Refereeing and what can be done

Refereeing is probably the single biggest frustration that sports fans have. We've definitely been the victim of a couple horrible calls lately. Let's not forget that we benefitted from questionable officiating versus the Leafs. I know SSF's theory that most refs grew up as Leafs or Habs fans and now have the Sens as their team's rival…. I would assume that the Leafs fans would have it out more for the Sens…moving on.

Let's test that theory. The referee that ejected Foligno a few games back, called that mind-boggling penalty shot the other night, and then waved off the goal last night was Tim Peel. So I looked up Tim Peel. Birthplace? Toronto, ON. Ha.

http://www.nhlofficials.com/previous_fo.asp?member_id=2071

So, birthplace aside, it is entirely reasonable to assume that most of these refs were Leafs/Habs fans growing up. These guys are obviously passionate hockey people, having spent their lives playing and now officiating. Obviously, they all had their favourite teams growing up, and those feelings don't go away just because you start working in the business.

So, yes, I buy in to SSF's theory.


Perhaps the larger problem is the lack of accountability on behalf of the officials. You never hear squat about questionable calls from the league after the fact. Not that anything would change, but it would be great if more explanation was offered, or "bad" calls were at least acknowledged. I get that the refs wouldn't like public statements admitting poor work, but given the total absence of ANY sort of communication, anything would be better than the nothing we currently get. I'm held accountable at my job for my performance - it would be nice to see the referees held accountable, and mistakes acknowledged.

The NFL had a show on the NFL Network (not 100% sure it still exits). It ran for a half hour once a week and was hosted by the head referee. He went through the video from controversial calls and would explain the decision made and whether or not it was the right one (the NFL has the benefit now of video review for MANY infractions). This would be AWESOME for hockey fans (and probably players too), although, of course, the referees wouldn't be thrilled.

What else can be done to improve refereeing? Well, I'd like to see video-review expanded. Using the Phillips-covered-the-puck-in-the-crease example, why is that NOT a reviewable play? Spotting if a player actually puts their hand over the puck in the crease for a split-second is HARD in real-time. Why not add this to the list of video-reviewable plays? It's not like it's something that is happening every game, so slowing down the pace of the game shouldn't be a concern. And when the potential consequence of error in making this call results in a goal…well, it's a no-brainer to me.

I think the two referee system is a good idea that improved officiating…anyone else have more ideas for improvement?

tim1_2 wrote:
Perhaps the larger problem is the lack of accountability on behalf of the officials. You never hear squat about questionable calls from the league after the fact. Not that anything would change, but it would be great if more explanation was offered, or "bad" calls were at least acknowledged. I get that the refs wouldn't like public statements admitting poor work, but given the total absence of ANY sort of communication, anything would be better than the nothing we currently get. I'm held accountable at my job for my performance - it would be nice to see the referees held accountable, and mistakes acknowledged.

The NFL had a show on the NFL Network (not 100% sure it still exits). It ran for a half hour once a week and was hosted by the head referee. He went through the video from controversial calls and would explain the decision made and whether or not it was the right one (the NFL has the benefit now of video review for MANY infractions). This would be AWESOME for hockey fans (and probably players too), although, of course, the referees wouldn't be thrilled.

We're in the dark ages, this should have been done a long, long time ago. All we all want is fair reffing - something that I felt lacked in the last week from O'Dork and Peel, so if there was a show where all their calls were analysed by the head of officiating, that would appease fans and highlight what these refs need to work on (like getting glasses).

I think the reffing is what it is and you really can't do anything to improve it. I just think that it's ridiculous to blame Clouston for the clear and long-standing bias of officials.

Looking back on the early schedule and the seemingly "easy" second half I'd say that was a nice attempt by the schedule maker to derail the Senators season too.

SENS 1 - NHL 0

Suck on that!

