View Full Version : Two Ref, Two Linesman "Format"
I for one, after just ONE game of it, am not impressed. Not that many WCHA fans have really been impressed with the officiating, but the game in St. Cloud really showed how much these referees miss. In three instances penalties in one zone (face off circle and deeper even)were called by the referee way back behind the center ice red line...
Just looking for other 2 referee game observations from the other games.. is it good or bad? Maybe they should go back to the High School way for College hockey... 1 linesman to call offsides and drop the puck and the 2 refree's to call penalties...at least it'd be less cluttered on the ice.
One quick addition: thank god they didn't go with the not allowing the puck to be dumped down ice while shorthanded rule.
TonyTheTiger20
10-06-2007, 01:37 AM
I haven't seen anything yet, but I just hope they get the calls right regardless of what format they use.
One quick addition: thank god they didn't go with the not allowing the puck to be dumped down ice while shorthanded rule.
Geez, I know...what an asinine idea that was...
The Paragon of Virtue
10-06-2007, 01:40 AM
I didn't think the refereeing was that bad at the SCSU/UMD game, although I wasn't paying attention to what referee called the penalty explicitly. Obviously it could have been better, but I think it's an improvement over the single referee system so far.
The bottom line is the players need to learn to keep their sticks on the ice and skate, rather than get called, most often for something involving the stick and not moving their feet.
As far as the No Dump rule, I would have liked to have seen it implemented as a deterrent to taking penalties in the first place.
As far as the No Dump rule, I would have liked to have seen it implemented as a deterrent to taking penalties in the first place.Please stay far away from any meetings where such decisions are made. :mad:
Please stay far away from any meetings where such decisions are made. :mad:
Hey, the truth hurts. Too many players stop moving their feet, get beat, then hook or hold and get called. It would take two games max of teams tooling on the offenders to get the stupid stuff out of the game. Right now being able to dump the puck is a reward.
brookyone
10-06-2007, 01:34 PM
Right now being able to dump the puck is a reward.
Indeed it is, for working hard and gaining puck possession when at a disadvantage...as it should be IMO. I actually think that is an exciting element of the game myself.
Even tho I do indeed experience some disappointment when it occurs with my team on the PP
Indeed it is, for working hard and gaining puck possession when at a disadvantage...as it should be IMO. I actually think that is an exciting element of the game myself.
Even tho I do indeed experience some disappointment when it occurs with my team on the PP
It is laziness. How difficult is it to learn how to put the puck in a soft spot so that 1) the goalie can't handle it easily, or 2) not having it go the length of the ice? Answer: Just hard enough to make it interesting
pondsk8r
10-06-2007, 02:37 PM
I for one, after just ONE game of it, am not impressed. Not that many WCHA fans have really been impressed with the officiating, but the game in St. Cloud really showed how much these referees miss. In three instances penalties in one zone (face off circle and deeper even)were called by the referee way back behind the center ice red line...
Just looking for other 2 referee game observations from the other games.. is it good or bad? Maybe they should go back to the High School way for College hockey... 1 linesman to call offsides and drop the puck and the 2 refree's to call penalties...at least it'd be less cluttered on the ice.
One quick addition: thank god they didn't go with the not allowing the puck to be dumped down ice while shorthanded rule.
Often it's more likely that the trailing official has a better line of sight to the play than the official who is in the same zone but may be blocked by others players, the net, etc. If the back official sees the infraction it should be called.
Also, they use the 2-referee, one linesman system in ECAC D-III and the games I saw last season were very poorly officiated. Part of the problem was that lack of hustle on the part of the all the officials. They appeared to have no understanding of how to properly call a no-check game and some of the officials looked like they were there just to pick up a check. They need younger officials who are interested to get involved in doing women's games.
It is laziness. How difficult is it to learn how to put the puck in a soft spot so that 1) the goalie can't handle it easily, or 2) not having it go the length of the ice? Answer: Just hard enough to make it interestingMany things I don't like about the proposed change. Here are a couple: the officials are the weak link in the game right now -- why put more control of who wins/loses in their hands? I think it would lead to dump and chase power plays -- too many teams want to play that way at even strength, that is not going to increase the popularity of the game. If you want to take the hooking/holding out of the game, have the refs call hooking and holding consistently. With power plays that already operate at efficiencies of 20, 25, 30% or higher, winning teams don't get by on a steady diet of hooking and holding in the women's game if it is called properly.
Work on getting good enforcement of the rule book you have instead of adding stupid rules, more calls, and more whistles. That's not what fans want, players want, so why do you want it?
brookyone
10-06-2007, 03:02 PM
It is laziness. How difficult is it to learn how to put the puck in a soft spot so that 1) the goalie can't handle it easily, or 2) not having it go the length of the ice? Answer: Just hard enough to make it interesting
I'm sorry, I just don't agree. To me, it's a legit tactic, method, and part of the game to affect an opportunity for player changes...an opportunity the penalized team should be allowed. They should not be penalized above or beyond the simple player disadvantage in my view. I find the game extremely interesting as played under the current rules and don't see it as in need of fixing, or adjusting.
