HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

The Stripes were the winners in Lake Placid. You would think that if you bring together the best players in the country, you would witness some great hockey. Not so. The refs made sure that there was no flow to the games. There was a constant parade of players to the box. The coaches were all shaking their heads over the many ridiculous non-existent infractions. One player received a hooking penalty while her stick was on the ice; I am not kidding. Ask Brian Idalski. He was on the bench. Also, the first two games the penalties were 2:00 minutes, then later 1:30 minutes. I find it hard to believe that evaluators could do a decent job with the endless interruptions by the refs. Late in the week we were told that the referees (all women) were being evaluated by their supervisors. If this is the type of refereeing they want; it makes for dull, dreary hockey.

Gotta agree it was a little "off" to be sure. I saw one instance where a defender stepped up to poke check, was successful, collided (hip to hip) with the offensive player as each moved to get out of the other's way, and was then called for holding. In one game the calls got to the point where the girls started chirping, and the ref threatened to toss the players.

One of the problems is that you have many of these girls playing most of the year using different rules from those of USA Hockey. The high school leagues, particularly the prep league in New England, needs to follow the USAH rules to ensure that players can play to the fullest within the rules and not get hung up on little nuances they are unfamiliar with.

IMHO a National level talent group is not the time to be scheduling evaluations of/training officials.

Generally, if referee's are being evalutated at something like this, it is because it is some of the better referees in the area that they are trying to make even better by putting them in high level games. I imagine that this post was made by someone that is not an official and find that the best way to spend their time is by whining about officials. Remember pal, nobody is perfect, but I would bet 10 to 1 that they know ten times more about the game and how it works than you do.

IMHO the officials seem to get into there own importance during some big games and fail to realize that the game is not about them but about the players. This sounds like what happened, and them getting evaluated just made the officials try to be in the spotlight even more and they ended up stealing some of the experiance from the kids....There is no need for the officials to dominate a game with elite players, they should be there to make sure it's fair and dosen't get out of control within the scope of the rules.

theref wrote:Generally, if referee's are being evalutated at something like this, it is because it is some of the better referees in the area that they are trying to make even better by putting them in high level games. I imagine that this post was made by someone that is not an official and find that the best way to spend their time is by whining about officials. Remember pal, nobody is perfect, but I would bet 10 to 1 that they know ten times more about the game and how it works than you do.

Hey, you're right x2. That's actually where all 4200+ of my other posts come in - complaining about officials.

When you get the best players in the nation on the ice, I don't think it's the time or place to be evaluating/training officials. That's an opinion, and I don't have to know a thing about hockey or officiating to voice that. THANKS!

ghshockey, you are right, you have every right to give your opinion, regardless of whether or not you have intelligent information on the subject. Isn't America great like that? Actually, this is the best time to evalute upcoming, promising officials. These officials were working a big game, why not evalutate how they handle the situation of an important game with some of the countries most promising players. That's where good referees come from. Keep a player playing against weaker teams, his stats will look great. Force a player to play against better teams, he very well may make it somewhere from what he learns. Same idea goes for officials.

Finance_gal. I'm just curious, are you just referencing this game now or all big games in general. I can tell you that the referees that make it to the big games are the referees that deserve to be there because they generally don't let their egos hurt the flow of the game. Of course I have to say generally, because I can't speak for all of them. Believe it or not, I have worked more than a few elite games in my time and have, on occasion, found it necessary to take control of the game because the players didn't play the game. Maybe that was the case in this situation or perhaps it's just your lack of understanding the stricter enforcement of the rules, or possibly that may the officials were pressing a bit, but I highly doubt it is to the extent that the initial post is making it seem. I'm sure if there were 20 penalties, 18 of them were justified. You know, for someone that seems to know so much about the game, I'm curious as to why you don't contribute some of that knowledge to help some younger officials and become official yourself. Always easier to criticize when you are on the outside looking in, isn't it?

theref wrote:ghshockey, you are right, you have every right to give your opinion, regardless of whether or not you have intelligent information on the subject. Isn't America great like that? Actually, this is the best time to evalute upcoming, promising officials. These officials were working a big game, why not evalutate how they handle the situation of an important game with some of the countries most promising players. That's where good referees come from. Keep a player playing against weaker teams, his stats will look great. Force a player to play against better teams, he very well may make it somewhere from what he learns. Same idea goes for officials.

AMen to our rights to voice our opinion. And, we must each judge what is truly "intelligent."