Another thing I don't get is why Peel was reffing so many Ottawa games in a short period of time. Mixing it up should be a priority by the NHL to ensure "relationships" of the positive or negative nature don't develop.

For those who didn't see it, Yost had a decent bit about the officiating (and other stuff):

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/More-of-the-Same-in-Phoenix-Coyotes-Beat-Senators-3-2/134/41610

Edit: The NFL show reviewing questionable calls is called "Official Review".

The refs are the only participants in the NHL that are NOT held accountable for their actions. Every one else is.

Video challenging is long over due in the NHL. It would equalize things PDQ.

I don't understand for the life of me why O'Dork and Peel did back to back games. Sure, 19 times out of 20 there are little to no issues with refs, but what if there are? Shouldn't these guys be rotated around?

1 Challenge per team per game.

LeKid wrote:1 Challenge per team per game.

You would need to define what IS challengeable and what isn't.

Goalie interference currently is not a reviewable play, but I think it should be if the result was a goal.

I would like to see challenges instituted as well...it would also add some drama.

tim1_2 wrote:

LeKid wrote:1 Challenge per team per game.

You would need to define what IS challengeable and what isn't.

Goalie interference currently is not a reviewable play, but I think it should be if the result was a goal.

I would like to see challenges instituted as well...it would also add some drama.

And more revenue. This challenge is brought to you by...

SeawaySensFan wrote:
And more revenue. This challenge is brought to you by...

"QUAKER OATS!! Eat your damn oatmeal and you, too, can challenge The Man like Paul MacLean!"

I would like a system where they can have the right to challenge , with an extra penalty if the ruling is upheld and overturn the call if not. The twist I would add is - if you are wrong, you lose your challenge right for the rest of the game. If you are right - no loss of challenge right and you can challenge again at another point in the game (until you are wrong).

This would keep the refs honest and the coaches from abusing their challenges.

LeKid wrote:1 Challenge per team per game.

I think we'll see this implemented one day. Just how they do it, not sure. Would be great for situations like that penalty shot or when there's a high stick that was actually from the guys team mate... they'll have to clearly define what the coach can and cannot challenge.

I like the idea about keeping your right to challenge until you lose a challenge.

I'd like to also eliminate more grey areas. There are so many of them, though. Tell me, what is the purpose of a player slapping an opposing player from behind with his stick. He doesn't hook him, it's not really strong enough for a slash, so not a penalty, but what the hell does it have to do with hockey? If he is trying to raise the guy's stick to take the puck away, or slash on his stick to knock the puck off -- those I understand, but just stupid, mindless slapping of the stick on the thigh that *sometimes* gets called (either slashing or hooking) but usually does not -- that I can do without. If it's hot a hockey play, get rid of by calling it like they do fouls in basketball. You touch, you're gone. It would make for horrible hockey for a while, unfortunately.

There are many others just like that, unfortunately.

Why does a ref have to rely on a bunch of guys sitting in Toronto? We've got the technology to place a high-def monitor right there in the timekeeper's area for the ref to look at. He can communicate with the guys in the video booth to ask for different angles then have *HIS OWN* controls for fordward/rewind/pause and frame-by-frame advance. What they do right now, I'm surprised he doesn't have to crank up the phone like they did in WW-I.

Several high-def cameras placed inside the crossbar, pointing straight down to the goal line, so there is no angle to worry about.

Program every player's dimensions into a program so that they could, at any place on the ice, determine where the puck was touched. I'm sure it could be done.

P.S. As far as it is to insinuate it, I don't believe there is bias against the Sens because of the refs' favorite team growing up. They are not kindergartners. That said, the refs can *definitely* form a bias against certain players or coaches.

I believe the NHL *does* have a program in place for rating a referee's performance; it's just that they never talk about it or about the outcomes. We can only judge by seeing a particular referee appear (or not) in the post season.