The penalty is called on a specific player for a very specific play / infraction and that should be that I think. I'm in tune with a philosophy to rid the game of certain tactics used as was discussed by Mr. Blatherwick, but primarily because I think the chances of completely eradicating those tactics used, which I would be more inclined to characterize as the result of laziness, are nil...I don't feel eliminating the ability to ice the puck is the correct method...or even all that likely to achieve that goal. As much as I'm for removing those tactics from a typical game. I think you could reduce them...never eradicate them. It seems a little like you're adding an additional penalty to a specific player / team in each specific instance / infraction for something that occurs throughout women's hockey and perpetrated by many players. I don't think that's right...or the right approach. Call those penalties (consistently) when they happen...send the message you want to send that way...until it's received.
Another angle I don't like much...if your intent for instigating a no dump rule is to put a stop to a very specific / limited set of tactics you want removed from the game, then why add this limitation (I think calling it an added penalty is more accurate) to the other / all types of infractions that are always going to occur in a sports contest?
RStarr
10-06-2007, 03:19 PM
Part of the problem was that lack of hustle on the part of the all the officials. They appeared to have no understanding of how to properly call a no-check game and some of the officials looked like they were there just to pick up a check.
Work on getting good enforcement of the rule book you have instead of adding stupid rules, more calls, and more whistles.AMEN!!!
Obviously MOST of us agree that dumping the puck shorthanded IS necessary... (MOST of us).. I'm sure all of us should agree that there needs to be a standard CALL on hooking and then embellishing also as they tried a couple years ago to call "diving."
If we ever reach consistency for *ONE* official for three periods, then the two referee system may work. Until an official calls the same stuff all 3 periods that they start or don't call in the first period it'll never work. The one thing that it seemed to work well with was the video replay, two heads should be better than one in that area.
goldp
10-07-2007, 01:09 AM
There was only one referee at the BSU-MSU game on Friday night. I'm positive I'm not imagining that. Is there a reason they didn't follow the rest of the conference with two? I don't know what the situation was Saturday.
DC78-82
10-07-2007, 02:00 AM
After UNH's first game vs SLU, I was talking to the ref who did the Clarkson - Wayne State game that night. He was in the hotel restaurant bar (watching hte Sox and drinking copious amounts of water, which, considering he was doing the UNH-SLU game 2, made it very difficult for us to ply him with drinks and make him like blue and white:o
He talked about the women's game, and how much the skill and spped has inproved in the last 3 or 4 years. he is looking forward to when the east adopts the 2 ref system. Hie reasoning is that the women's games are much harder to call than the men's because of the combination of speed and not being able to check. Hw said it's hard for a referee to get - stay in proper position because the pace is not slowed down by hitting. In the men's game, he said it's easier to get properly positioned because when the hit occers, it slows the game down enough to give the ref a jump. Not so in the women's game. I thought that was an interesting, and flattering point of view, and it adds credence to the change.
There was only one referee at the BSU-MSU game on Friday night. I'm positive I'm not imagining that. Is there a reason they didn't follow the rest of the conference with two? I don't know what the situation was Saturday.
You're correct, the only referee for BOTH BSU/MSU games was Leah Wrazidlo (from collegehockeystats.net...) interesting how some games had 2 some 1 referee... I wouldn't mind finding out the answer why.. I *CAN* sort of see it in the WCHA play though because the 2 non-conference games at Ridder may have taken up the remaining officials who would then split up and 1 work with Wrazidlo and another wherever else. Hopefully the rest of the season, if 2 referee system is for good, they have 2 referee's at all league games anyway so they can get it fine tuned.
DC78-82
10-07-2007, 02:03 AM
There was only one referee at the BSU-MSU game on Friday night. I'm positive I'm not imagining that. Is there a reason they didn't follow the rest of the conference with two? I don't know what the situation was Saturday.
The ref I talked two last night said the 2 ref system was going into effect next season. maybe they were trying it one night?
The ref I talked two last night said the 2 ref system was going into effect next season. maybe they were trying it one night?
the WCHA is supposed to be using it all season.....
Question I posed in the UMD thread.. how do they assign referees IN the new system.. do the 2 referee's work as a crew together each week, or are they assigned to work with one of the other 8 referee's in different weeks?
The Boomer
10-07-2007, 04:00 AM
After watching countless two-ref/game NHL games, and now two WCHA women's games (UMD-SCSU) I am convinced this idea was thought up by someone not necessarily connected to any kind of hockey.
It is bad enough when one ref is inconsistent, but when two are, all hell can break loose.
Plus, it doubled the work of UMD coach Shannon Miller!!:eek:
BTW, the lines work of Elam and Langley in this series was outstanding. The reffing sucked, and I am usually one of the few that thinks WCHA refs--both for men's and women's teams, is very good.
The other thing, SCSU has an olympic-sized sheet. Even so, several times the refs were in the way of players from both teams. And, of course, during discussions on penalties, etc., the delay was twice as long.
THE Icemom
10-07-2007, 09:24 AM
The explanation that the ref gave DC78-82 for the two ref system makes perfect sense to me. Girls have gotten faster and checking does change the pace of a game.
DC78-82: Thanks for sharing that information !!
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.