That aside, I have nothing against officials at all. I have a lot of respect for what they do, knowing full well I could never do it.

I understand the notion of pushing players and officials to be the best. But, I don't know that a national level showcase for one should be the training ground for another.

Are you saying that there aren't any other opportunities to do this for officials outside of the Nat'l level camps? If so, we need to do more to create training opportunities for officials IMHO.

ALso, how is this done? Do you typically pair up a couple experienced officials with one that is trying it for the first time at this level? Or is it just a grouping of all inexperienced (at this level) officials?

As I would imagine, there would be a few lesser experienced officials paired with more seasoned officials at all times. Also, it doesn't really sound like this was used as a training ground, just a chance to give some younger officials more experience at that level and to evaluate all officials to see how they are doing in the given situation.

Can anyone tell me if this was a chance to develop/evaluate female officials due to this being the female nat'l camp? Anything we can do to get more female coaches and officials in the game is critical so I support that 100%... It makes sense that they'd pair up some experienced officialls with those that are less experienced. I've seen at the lower youth levels where they'll have an experienced official shadow (or vice versa) a new official too...

I'm not saying it happens in every big game but there are plenty of times when the referee spends more time enforcing borderline penalties that they wouldn't have called in a lower profile game. I've seen this happening more and more in Hockey where the same officials will call a consolation game alot different than they call the championship game is this because more people seem to paying attention to the championship game? or do they just not care in the consolation game? All it does is confuse the players on what the rules are suposed to be. Consistancy in rule enforcement is what they should be striving for.

First you talk about the refs being too much a part of the game and now you are talking about consitency.(Please excuse my poor spelling) You are all over the place here. I would say it would be pretty hard for either of us to say what type of game was called as neither you or I was there, but I certainly will not take a preformance evaluation from someone who was not at the game that heard it from a fan/parent/other non-official that was at the game.

The officials are all probably level 4 officials and just to get there have been evaluated by the USA Hockey District from where they officiate. This is not a training session but another evaluation to get to the the next higher level, the lesser experienced official is still very good. These officials have probably officiated also at the high school and college levels both D1 and D3.The referees react to what is happening and the coaches and players should be able adjust after seeing what is called, especially at this level. By the way most time everybody is informed of the points of emphasis for the camp before he games begin.

To "theref": my request would be for you to back off a little. You don't appear to know anything more about what actually did or didn't happen in Lake Placid than anyone else who wasn’t there, and yet there appears to be a huge chip on your shoulder.

I agree that refs have a tough job - it's difficult to follow the rules and please everyone as a ref - virtually impossible, in fact. Many refs - probably you included - are wonderful. They do a great job game in and game out - yes they make mistakes, but as you infer, we all do.

That being said, some refs are not good. Maybe they don’t have enough experience yet. Others might never be good - they don't know the rules, don't hustle, and/or have a chip on their shoulders. Conversely, many players, fans, parents and coaches do know the rules VERY WELL - It isn't just the refs that are capable of understanding the rules.

Xwildfan and Hux were apparently at the camp – they saw what happened. I know GHS is pretty knowledgeable hockey person. Finance_Gal sounds like she could be too. Their initial comments on this topic were kind of general (with the tone of “sounds like...”, “could have been...”, etc.) When I read your posts it looks like a flat out attack on the credibility of anyone who's not a ref. You probably didn't mean that, but the tone comes across as inappropriate.

As I said, there are many excellent refs. That’s often why the bad ones stand out. It seems that something was weird at the camp (from the observers’ reports). Yes, it’s possible the observers misread or misunderstood something, but isn’t it also possible that the refs indeed did have some issues? Isn’t it possible that someone who is not a ref might have some valid insights too?

I don't know how knowledgeable of a hockey person I am but thanks for the compliment.

My Husband watches quite a bit of international womens hockey because of his travels, so I get dragged along to some of the games. He was at 2 of the games and told me that the officiating was aweful and the officials controlled the outcome of the games and that different teams would have on had they been allowed to play. If were going to prepare these girls for any international play they can't decide there going to call a game "tight" because someone is evaluating them or because it's a big game. The games should be called the same whether its a mite game or the gold medal game at the Olympics and the officials don't seem to be doing that.

I think that part of what happens is that the refs are trying to enforce the rules as to a T. and Change is hard.
But last years hooking calls were very inconsistent from one arena to another.
As an example you would go to one game in EP and everything would get called then you would go to one in SSP and Nothing would get called.

