As I've said before, I'm a big fan of the one-ref system.  Probably
because I see more CCHA games than anything else.  IMO, the
two ref system was a disaster in the CCHA.  It's possible that it
just wasn't meant for the group of officials in the CCHA, because
it appears to be working well in Hockey East.
 
I have to applaud the CCHA for returning to the one-ref system
though.  I believe the vote among the schools was unanimous.
Although the remainder of Division I is using two refs, the CCHA
basically said, "Hey, our teams want one so we'll go with one."
Several cheers for that attitude/decision.
 
I'm not sure how decisions are handled in other conferences, but
I wonder if it was put to a vote by the coaches, would the two-ref
system stay in the ECAC, HEA and WCHA?
 
As for seeing the two-ref system in person recently, I've only done
so a few times...all featuring WCHA refs.  My thoughts?  Given my
CCHA background, I though the officiating was brutal.  The two
refs were inconsistent.  They called things that would never get
called in the CCHA (e.g., if you sneeze near the goaltender in the
WCHA it's a penalty), but they missed most of the obstruction calls.
Likely, the two conferences just have a different philosophy on what
constitutes a penalty.  Of course, it would benefit college hockey if
everyone would be on the same page.  (Not sure what page, but
the same page would be a step in the right direction.)
 
Also, the line calls were brutal with only one linesman.  It seems
that you have to shoot the puck in from behind your own blue line
to get an icing call in the WCHA.  Again, this was an observation
made on seeing only four games this year.
 
I put some numbers together last year for some folks in the WCHA
who were investigating the one-ref/two-refs situation.  I looked at
aggregate CCHA numbers from the last season of two refs (1993-94)
to the first season returning to one ref (1994-95).  I don't have the
numbers available (sorry), but the number of penalties per game
and the number of power play opportunities per game were almost
identical over the years.  (It should also be pointed out that Kent
State Univ left the CCHA following 1993-94 and KSU was penalized
above the CCHA average.)  So, the number of calls and number
of power plays would suggest that nothing is lost on the one-ref
system.  Of course, quantity can't speak to quality, but I personally
prefer the one-ref system, hands down.
 
What I'd really like to see is two additional boxes added to every rink.
One at one blue line and the other at the other blue line, and on the
opposite side of the arena.  Then we could put the two linesmen
in there, getting them off the ice and assuring that they'll be on the
line to call offsides.  They can also watch the icing and blatant
penalties behind the play from there.  They can even have easy
access to the ice, so they can jump out of the box to diffuse scuffles
among the players.  Of course, the one ref would have to handle
all of the faceoffs, but there is a down side to everything.  (Last
paragraph written with a big grin.)
 
 
John H (U Mich) [log in to unmask]
No, I'm not going to accuse Brian Morris of liking wimp hockey. :-)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.