Reply To: Articles

[hockeygod]

FRASER: WHY REFS DON'T WORK IN TEAMS ON A GAME-TO-GAME BASIS

Kerry Fraser, TSN.ca, Dec 1 2011

Hey Kerry!

First snow day of 2011 in your hometown of Sarnia! I have a question about referee scheduling. A few years back before the four-man officiating system I had a chance to spend some time with local referee Don Van Massehoeven at a game in Detroit.

He said NHL referees don't work in teams on a game-to-game basis, but work in different combinations each game. This is in stark contrast to officials in the NFL, Major League Baseball, etc. Why is/was this system in place rather than working more regularly with the same group of officials to develop cohesion amongst a set grouping as seems to be more common in other sports?

Regards,
Phil Winch
Sarnia, Ontario

Part of the answer to your question is based on the history and tradition of our game dating back to the Original Six teams. Another element in the assignment process includes something that none of us will ever have control over – the weather!

Weather first. Hockey is played during the dead of winter unlike the MLB or considerably shorter NFL schedule. The theory was to send two or even three officials from different directions so that in the event of inclement weather the odds were pretty good that at least one official could make it to the game. In the days of train travel a crew might jump on the train out of Montreal (the train was held until the teams and equipment were all aboard) and go as far as Chicago for a game the next night. Of course Boston, New York, Toronto and Detroit were other platform options if the crew of three was broken up.

Paul Stewart and his crew got stranded in Carolina for the better part of a week one season when a freak blizzard paralyzed Raleigh-Durham. Nothing could come in or out of the Crabtree Marriott Hotel they were staying in. The biggest dilemma the patrons faced was that the hotel ran out of food and beer.

In my final season, six days prior to Christmas I worked a Saturday afternoon Flyers game (close to home) and was scheduled to fly to Carolina the next day. Brad Watson was working a game in Carolina and then assigned to the next Flyers game two nights later. We would pass one another in the air.

Problem was "the perfect storm" was forecast up and down the eastern seaboard. It actually started to hit as I was driving home from the Flyers game so I called NHL assigner, Randy Hall and suggested he leave Watson in Carolina for the next game and I would take his assignment in Philadelphia. I knew nothing would be moving on the ground let alone in the air. Great decision from Mr. Hall since three feet of snow fell the overnight followed by another two feet the next day. Both games were covered.

The cost of doing business: Former Referee in Chief, Ian "Scotty" Morrison told me the team owners wanted his assurance that each referee would work an equal number of times in their building. This was especially true through the years of expansion when new officials were added to the staff. Since the owners paid an equal portion of the officiating budget they wanted an equal share of the more experienced and higher rated referees as opposed to a regular diet of rookies. Overexposure of one official was never a healthy idea for either the official or the team.

One time when my game assignments overlapped from one assignment period to another I noticed that I was scheduled to work the Montreal Canadiens six games in a row while they were on the road. Attention had been paid to the home team cities in my assignments but the visiting team fell through the cracks. When I brought this obvious oversight to the attention of the Officiating Department a change in a couple of the games was made.

Bobby Clarke, as general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers felt there wasn't enough familiarity between referees and players because a team might have a young referee one game and not see him again for a month. Bob felt this contributed to a lack of relationship building between officials and players. This was especially magnified (in Clarkies opinion) if the first game didn't go well since there was no quick opportunity to mend the fence for the referee or the player(s). Let's not forget the coaches as well.

Bobby Clarke's remedy to this perceived problem was to take the senior referees and make them crew chiefs. The veterans would be assigned a pool of younger officials that would rotate amongst them for a number of games at a time. He also felt the groupings should remain within a division/conference for half the season at a time.

As we moved from one referee on the ice to two there were growing pains in implementing this new system. No differently than through expansion of teams that elevated inexperienced players, the NHL Officiating staff doubled in size with the implementation of the four man system.

Every official experiences growing pains until they gain experience and become accepted by the players. Experience aside, the most pressing challenge was to mesh two independent thinking referees into a team that exercised similar judgment from one end of the rink to the other – establish some form of consistency. That's what the players want most so they know what they can and can't do. (And then try and get away with all they can.)

I think the officiating team has come a long way (most of the time) in this regard. To be more direct Phil, there is a standard system in place that each official must work within on a nightly basis no matter who they are partnered with. Their responsibilities don't change nor does their obligation to communicate with their partner on the ice.

Some people are certainly more compatible with certain individuals than others; that's just human nature. There has been an effort made through the assignment process to keep pairings and crews together for a few games at a time to act as mentors and establish familiarity and cohesiveness as you suggest. This is always the case during the Stanley Cup Playoffs where pairings occur with both the referees and linesmen until the deck might be reshuffled towards the later games in a series.

I think a crew that was assigned together for the whole season would have to be very, very compatible. Familiarity might even breed contempt! They might even resort to pranks on one another.

In the days of riding the rails during the original six team league the officials were a small, tightly knit group. They also didn't make very much money and resorted to all kinds of measures to save on expenses. The stories told about rough and tumble Linesman, George Hayes are legendary. He travelled light to be able to fill his equipment bag with beer for the long train rides and would pack a lunch to save money.

Referee, Eddie Powers thought he would help Hayes save money by packing him a "special lunch" for the train ride from Montreal to Chicago. Powers had picked up a can of dog food that afternoon and on the train that night after a couple of beers offered the 'meatloaf' sandwiches to Hayes which he ate heartily. George commented that the meatloaf tasted a little different but thanked Powers none the less for saving him some per diem money.

The Montreal Canadiens were in their private car on that train and playing in Chicago that next night. Powers happened to tell one of the Montreal players that he had given George Hayes dog food sandwiches. That night in the Chicago Stadium every time a Habs player came near Hayes or he dropped the puck at a face-off the Montreal center would begin barking like a dog.

Finally George Hayes asked them what the hell was wrong with them. Near the end of the game one of the Habs players let the cat out of the bag and George learned that he had eaten a can dog food. Rather than chase Powers around the ice he said it was the best dog food he ever ate. Woof…

I really don't see an advantage to keeping a crew together for the extended periods, Phil.

Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."