But as far as the spectators not knowing the game, there might be a few but a lot of us do know the game pretty well and JMHO I believe you get a much better view of the Ice from the Stands!

Sorry guys, I forgot that I'm on a hockey board where everyone knows what they are talking about. Sorry, I won't back off my position, if you don't like it, then don't read what I have to say, just like in the future I'm going to ignore meaningless posts like this, where people whine about a situation that they have little or no experience with. Maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder, I guess that's from very little praise regardless of the job officials do. I can have a great game according to all my supervisor and still we have a larger portion of fans that whine and complain compared to those that praise us, so when I say that fans don't know what they are talking about, about 95% of the time i'm justified. Here's a little quote I'd like to leave with all of you as I'm no longer going to argue over a message board

"In any given hockey game, you will have 100 fans. 95 will yell at the referees and the other 5 will keep quiet because they know he or she is right"

hshockeyfan91 wrote:To "theref": my request would be for you to back off a little. You don't appear to know anything more about what actually did or didn't happen in Lake Placid than anyone else who wasn’t there, and yet there appears to be a huge chip on your shoulder.

I agree that refs have a tough job - it's difficult to follow the rules and please everyone as a ref - virtually impossible, in fact. Many refs - probably you included - are wonderful. They do a great job game in and game out - yes they make mistakes, but as you infer, we all do.

That being said, some refs are not good. Maybe they don’t have enough experience yet. Others might never be good - they don't know the rules, don't hustle, and/or have a chip on their shoulders. Conversely, many players, fans, parents and coaches do know the rules VERY WELL - It isn't just the refs that are capable of understanding the rules.

Xwildfan and Hux were apparently at the camp – they saw what happened. I know GHS is pretty knowledgeable hockey person. Finance_Gal sounds like she could be too. Their initial comments on this topic were kind of general (with the tone of “sounds like...”, “could have been...”, etc.) When I read your posts it looks like a flat out attack on the credibility of anyone who's not a ref. You probably didn't mean that, but the tone comes across as inappropriate.

As I said, there are many excellent refs. That’s often why the bad ones stand out. It seems that something was weird at the camp (from the observers’ reports). Yes, it’s possible the observers misread or misunderstood something, but isn’t it also possible that the refs indeed did have some issues? Isn’t it possible that someone who is not a ref might have some valid insights too?

Excellent Points!

theref wrote:Sorry guys, I forgot that I'm on a hockey board where everyone knows what they are talking about. Sorry, I won't back off my position, if you don't like it, then don't read what I have to say, just like in the future I'm going to ignore meaningless posts like this, where people whine about a situation that they have little or no experience with. Maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder, I guess that's from very little praise regardless of the job officials do. I can have a great game according to all my supervisor and still we have a larger portion of fans that whine and complain compared to those that praise us, so when I say that fans don't know what they are talking about, about 95% of the time i'm justified. Here's a little quote I'd like to leave with all of you as I'm no longer going to argue over a message board

"In any given hockey game, you will have 100 fans. 95 will yell at the referees and the other 5 will keep quiet because they know he or she is right"

IMHO I think we're each biased towards our affiliation. For theRef it's the refs (s)he backs, for me it would be my own team or those that I'm a fan of. None of us like to hear commentary that could be perceived as potentially negative in nature (I hope - life's too short for that...). We have the right to stand up for whatever we choose. I wouldn't take it personal if those you back get attacked. This is tough (don't I know it) when some do this sort of thing just to do it. I have a hard time ignoring it, but I'm working on that! I've heard that once you hit 30+ you start to get thicker skin if you're still in this "profession" as coach, ref, admin, etc.)...

I should note though that the poster that originated this thread doesn't have a history of just starting things to start trouble. I think this was a legitimate concern raised and worth the discussion.

Someone raised praise for the refs - they deserve it - but usually when they do their job you don't know they're there unfortunately (as they make the calls/non-calls they should). I think it better that spectators attack the coaches or refs than the kids, but really when it's the refs that is probably as a result of the spectators team doing poorly and needing someone to blame - and that's easy to do even when the refs may be making calls that are legit! But, there are times when the refs are poor, just as even the best players can have an off day, etc.

Consistency is tough too - I think it's harder to call the female game than anything else as it's so much more based on intent relative to the body contact and the interpretation of the rules along with the enforcement of the "point(s) of emphasis" at that given time. What makes this harder I think is that recently we've seen a crackdown on penalties/obstruction in general at ALL levels from NHL on down. Add that to the tough job of calling non-check female hockey and that's not an easy task. Then, add the issue of going back and forth between different levels, genders, etc. and many refs working a ton of games as there is a shortage of officials in general I hear...