I think Kerry Fraser is lobbying for a job with his C'mon Ref blog.

tim1_2 wrote:Another thing I don't get is why Peel was reffing so many Ottawa games in a short period of time. Mixing it up should be a priority by the NHL to ensure "relationships" of the positive or negative nature don't develop.

For those who didn't see it, Yost had a decent bit about the officiating (and other stuff):

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/More-of-the-Same-in-Phoenix-Coyotes-Beat-Senators-3-2/134/41610

Edit: The NFL show reviewing questionable calls is called "Official Review".

I didn't realize (until I read the blog and the comments section) that it was Tim Peel who ejected Foligno for that "charging" call on Ellerby. I really can't understand how anyone would question that this guy has it in for the Senators or Foligno or both. It's either that, or he is a horribly incompetent to call an NHL game. There just isn't another explanation.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Another thing I don't get is why Peel was reffing so many Ottawa games in a short period of time. Mixing it up should be a priority by the NHL to ensure "relationships" of the positive or negative nature don't develop.

For those who didn't see it, Yost had a decent bit about the officiating (and other stuff):

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/More-of-the-Same-in-Phoenix-Coyotes-Beat-Senators-3-2/134/41610

Edit: The NFL show reviewing questionable calls is called "Official Review".

I didn't realize (until I read the blog and the comments section) that it was Tim Peel who ejected Foligno for that "charging" call on Ellerby. I really can't understand how anyone would question that this guy has it in for the Senators or Foligno or both. It's either that, or he is a horribly incompetent to call an NHL game. There just isn't another explanation.

Here's an excerpt from TeePee's Bio:

Birthplace: Toronto, Ontario

http://www.nhlofficials.com/previous_fo.asp?member_id=2071

wprager wrote:I like the idea about keeping your right to challenge until you lose a challenge.

I'd like to also eliminate more grey areas. There are so many of them, though. Tell me, what is the purpose of a player slapping an opposing player from behind with his stick. He doesn't hook him, it's not really strong enough for a slash, so not a penalty, but what the hell does it have to do with hockey? If he is trying to raise the guy's stick to take the puck away, or slash on his stick to knock the puck off -- those I understand, but just stupid, mindless slapping of the stick on the thigh that *sometimes* gets called (either slashing or hooking) but usually does not -- that I can do without. If it's hot a hockey play, get rid of by calling it like they do fouls in basketball. You touch, you're gone. It would make for horrible hockey for a while, unfortunately.

There are many others just like that, unfortunately.

The one I will never understand is when a player gets driven into the opposing goalie and its called a penalty or a goal is waived off or both. Its a team game and if one player on one team eliminates his teammates ability to do his job, well, tough... That shouldn't be held against the other team. It's complete nonsense.

I also think if the defender goes sliding into the post and knocks it off its moorings when a goal is scored, the goal should count.

Going back to the Folilgno interference call. I just can't seem to be able to drop it. He skates in, with a defenseman on his back -- not that the defenseman pushed him into the crease, but he certainly was making it tough to avoid not going through it. But Foligno gets a shot off, and then he skates *through* the crease while the puck is in it.

Here's the moment he makes the shot -- well out of the crease:



After that the puck is in the crease and he is allowed to go in to get it, even though that's not what he was doing. In the next frame you can see him off-balance (because of contact from the defenseman a stride earlier, as well as because he is trying to avoid contact by skating through on one skate):



I disagree with those who say the no-goal was fine but there should not have been a minor. This was a good goal.

Somebody posted a link and it sent me here? What the?!?!?!

SeawaySensFan wrote:Somebody posted a link and it sent me here? What the?!?!?!

Just trying to quelch the incessantly whiny Sens fanbase who clearly have a persecution complex.

tim1_2 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:Somebody posted a link and it sent me here? What the?!?!?!

Just trying to quelch the incessantly whiny Sens fanbase who clearly have a persecution complex.

You have done us all a great service, old friend.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:Somebody posted a link and it sent me here? What the?!?!?!

