Wayne Smith writes from his talk with HE official Mike Tuell:
>When asked how the officiating team worked together, Tuell replied, "It
>went extremely well". Tuell spoke of the pre-game on-ice officials
>meeting that emphasized positioning and general communication.
We're going back a week or so here now :-), but I did think that the
officials worked well together that night. They were rarely out of
position and were right there to make offsides and icing calls, as
well as in several other situations like the too many men penalty I
described last week.
>Tuell also related a story about another play that might have been
>misinterpreted by some. "There was a cross-ice pass to a wing. The
>defender lined-up the wing. The wing, with the puck in the vicinity,
>chose not to play the puck. The wing was then decked with a perfect
>hip-check. Some called for an interference penalty". This reporter
>offered "It wasn't interference because the puck was in the immediate
>vicinity"? Tuell replied "Not exactly. A player must be given an
>opportunity to play the puck. The key was that the offensive player had
>the opportunity to play the puck. I wasn't going to penalize the
>defender when the offensive player *chose* not to play the puck".
I am assuming that this is an interpretation of the rule that the
referees have been asked to follow by their superiors (often such
interpretations do not appear in the rule book). I find this
interesting, because to me, it is an example of how such an
interpretation seems to run counter to the wording of the rule
although it may actually follow the *intent* of the rule.
I certainly don't have a problem with this interpretation because
otherwise, the amount of interference called could get ridiculous.
But I would also venture to say that from my recollection, not all
referees do follow the interpretation Mike explained. Some, I
believe, would have made that call.
>Much has been said on HOCKEY-L about the apparently incorrect
>non-substitution on the penalties assessed at 14:14 of the 3rd period.
>When asked, Tuell quickly responded "We blew that one. I can't defend
>what happened.
Not intending to drag this out any more than it has already been -
especially since it did not affect the outcome of the game - I will
only comment that I appreciate and respect Mike's candidness. As I
mentioned in one of my posts, mistakes happen.
>Tuell said, "Hockey East gives a lot of support to its officials. There
>is always at least one representative of the Supervisor of Officials
>evaluating us at every game. Besides pre-season training and constant
>evaluation, we have a mid-year meeting to make sure we're doing the best
>job possible".
One of the ways officials are evaluated - or at least were evaluated -
is that coaches fill out a sheet with an appraisal of the performances
of the officials after each game and return it to the league office.
I am not sure how many people were aware of that.
>"Have you noticed how Hockey East pairs the younger guys with an
>experienced ref? For example, Jeff Bunyan is paired with Frank Cole.
>What a great opportunity that is for Jeff. Frank is a great referee and
>great to learn from".
It's interesting to me that Mike said this. I have been supportive of
the two-referee system as it has been used in HE and I think it has
worked well. I can't comment on other conferences, although clearly
the coaches in the CCHA thought it did not work well. That may have
been a result of the particular officials involved or of the manner in
which it was employed. I don't know.
However, one problem I've seen with the two-referee system in HE deals
with the situation that Mike describes above. That is that often when
you have a senior and a junior referee working together, the senior
referee takes primary control of the game and the junior referee will
be reluctant to make calls. I have heard complaints from players as
well as fans that the senior referee will tend to call the game
tightly in the area he is responsible for, while the junior referee
will let things go. This confuses players who aren't sure what to
expect.
Going back to the USAFA-MC game, one of the things I liked was that
neither Tuell nor Villandry overshadowed his partner. Both were
rather consistent in their calls and in their approach to calling the
game. And they were both in the same situation of being a newcomer
to HE refereeing. To that extent, I like the idea of both referees
being about equal in status, although I also believe that a junior
referee can learn much from working with a senior partner as Mike
said.
>When asked for any final comments, Tuell replied, "In my refereeing
>clinics I always tell the people to prepare, to focus on doing your best
>job and to always act professionally because you don't know who is
>watching and who they will talk to. We've talked about your hockey
>group and the internet before, but I did not guess that you would hear
>so much about that far away game"!
This is a nice effect of HOCKEY-L, that the level of involvement means
that nearly every game is going to have someone at it who also reads
HOCKEY-L.
And it is nice to hear that Mike is aware of the discussion that takes
place here. I thank Wayne for transcribing his interview and Mike for
providing some interesting insights.
I'll make no bones of the fact that I am terribly disturbed by some of
the comments that I have seen on HOCKEY-L about college officiating.
Some of the attacks have been downright ludicrous, often ridiculously
biased and without grounds. And I know that it is even worse at the
games, where people seem to treat officials as a secondary enemy.
There was an interesting happening at the RPI Invitational in the
Maine-RPI game that I never related. While I was upstairs working the
game with Maine's Joe Carr, Heather sat just below the press box next
to a fellow who, she later learned, was evaluating the officiating for
the ECAC. He took copious notes on calls and non-calls alike.
Often during the game, some of the home fans complained about the
officiating to the extent that Heather would get into a verbal
jousting match with them - she's not afraid to speak her mind. :-)
For example, fans wanted a too many men penalty called against Maine
when the puck deflected off the skate of a player who was climbing
onto the bench. Heather blasted them, telling them it was not a
penalty because the player had to have *intentionally* played the
puck. Then she turned to her neighbor for verification, and he
grinned and said that yes, she was right. (As he no doubt learned,
she knows her hockey...this is a woman who knows the coincidentals
rule better than I do. :-))
Anyway...
The fact that I will sometimes see these comments about games I have
seen - and so I know that the comments were unfounded - leads me to
believe that when I see them in descriptions of games I didn't see,
there is a decent chance that the same is true there. It bothers me
when 75% of a person's comments on a game consists of complaints about
the officiating or even complaints about one call or non-call -
sometimes one that had a negligible effect if any upon the game. I
have only seen a handful of games out of several hundred over the last
ten years where I felt that officiating played a key role in deciding
the game. I have trouble believing that things are significantly
different in games I didn't see.
I just hope that people will consider this and try to be more
objective with regard to the officiating. Perhaps as more and more
people begin to follow HOCKEY-L, we will have the pleasure of being
joined by more officials who can provide a unique perspective similar
to that provided by coaches, players, SIDs, etc. But I also know that
if I were an official, I wouldn't want to be someplace where people
were going to be ripping me all the time. As the net becomes
available to more and more people, I hope we can make HOCKEY-L as
welcome to officials as we have made it to other people who are as
equally involved in the great game we all love and support.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
|
