NHL Needs To Make Changes To Fix Officiating
Options for Public Penalization for Referees
There are a number of options for the NHL to instill transparency to their penalization of officials. Some are more realistic than others. Officials could be brought to post-game press conferences, in the same way that players and coaches are. They could be asked by reporters to explain their on-ice choices, their missed calls, and defend themselves.
Another option could be to publicly fine officials, similar to the way that players are fined when they perform inexcusable infractions. The league could reasonably fine officials for only the major mistakes, and in particular, for instances where they let the game get out of hand physically.
Another option might be to make it legal for players and coaches alike to publicly criticize officials, within reason. It seems odd that officials can make egregious errors, yet teams aren’t allowed to talk about it.
Start from the top. Fire NHL director of officiating Stephen Walkom, as he is at least partially responsible for the way that officials call the game. Furthermore, hire someone who wants the game to be played fairly and transparently.
Over the offseason, revamp or re-write the rule book. Make the rule book clear and concise, and keep only the rules that referees actually intend on enforcing. Anything that is deemed “too soft” to call or unreasonable should simply be removed from the rule book.
Meet with all of the referees to rewire their officiating styles. No more make-up calls, no more managing games, simply make it easier for them to do their job. Afterwards, send a memo out to all of the teams informing them of said-change.
The worry that this will lead to an exorbitant number of penalties is misguided; the players will adjust. Similar stink was made when the league cracked down on stick infractions a couple of years ago, or this year when they decided to keep a tighter leash on cross checking, but the players have adjusted.
Hold officials publicly accountable. Give them some lee-way, as it’s still a challenging job, but repeat offenders simply shouldn’t be allowed to continually influence game outcomes. The most realistic way to do this would be to hold monthly performance reviews that lead to actual suspensions (or performance bonuses), and eventually firings. In addition, make the review process public, in the same way player suspensions are made public, with video evidence and all.
Simple missed calls would not be the main focus here (although if they are bad enough they might be). Rather the focus should be on missed calls that result in increased tension in the game, brawls, or other violent acts. Another focus could be on obvious examples of make-up calls or evidence of game management.
An example of official penalization could be a three-strike system. If an official makes three major mistakes in a calendar month, they are suspended for a week or two, and re-instructed on how the game should be called.
After three suspensions, the referee is simply fired. The NHL should be able to replace any fired officials with new ones, as the NHL should be the highest paid and most lucrative officiating job in hockey, especially if officials who handle tough games and situations properly are handed performance bonuses.
All of these changes, if instituted properly, should make a significant difference to how the game is officiated, played, and viewed. Officiating, as a profession, would be easier, games would be played more fairly, and fans would enjoy hockey for what it is, not leave games with a sour taste in their mouth. The game would be changed for the better, and possibly attract more fans, as the NHL pushes to become one of the top sports leagues in North America.
Add a fifth official above the ice
There is a lot going on, and it can be too much for the four on-ice officials to see everything. Let’s add another official who can have a wider view of the action — without worrying about getting in the way or getting hit. They could be in communication with the officials on the ice, and signal when they see a penalty, or something which warrants review at the next stoppage. They could also be in review with the replay room in Toronto to coordinate those reviews. Let’s avoid a fiasco like what happened to the Blue Jackets against Carolina earlier in the season.
Fix the replay process
Speaking of replay, let’s make this process better. It’s important to get a call right, but too often it ruins the flow of the game. Think of those times where an arena starts celebrating a goal, only to put the party on hold for a few minutes while Toronto figures out whether the goal everyone just saw should actually count.
Put a time limit on every review. If you can’t figure it out in 30-60 seconds (once you have the right angle on the play), then it’s not conclusive and the call on the ice stands.
To help expedite that, make the reviews no slower than half speed. We’re getting way too picky if we’re going frame by frame to see if a skate was one pixel offside. The point of replay should be to catch something that the officials missed, not something that would have been impossible for them to see in real time with the naked eye.
Have a statute of limitations for offsides. If the goal is scored more than 10 seconds after a player was offside, then the defense had plenty of time to erase the advantage.
Give the off-ice official more discretion. Why wait for Toronto? Give the fifth official some monitors and let him review certain non-goal calls.
Review high-sticking. This seems to be one the refs get wrong most often, sending someone to the box when it was someone else’s stick who made contact, or there was no contact at all and the “victim” embellished.
Have more turnover in the referee corps
Fans have long considered Tim Peel to be one of the worst refs in the NHL. How could he hold on to his job so long? As they mentioned on the Puck Soup podcast this week, Peel never got a Stanley Cup Final assignment, which is reserved for the best of the best. So, those making the assignments knew he wasn’t good enough. At some point, being not good enough should be sufficient to give a chance to someone new. There is no shortage of hockey leagues around the world to serve as proving grounds. This league features the best hockey players in the world; why shouldn’t it have the very best officials from all over the world?
Furthermore, as the pool of players becomes younger, faster, and stronger, we need officials who can keep pace. It may necessary for careers to be shorter than they have been. Some could transition from on-ice to off-ice as their physical abilities fade.
Emphasize cross-checking
We’ve previously seen the league make certain rules a point of emphasis. A few years back, it was slashing which got called a lot more often. Players eventually adjusted and the goal was achieved. We need to do the same with cross-checking, which is another very dangerous play. Too often players get away with it during scrums in the crease, or collisions along the boards.
It’s a physical game and some injuries are inevitable even from clean hits. But we need to protect the players from avoidable, illegal actions. Give leeway for body-to-body hits, but crack down on contact made with the stick, or ANY contact to the head.
Reform DoPS
Finally, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to put a former goon in charge of punishing the goons of today. The biggest issue is there’s no consistency in the punishments that are handed out. There needs to be a written guideline for which kinds of hits result in what length of suspension. There needs to be harsher punishment for repeat offenders like Tom Wilson. They need to judge the hit on its own merits, and separate it from the result. We’re trying to avoid injuries, but sometimes injuries result from clean hits, and some bad hits don’t result in an injury. That shouldn’t let an offender off the hook.
References:
How to Fix the NHL’s Officiating Issues
December 8, 2021 by Arlen Dancziger
The NHL needs to make major changes to its officiating By Pale Dragon@PaleDragonCbus Mar 26, 2021, 10:00am EDT