HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I had my first experience of having the 3 man system. I was excited thinking the officiating would be a great deal better and less missed calls. This was in Winona just after they had the 10 man fight in the high school game 2 days previous. We had a player carrying the puck into the zone and was hit from the side a clean hit, however the player was 3 feet from the boards and went ribs first into the dasher. The result of what should have been a boarding penalty that was not called was 3 broken ribs and a collapsed lung. I talked to the official and he stated he wasn't watching the player with the puck. I asked him to talk to his linesman and he said one was watching the offsides and the other one missed it.

So I can see this being good but also bad. More officials means more eyes on the play or off the play depending who is on the ice.

Just what I saw from the 3 man system is that things will be missed as with the 2 man system.

Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:I had my first experience of having the 3 man system. I was excited thinking the officiating would be a great deal better and less missed calls. This was in Winona just after they had the 10 man fight in the high school game 2 days previous. We had a player carrying the puck into the zone and was hit from the side a clean hit, however the player was 3 feet from the boards and went ribs first into the dasher. The result of what should have been a boarding penalty that was not called was 3 broken ribs and a collapsed lung. I talked to the official and he stated he wasn't watching the player with the puck. I asked him to talk to his linesman and he said one was watching the offsides and the other one missed it.

So I can see this being good but also bad. More officials means more eyes on the play or off the play depending who is on the ice.

Just what I saw from the 3 man system is that things will be missed as with the 2 man system.

As a ref, I truly think the current 3-man system misses more than the 2-man. When I line, I have very limited ability to call penalties, either on my own, or through advising the ref. If we went to the proper 3-man (2 refs/1 line) then we would benefit. Until that time, the three-man helps younger/newer refs see the speed of the next level without influencing the game.

. . . and btw, Winona was a check from behind, an assault, and 8 guys grabbing each other!!! (Yes, I was there)

Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:I had my first experience of having the 3 man system. I was excited thinking the officiating would be a great deal better and less missed calls. This was in Winona just after they had the 10 man fight in the high school game 2 days previous. We had a player carrying the puck into the zone and was hit from the side a clean hit, however the player was 3 feet from the boards and went ribs first into the dasher. The result of what should have been a boarding penalty that was not called was 3 broken ribs and a collapsed lung. I talked to the official and he stated he wasn't watching the player with the puck. I asked him to talk to his linesman and he said one was watching the offsides and the other one missed it.

So I can see this being good but also bad. More officials means more eyes on the play or off the play depending who is on the ice.

Just what I saw from the 3 man system is that things will be missed as with the 2 man system.

Just curious ... how could the lineman watch the offsides without watching the puck carrier and what was the ref watching?

Mnhockeys wrote:

Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:I had my first experience of having the 3 man system. I was excited thinking the officiating would be a great deal better and less missed calls. This was in Winona just after they had the 10 man fight in the high school game 2 days previous. We had a player carrying the puck into the zone and was hit from the side a clean hit, however the player was 3 feet from the boards and went ribs first into the dasher. The result of what should have been a boarding penalty that was not called was 3 broken ribs and a collapsed lung. I talked to the official and he stated he wasn't watching the player with the puck. I asked him to talk to his linesman and he said one was watching the offsides and the other one missed it.

So I can see this being good but also bad. More officials means more eyes on the play or off the play depending who is on the ice.

Just what I saw from the 3 man system is that things will be missed as with the 2 man system.

Just curious ... how could the lineman watch the offsides without watching the puck carrier and what was the ref watching?

He wouldn't give me an answer as to what he was watching and I agree how was the linesman watching offsides without watching the puck carrier. Don't know just there reasoning on why they missed the call.

Since MN Hockey has now taken the USA Hockey Playing Rules into their own hands. MN Hockey MUST mandate a minimum of 2 referees on the ice for EVERY game. A linesman or 2 can be added. But TWO REFEREES must be on the ice for every game!

If MN Hockey refuses, this new rule continues to be lip service to player safety!

Leagues that still use the 1 ref 2 linesman system inculde MnJHL, NA3, NAHL, USHL, ECHL, QMJL, IIHF and AHL. Yes the QMJL and AHL produce the most NHL players and officials. The NHL still believes that the 1 ref 2 linesmans system is the best way to develop officials. And all the levels are faster and harder hitting than any bantam game.

The 2 ref 1 linesman system has the ref watching for icings and offsides as well as goals and penalties. There are many issues with this system. The HS league has continued to use it as it give officials who are poor skaters or too old to keep up the abillity to continue to officiate higher levels. There are officials working high school games that youth leagues won't let work a bantam C game.

The other issue is with the rise of girls hockey and rising boys numbers there are over twice the games there was 20 years ago. There are just not enough QUALITY officials to cover these games.

Also if linesman would have an attitude of doing a good job instead of being just the linesman and reporting incidents to their ref there would be no need for addition refs on the ice.

Finally, USA hockey has approved the use of the 4 man system for all 16U and up games. For MN that would be all jounior gold and the rest of the country would be migits. the 4 man is the best system available for officiating games when worked properly.[/b]

QuackerTracker wrote:Leagues that still use the 1 ref 2 linesman system inculde MnJHL, NA3, NAHL, USHL, ECHL, QMJL, IIHF and AHL. Yes the QMJL and AHL produce the most NHL players and officials. The NHL still believes that the 1 ref 2 linesmans system is the best way to develop officials. And all the levels are faster and harder hitting than any bantam game.