Just trying to quelch the incessantly whiny Sens fanbase who clearly have a persecution complex.

You have done us all a great service, old friend.

I know!!

I was just thinking that a great idea for one of those recurring homemade YouTube shows would be some drunk guy going over all the bad calls made during the course of a week and trying to make sense of them. It'd be hysterical. I leave this idea open for anyone to steal.

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

What's-his-face over here has been saying that for decades.

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

What's-his-face over here has been saying that for decades.

It's kind of hard to miss, TBH. I think it was 2 years ago that we had 6 games in which no penalties were called against the other team -- you had to add up the records of 3-4 other teams, meanwhile, to reach that same number of games in which no penalties were called against the opponent.

That Dung is not just uncanny, it's anomalous AND blatant.

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

Is there even any actual talk of a conspiracy? Really? All I see is people legitimately concerned that some refs are biased as you said. I guess the easy way to discredit that is to call people conspiracy theorists.

shabbs wrote:

LeKid wrote:1 Challenge per team per game.

I think we'll see this implemented one day. Just how they do it, not sure. Would be great for situations like that penalty shot or when there's a high stick that was actually from the guys team mate... they'll have to clearly define what the coach can and cannot challenge.

I would start with just plays that result in goal/non goal.
Penalties should not be challengeable at this point, that would be too much.

rooneypoo wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

What's-his-face over here has been saying that for decades.

It's kind of hard to miss, TBH. I think it was 2 years ago that we had 6 games in which no penalties were called against the other team -- you had to add up the records of 3-4 other teams, meanwhile, to reach that same number of games in which no penalties were called against the opponent.

That Dung is not just uncanny, it's anomalous AND blatant.

Agreed. This will hopefully change over time. We need some serious stats compilation on this one.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

Is there even any actual talk of a conspiracy? Really? All I see is people legitimately concerned that some refs are biased as you said. I guess the easy way to discredit that is to call people conspiracy theorists.

No, that's my point -- I'm trying to make a distinction between the two. People are acting like there's no difference, when there clearly is, and they're miscasting the argument.

The real point being made is that there's a bias against the Sens, largely at an unconscious level, among refs who grew up as TOR or MTL fans. I'm trying to separate that point out from the suggestion of a conspiracy, which no one is arguing for, but which some people here are substituting in for or eliding with the real argument.

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

What's-his-face over here has been saying that for decades.

It's kind of hard to miss, TBH. I think it was 2 years ago that we had 6 games in which no penalties were called against the other team -- you had to add up the records of 3-4 other teams, meanwhile, to reach that same number of games in which no penalties were called against the opponent.

That Dung is not just uncanny, it's anomalous AND blatant.

Agreed. This will hopefully change over time. We need some serious stats compilation on this one.

I think that is an excellent suggestion. We need the raw, hard, statistical data. Anyone got some good links for compiling this sort of info?

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

Is there even any actual talk of a conspiracy? Really? All I see is people legitimately concerned that some refs are biased as you said. I guess the easy way to discredit that is to call people conspiracy theorists.

No, that's my point -- I'm trying to make a distinction between the two. People are acting like there's no difference, when there clearly is, and they're miscasting the argument.

The real point being made is that there's a bias against the Sens, largely at an unconscious level, among refs who grew up as TOR or MTL fans. I'm trying to separate that point out from the suggestion of a conspiracy, which no one is arguing for, but which some people here are substituting in for or eliding with the real argument.

Some of the biggest culprits are our own local media. I honestly think they're too stupid and/or lazy to make the distinction. Here we are as fans suggesting that we look at some stats and data to get a better handle on the truth. That should be their Cussing job.

rooneypoo wrote:
I think that is an excellent suggestion. We need the raw, hard, statistical data. Anyone got some good links for compiling this sort of info?