I also was told once that the quality of the officials you receive - as in how much experience, etc. - can sometimes be a product of the level of play. Meaning, the NHL will probably get the best. From there, minor pro, D1, juniors, etc. and then I'm guessing you get the D3, HS games - Girls HS Hockey may fall pretty low on this list. It doesn't mean that we don't get good officials, but just that the best that can may want to work at a higher level. Thank goodness though that we have some that WANT to work this level, this area, the girls game, etc., etc....

As to the vantage point, I've realized that refs on ice see things that we wouldn't and wouldn't see from the bench vs the stands vs. etc., etc. I think this is the #1 thing that people don't realize that haven't officiated before. You will miss some things and catch others that aren't seen from the stands or bench. I only realized this as I've tried to officiate some early season scrimmages and it's tough enough to stay out of the way, let alone watch for everything, and I know that I'm never "in position" as is the most that you can hope for for an official as to give them the best chance to make the call, etc.

I don't like that different levels of emphasis are placed on how tight a game is called based on its significance. I would hope that the early season non conference games are called the same as the mid-season conference matchups and holiday tourneys. Same goes for the sections & state, etc. If an attempt isn't made to call the game by a certain standard all the time, that's when I think the fans get upset. Players & coaches do too, but I think they understand that there may be some differences based on officials association, specific officials, etc. We always tell our players the same thing - you need to see what the limits are on any given day. Like a pitcher seeing what strike zone they have with the ump, you may have to see what they do & don't give you...

Interestingly, re: Nat'l Camp... I may have allowed the refs then to learn and call the penalties, maybe even toss the line/player off the ice that is guilty, but I hope they let the kids play full strength to showcase their abilities (I don't think you need to PK/PP to see ability - although it may be nice to see how they react in these situations). This is the best of the best (player wise), and I highly doubt many of them got there by playing dirty or cheap.

ghshockeyfan wrote: Consistency is tough too - I think it's harder to call the female game than anything else as it's so much more based on intent relative to the body contact and the interpretation of the rules along with the enforcement of the "point(s) of emphasis" at that given time. What makes this harder I think is that recently we've seen a crackdown on penalties/obstruction in general at ALL levels from NHL on down. Add that to the tough job of calling non-check female hockey and that's not an easy task. Then, add the issue of going back and forth between different levels, genders, etc. and many refs working a ton of games as there is a shortage of officials in general I hear...

Good post GHS,

In reading all of these posts I was just wondering if the fact that USA hockey rules are being applied might cause some of the problems with more penalties being called. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have noticed that USA Hockey (and the NHL for that matter) have taken a stricker approach in applying the obstruction rules. To me it appears that this is not true at the high school level. I've seen many games at the High School level that I think are more lax in calling obstruction as compared to USA governed games. It seems that in the youth level (and the NHL) whenever a player's stick is used to hinder a skater no matter how minor a penalty is called. In high school it seems that players get away with using their sticks to hinder more often. Do you agree? Do you think the girls that have been playing HS hockey since the change in emphasis in the rules are having a hard time adjusting. I know that one coach has told me that coaches had to adjust the way they teach defense over the last year due to the new emphasis on obstruction. I'm interested in your opinion.

[I've seen many games at the High School level that I think are more lax in calling obstruction as compared to USA governed games. It seems that in the youth level (and the NHL) whenever a player's stick is used to hinder a skater no matter how minor a penalty is called. In high school it seems that players get away with using their sticks to hinder more often. Do you agree? Do you think the girls that have been playing HS hockey since the change in emphasis in the rules are having a hard time adjusting. I know that one coach has told me that coaches had to adjust the way they teach defense over the last year due to the new emphasis on obstruction. ]

This is an issue at HS hockey too often the Reffing varies from one rink to the next and one day to the next.