The 2 ref 1 linesman system has the ref watching for icings and offsides as well as goals and penalties. There are many issues with this system. The HS league has continued to use it as it give officials who are poor skaters or too old to keep up the abillity to continue to officiate higher levels. There are officials working high school games that youth leagues won't let work a bantam C game.

The other issue is with the rise of girls hockey and rising boys numbers there are over twice the games there was 20 years ago. There are just not enough QUALITY officials to cover these games.

Also if linesman would have an attitude of doing a good job instead of being just the linesman and reporting incidents to their ref there would be no need for addition refs on the ice.

Finally, USA hockey has approved the use of the 4 man system for all 16U and up games. For MN that would be all jounior gold and the rest of the country would be migits. the 4 man is the best system available for officiating games when worked properly.[/b]

I agree that the NHL would rather develop officials with the 1/2 system but unfortunately, very, very few officials ever make it to the NHL. We are talking about making youth games safe.

The 2/1 system does, at times, have an official watch for off-sides and icings but this is a very small part of the job. I would much rather have an official that can manage the game and not be the quickest skater versus someone who can skate like the wind and not understand what to call.

As for the linesman reporting infractions, remember they can only report major penalties. Lastly, the 4 person system does work great but it's not economical. Adding another official means adding more fees to the players.

The 2/1 system is the best option.

HSRef77 wrote:

QuackerTracker wrote:Leagues that still use the 1 ref 2 linesman system inculde MnJHL, NA3, NAHL, USHL, ECHL, QMJL, IIHF and AHL. Yes the QMJL and AHL produce the most NHL players and officials. The NHL still believes that the 1 ref 2 linesmans system is the best way to develop officials. And all the levels are faster and harder hitting than any bantam game.

The 2 ref 1 linesman system has the ref watching for icings and offsides as well as goals and penalties. There are many issues with this system. The HS league has continued to use it as it give officials who are poor skaters or too old to keep up the abillity to continue to officiate higher levels. There are officials working high school games that youth leagues won't let work a bantam C game.

The other issue is with the rise of girls hockey and rising boys numbers there are over twice the games there was 20 years ago. There are just not enough QUALITY officials to cover these games.

Also if linesman would have an attitude of doing a good job instead of being just the linesman and reporting incidents to their ref there would be no need for addition refs on the ice.

Finally, USA hockey has approved the use of the 4 man system for all 16U and up games. For MN that would be all jounior gold and the rest of the country would be migits. the 4 man is the best system available for officiating games when worked properly.[/b]

I agree that the NHL would rather develop officials with the 1/2 system but unfortunately, very, very few officials ever make it to the NHL. We are talking about making youth games safe.

The 2/1 system does, at times, have an official watch for off-sides and icings but this is a very small part of the job. I would much rather have an official that can manage the game and not be the quickest skater versus someone who can skate like the wind and not understand what to call.

As for the linesman reporting infractions, remember they can only report major penalties. Lastly, the 4 person system does work great but it's not economical. Adding another official means adding more fees to the players.

The 2/1 system is the best option.

The 2/1 system does not make the game any safer. Officials can only react to what players do. Therefore, your argument is invalid. The 2/1 system may help to catch more minor infractions, however it does not provide any more protection over major penalties. Minor infraction do not cause injuries.

The reality of what needs to happen is for officals, players, coaches and parents at the youth level to understand that it is YOUTH hockey. They are kids on the ice. Officials need to work on communication with players and coaches. Coaches and players need to work on communication with the officias as well as acceptance of rules being enforced. And parents, well they need to relax and enjoyed the games (no one comes to their office every day and screams at them... at least I hope not.)

The 2/1 doesn't prevent major penalties, but it can defuse situations by catching the slash, rough or high stick that gets missed behind the play that turns into an a more serious offense on that player 's next shift.

The 1/2 leaves the referee behind play most times there is a rush up ice.
The 2/1 can be in front of the play and see clearly that a forward is grabbing a defenseman to try and draw a penalty.

Quak: I understand your, "It's just youth hockey relax". But HS and MN Hockey has just put in automatic 5 minute major penalties in the game FOR PLAYER SAFETY. If longer penalties makes the game "safer" how could you or anybody say having 2 refs would not make the game safer?

Foolish statement to think 1 ref might miss minor infractions but they would never miss the majors.

Once again, there is no logical basis for standing behind 1 referee on the ice in any hockey game.

BadgerBob82 wrote:Quak: I understand your, "It's just youth hockey relax". But HS and MN Hockey has just put in automatic 5 minute major penalties in the game FOR PLAYER SAFETY. If longer penalties makes the game "safer" how could you or anybody say having 2 refs would not make the game safer?

Foolish statement to think 1 ref might miss minor infractions but they would never miss the majors.

Once again, there is no logical basis for standing behind 1 referee on the ice in any hockey game.

I never said that in the 1/2 system that the ref would not miss major penalties. Quality linesman can assit ref in making sure that all these penalties are called as well as defusing situation behind play quickly to prevent them from escalating.

The changes that MH and the HS League have made to the rules are an over-reaction to and unfourtunate and tradgic event. There where penalties in place that where not inforced properly up to the point. CFB was often called boarding as an easy way to get out of a coach sreaming at an offical. Now you have put more preasure on officals and regardless of what coaches say in the media they are not that accepting of the new rules and loosing players for 5-15 minutes. If these penalty times stay you will see increase calling elbowing instead of head contact, roughing instead of boarding and cross check instead of CFB. Why? Same reason that CFB has been called boarding and cross check for years.