I looked half-heartedly, but didn't find anything useful. The game logs at NHL.com list the officials for each game, but with the 2-referee system, it becomes impossible to know which ref made calls and which ref didn't. I'm sure you could, with a large enough sample size, come to some conclusions about which refs call more or less against certain teams, but we're talking about a full-time job for about a month. I think the only real way to compile stats would be to start keeping them ourselves, but I'm too lazy to actually DO anything about a problem, I just want to complain about it.

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
I think that is an excellent suggestion. We need the raw, hard, statistical data. Anyone got some good links for compiling this sort of info?

I looked half-heartedly, but didn't find anything useful. The game logs at NHL.com list the officials for each game, but with the 2-referee system, it becomes impossible to know which ref made calls and which ref didn't. I'm sure you could, with a large enough sample size, come to some conclusions about which refs call more or less against certain teams, but we're talking about a full-time job for about a month. I think the only real way to compile stats would be to start keeping them ourselves, but I'm too lazy to actually DO anything about a problem, I just want to complain about it.

How do you know there is a problem without the data?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
I think that is an excellent suggestion. We need the raw, hard, statistical data. Anyone got some good links for compiling this sort of info?

I looked half-heartedly, but didn't find anything useful. The game logs at NHL.com list the officials for each game, but with the 2-referee system, it becomes impossible to know which ref made calls and which ref didn't. I'm sure you could, with a large enough sample size, come to some conclusions about which refs call more or less against certain teams, but we're talking about a full-time job for about a month. I think the only real way to compile stats would be to start keeping them ourselves, but I'm too lazy to actually DO anything about a problem, I just want to complain about it.

How do you know there is a problem without the data?

What we have right now is the beginnings of a thesis. To see if that thesis holds water, and to complicate and support it, you need hard data.

I was just pouring through everything I can find at NHL.com, and here are some findings that the stats show:

Penalties Against Stats:
-- total minors, 228, 29th in the league
-- total majors, 38, tied for 29th in the league
-- total penalties, 282, 29th in the league
-- total PIMs, 754, 28th in the league
-- total bench minors, 7, tied for 23rd in the league
-- total PIM/game, 14.2, 28th in the league

Shorthanded Stats:
-- times short-handed, 211, 30th in the league
-- total time spend on the PK, 143+ mins, 19th in the league
-- PP time minus PK time, -12+ mins, 25th in the league


Power play Stats:
-- 179 PP opportunities, 12th in the league (but: tied for 23rd at home, & tied for 4th on the road, league wide)
-- total time on the PP, 291 mins, also tied for 12th in the league
-- PP opportunities, by period (and this is telling): 1st, 48, 26th in the league; 2nd, 72, 6th in the league; 3rd, 59, tied for 6th; OT, 2, tied for 7th.

Here's some stats in this 6th Sens post:

http://www.the6thsens.com/2012-articles/january/kerryfrasersenatorsfanstinfoilhatbrigade939319.html

So I guess we can call off the hitmen.

C'mon Ref looks at the Ott-Bos game...

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=386676

shabbs wrote:C'mon Ref looks at the Ott-Bos game...

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=386676

Are you guys just waking up? C'mon, that blog is so two and a half hours ago.

rooneypoo wrote:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you...

Talk of an active conspiracy is, if you ask me, silly, but talk of a long-engrained bias against the Sens among refs who grew up fans of TOR or MTL is not far fetched at all.

Who told you that? What did they look like? Were they driving a late-model green sedan with tinted windows?

tim1_2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:C'mon Ref looks at the Ott-Bos game...

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=386676

Are you guys just waking up? C'mon, that blog is so two and a half hours ago.

Some of us work. Just read it. All I can say is if Neil dove on the cross check from Kelly then so did Boychuk on the cross check from Spezza. Yes, Spezza was frustrated and yes, that was a cross check, but just the physics of how quickly Boychuk went down and the with of the stick shaft, the pressure per square inch must have been tremendous. Bone crushing. I want to see the crushed bones.