Also, the fact that the referees were being evaluated added pressure to call infractions. There are basically two errors that a ref can make: missing an infraction and not blowing the whistle; or blowing the whistle and calling a penalty where no infraction has been committed. It seemed like at Lake Placid, the pressure was on the refs to blow the whistle whenever there might possibly be an infraction; however innocuous the infraction might be. If there was a grey area, the benefit was not given to the offending player. For example, there were many calls made when two players were "tangled up" battling for the puck and an interference call was made on one of the players. The players often time did not know which player would be sent to the box. IMO, too many incidental contact infractions were called. Hockey is a contact sport; even if checking is not allowed. Hopefully, hockey is not headed inthe direction of basketball where "touch fouls" are commonplace. And, Ref, I disagree that the refs know ten times more about the game than me. Eight or nine times more, I can live with. But definitely not ten times more.

xwildfan wrote:Also, the fact that the referees were being evaluated added pressure to call infractions. There are basically two errors that a ref can make: missing an infraction and not blowing the whistle; or blowing the whistle and calling a penalty where no infraction has been committed. It seemed like at Lake Placid, the pressure was on the refs to blow the whistle whenever there might possibly be an infraction; however innocuous the infraction might be. If there was a grey area, the benefit was not given to the offending player. For example, there were many calls made when two players were "tangled up" battling for the puck and an interference call was made on one of the players. The players often time did not know which player would be sent to the box. IMO, too many incidental contact infractions were called. Hockey is a contact sport; even if checking is not allowed. Hopefully, hockey is not headed inthe direction of basketball where "touch fouls" are commonplace. And, Ref, I disagree that the refs know ten times more about the game than me. Eight or nine times more, I can live with. But definitely not ten times more.

True, but there was also a lot of banging going on. I have pictures of the D totally manhandling players in the crease, and forwards seriously leaning on D as well. I think a lot of leeway was given to the girls to play the game the way it is meant to be played in the corners and in front of the net.

Also, remember that they were evaluating players for international play, and the way the game will be called by the IIHF refs. Again, while I saw a few questionable calls, most of what was called on the girls were Point of Emphasis (POE....anyone see Dr. Strangelove?) calls that as noted, many don't see when playing high school or prep hockey.

Hux wrote:

xwildfan wrote:

True, but there was also a lot of banging going on. I have pictures of the D totally manhandling players in the crease, and forwards seriously leaning on D as well. I think a lot of leeway was given to the girls to play the game the way it is meant to be played in the corners and in front of the net.

Also, remember that they were evaluating players for international play, and the way the game will be called by the IIHF refs. Again, while I saw a few questionable calls, most of what was called on the girls were Point of Emphasis (POE....anyone see Dr. Strangelove?) calls that as noted, many don't see when playing high school or prep hockey.

D manhandling players around the crease is what I was alluding to in one of my previous posts regarding the new POE. I've been told by a few coaches that coaching philosophy for D is changing. A year or so ago coaches (for boys and girls) were taught to move forwards away from in front of the net. It is my understanding that with the new POE manhandling forwards is a penalty. I'm told that the new defensive philosphy is to get in front of the forward, between the forward and the puck and try to deny the pass much like defense in basketball is taught. I think players at the high school level are getting away with more banging and manhandling than at the pro or youth level. I think this might just be a part of the reason for more penalties since girls who have been playing HS probably haven't adjusted to the new POE yet.

OntheEdge wrote:

Hux wrote:

xwildfan wrote:

True, but there was also a lot of banging going on. I have pictures of the D totally manhandling players in the crease, and forwards seriously leaning on D as well. I think a lot of leeway was given to the girls to play the game the way it is meant to be played in the corners and in front of the net.

Also, remember that they were evaluating players for international play, and the way the game will be called by the IIHF refs. Again, while I saw a few questionable calls, most of what was called on the girls were Point of Emphasis (POE....anyone see Dr. Strangelove?) calls that as noted, many don't see when playing high school or prep hockey.

D manhandling players around the crease is what I was alluding to in one of my previous posts regarding the new POE. I've been told by a few coaches that coaching philosophy for D is changing. A year or so ago coaches (for boys and girls) were taught to move forwards away from in front of the net. It is my understanding that with the new POE manhandling forwards is a penalty. I'm told that the new defensive philosphy is to get in front of the forward, between the forward and the puck and try to deny the pass much like defense in basketball is taught. I think players at the high school level are getting away with more banging and manhandling than at the pro or youth level. I think this might just be a part of the reason for more penalties since girls who have been playing HS probably haven't adjusted to the new POE yet.

True, but I think there was some backing off of the no contact by the D in front of the net. The other area was no contact if a player tried to chip the puck by you. But I have seen more leeway playing the body in these situations than the original POE video showed would be allowed.

Again though, the big issue is consistency. We all know that each ref is going to call things differently, and that is where the POE was intended to take out some of the "subjectiveness" by making things pretty cut and dried. Of course for it to work as intended the refs have to stick to it, and I don't think that is the case.