>A few days back someone mentioned that there was a clear difference in
>styles of officiating, east vs. west. I asked about this (buried in a
>bunch of other stuff, so no one probably saw it) and what was meant by it
>and how it might effect, say RPI in their play against Minn if the refs
>were from the WCHA, or vice versa if the refs were from HE and ECAC.
>Might provide an interesting thread for the next 24 hours til things start
>to happen!
>Tony Buffa
>RPI '64
That was me, I haven't had time to respond. It's not as true now as it
was ten years ago, but the western officials tend not to call as tight a game
as eastern officials. This is largely a function of the fact that the western
game has been a more physical brand than the eastern. Western refs simply
could not call the game the same way without having constant 3-on-3 hockey.
This distinction is starting to disappear as some eastern teams have stepped
up the physical aspects of their game. It began with Maine and Shawn Walsh
and other teams are following now because, well, success speaks.
As to who it benefits more, it's awfully close. In an inter-regional game,
a slight advantage, IMO, goes to the team that shares the official's region.
In a game, to use your example, between Minnesota and RPI I think that Minn.
would be hurt a bit more by an HE or ECAC official than RPI would be by a
western official. On the one hand, in a game with an eastern ref Minnesota
would have to tone down their game, and would be likely to take more penalties.
Of course, with a western ref, RPI might tend to get beat up early until they
adapted to the game the official was calling. But, IMHO, it is easier to
become more physical than it is to be less physical.
As I said, the difference isn't as great as it once was, as the eastern
teams have begun to change their games. I would still rather have a
western ref for MSU, though, especially given the physicality of their game
in recent years. Of course, that won't be possible tomorrow.
--Steve Moerland
MSU '92, UK '95
|
