Officiating and what to do: A response to recent criticism and foul officiating

by Redwing77

Let me be clear on a few things:  First, I did not get to watch last weekend's series between UND and DU so I will not be specifically commenting on any plays or acts NOT embedded on this site.  Second, I know I'm a frequent commentor about the poor quality of officiating but hear me out.

Recently, Goon48 posted a story stating that NCHC Officiating has to be better.  He makes a few points, but he also states a few unrealistic solutions.  In a perfect world, is solutions would be right on and we'd not read my post, but here goes.

Clear the Bridge, DIVE DIVE DIVE!!!!

Diving has been a problem in hockey for quite some time.  It's also a problem in basketball (though in my opinion, that's because toughness is hard to come by in the NBA).  But the same issues in basketball officiating falls on hockey officials as well.  If the ref isn't going to call it, why not do it?

Your job is to provide your team with a competitive edge.  Diving becomes more enticing if you are the "little guy" as well.  If your team isn't playing so hot, or if your team, in this matchup is the "butter" and the opponent is the "hot knife," then you have to even the field somehow.  In the WCHA, Greg Shepherd quietly pushed for situational officiating to help even the field (The WCHA called it "parity").  If you flop a bit and the ref responds in your favor, then it's going to happen again until it is called or the game ends.  Whichever comes first.

And even then, it isn't black and white.  It's hard to determine the difference between being crushed in an illegal hit, or pulling an act similar to a Looney Tune character undergoing a cartoony death scene.  Some officials buffer this insecurity in the call by calling offsetting penalties.

So Goon sponsors post game punitive measures including suspensions and perhaps fines of coaches.  I'm not so sure fining coaches would be effective.  I remember how Mike Eaves (UW) had everyone convinced that Robbie Earl fell easier than most because he skates on his toes.  How would the NCHC (or B1G in the case of UW) prove that Eaves' assertion was incorrect?

Also, 1 game suspensions for something that normally would be a 2 minute minor is a bit over the top.  There are complicated solutions like banning the player for a period.  There isn't a good solution to this issue.

The best I could see would be an officiating directive issued after the game towards the following week's officials stating that X Player dove in the last contest and, should question arise as to whether diving is occurring, err on the side that diving did occur.  So, if the ref feels that it could have been diving, then it was and the penalty is called and the infraction that caused the dive is erased.  Like I said:  too complicated.

Video Review of Major Penalties

I like this, but I'd use the same rule as they do in targetting penalties in college football.  If a major penalty is called that could warrant ejection, then the replay is made and a decision is made via review.

What cannot happen is a missed call occurring and the ref going back "in time" to review the hit and making a call that way.  It makes things too messy.  Also, if that were the case, why have officials anyways.  Just have ARs to drop the puck and call icing or offsides and that's it.  Do the rest via video review.  Too much.

On-Ice Officials quality

I think that here's where I deviate the most.  I love the NHL situation room format with reviews, but the NCHC doesn't have that kind of money.  If they did, they'd have one.

I also believe that the league should be SEMI transparent.  I do not believe the league owes the fans anything in terms of explanations, but they DO owe the member institutions involved.  For the waved off goal, for example, I do not think we as fans or Goon or whomever is owed anything.  However, Hakstol does deserve an explanation.  The same goes with disciplinary action.  Hakstol could choose to divulge the results if he wants to (and so could the league) but there should not be an expectation to beyond that of "the league has taken discilinary action against those involved."

The truth is, though, on ice officials DO need to be better and with that comes paperwork.  I think evals should be filled out by coaching staffs after every weekend's matches evaluating the officials.  If complaints arise, then this is the time for them to be aired.  They can submit questionable calls (every game is recorded so they could state the circumstances and the approximate game time that the situation occurred for further review).  They can also request that the official officiate their games more often or less often.