with the fact that a ref is not the reason anybody watches hockey - it has to do with the fact that refs personalities should not shine through in their officiating. I think almost everyone agrees that they want a ref to make the right calls at the right time - i think we all also agree there will be screwups because a ref is human. But what we dont expect to see is a ref yelling at players or trying to (whether intentionally or not) affect the outcome of a game.
- DirtyDozen

Bingo