My apologies to HOCKEY-L for using "fouls" in reference to hockey
penalties!  In my guilty plea, I submit this: at least I had soccer on
the mind rather than another college sport that isn't as popular here
on HOCKEY-L.  ;)

Kirk Eisenbeis



On 10/2/06, Kirk Eisenbeis wrote:
> Tom Blooming wrote:
> > Those are eyes that are under-utilized in my opinion.
>
> IMHO, the hockey Assistant Referees need to, foremost, be committed to watching for offsides.  *Allowing* ARs to call fouls that are obvious to them is a great thing, but I don't think one should design a refereeing system that *relies* on ARs to call fouls.  Likely both would suffer: attention to offsides would be compromised AND the ARs eyes couldn't have time to watch a foul develop to get the whole story, in the context of initiation, retaliation and diving.
>
> An AR does have some time to kill when the puck is in the other AR's zone, and they are then, indeed, relied upon to call fouls near them, behind the play.
>
> Charlie, your soccer example is interesting, and I like those system ideas--I'm a soccer ref, too.  You make it sound pretty happy-go-lucky, though.  I presume the AR is still pinned to the 2nd-to-last defender (hockey translation: the offside line moves while defenders run and deke) and also needs to stay close enough to the touch line.  Also, given my experience, I find it dubious that I should be relied upon to catch fouls around the ball while I also keep up with the jockeying near the 2nd-to-last defender.
>
> ...but no flags to snap into the air?  That's the worst change. :)
>
> Kirk Eisenbeis
>
>
> On 10/2/06, Charlie Shub wrote:
> > Tom makes a good point. In soccer (i an qualified to officiate at
> > several levels) the traditional referee and linesmen system (called
> > the diagonal system) is similar to the ice hockey system.
> >
> > Our state high school association has adopted a three person system
> > called the "double dual" that has a center referee and two side
> > referees. differences include
> >        side referees have whistles insatead of flags
> >        side referees can be on the field instead of pinned to the
> >                touch line (sideline)
> >        side referees still have primary responsibility for off side
> >                and out of touch (out of bounds)
> >        side referees can assess fouls and misconduct (cards) on their
> >                own rather than informing the center referee that they
> >                think there has been an infraction
> >
> > the purists continue to bad mouth the system, but it seems to me that
> > it is better because there is always an official at least as close
> > to the play as in a traditional system.  For example, as center refs
> > we can go deeper and get closer to the play when it is in the
> > off-diagonal corner because we know the trail side ref is already in
> > position to cover a transition. Thus, we don't have to be as worried
> > about being caught well behind the play in a transition.
> >
> > Calibration of how tightly and consistently the cgme is called really
> > isn't the problem coaches think it will be.
> >
> > It might be something worth an experiment (3 referees) in the future.
> > > Date:      Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:42:41 -0400
> > > From: Tom Blooming <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Re: Hockey-L Digest - 29 Sep 2006 to 2 Oct 2006 (#2006-140)
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > I've never understood why 4 officials were needed.  You have two
> > > linesman/assistant referees that could be given more of a mandate to
> > > make calls but that doesn't ever seem to be an option on the table.
> > > Those are eyes that are under-utilized in my opinion.
> > >
> > > -Tom
> >
> >
> >  /"\    ASCII Ribbon   | charlie shub
> >  \ /  Campaign Against | University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
> >  X    HTML in e-mail  | [log in to unmask]           (719) 262-3492
> >  / \      and news     | http://cs.uccs.edu/~cdash   (fax) 262-3369
> >
>