I won't repost all of what Dave Aiello wrote, but I would like to respond to
various points that he raised.
 
Before I do that, I would like to formally apologize to those on the list who
read my post of earlier today regarding Saturday night's game in East Lansing
between Michigan and Michigan State, specifically the statements that I made
in reference to the officiating of CCHA referee Matt Shegos.  While I will
still stand by what I believe to be incorrect calls by Mr. Shegos that may have
changed the outcome of the game, some of my comments were out-of-line and
should not have been aired.
 
Now to Dave's post:
> I salute those fair-minded people who have suggested that it is difficult to
> put yourself in the skates of an on-ice official, when you yourself are
> firmly planted in a seat in the stands.  Over time, I have come to the
> conculsion that I should bite my tongue rather than criticize an official.
> But, maybe that's because I have been on the receiving end of so much of
> criticism myself.
 
I will be one of the first to admit that being an official is a tough job, and
that 99.9% of fans couldn't do it if they tried.  But just because the job is
tough doesn't mean that referees, linesmen, etc. should be exempt from
criticism, as long as that criticism is justified and based in fact.  There are
many difficult jobs in our society, and none of them is immune to criticism
if that job is done incorrectly.
 
>> We do not need any more 10, 11, and 12-year old children playing our sport
> that cannot control their temper when the game is not playing out as they had
> hoped.   We do not need any more 15, 16, and 17-year old children that shoot
> the puck at, or otherwise attack, game officials.  Yet, there is an obvious,
> long-term trend in place that few are willing to acknowledge.
 
I don't think you can entirely lay this at the feet of people who verbally
criticize officials.  Even if our society was totally violence-free, I still
think you would have incidences of 10, 11, and 12 year-olds who lose their
temper when their team is losing.  It is the nature of sport.  15, 16, and
17 year-olds who attack or shoot pucks at officials is a different story.
 
That doesn't mean I don't believe that those who criticize on-ice officials
doesn't add to the problem somewhat.  But there are ways to criticize and
there are ways not to criticize.  Do you actually expect people to say NOTHING
in the stands if an official messes up a call?  By this, I don't mean the
margin calls that could go either way, but an obviously blown call?
 
Hopefully, it is the duty of referees to penalize, coaches to bench, and
parents to forbid 10, 11, and 12 year-olds from playing who can't control their
temper.  More at that end would hopefully lead to less 15, 16, and 17 year-
olds attacking officials (or IHL coaches attacking mascots).
 
> I wonder what your children think when they hear you yell from the stands
> about the terrible quality of the last call.  Or, do you not take them with
> you to games?  Or, are you complete gentlemen and ladies in the stands,
> saving your flames for your friends in the on-line community?
 
I personally do not have children, but a lot of this is going to depend on
what you yell.  If you yell at the ref, "That's a bad call, the puck cleared
the zone, it should have been offsides," is that setting that bad of an example
for kids?  (I realize that's not what everybody yells, but some would consider
yelling not to be completely ladylike or gentlemanly like.)  Now, if you were
to yell, "You f**kin' idiot!  How the hell could you miss that?  You'd better
have a bodyguard on the way home!", that's another story.
 
For information's sake, no, I don't act as a perfect gentleman when I'm at a
game.  I yell at the refs, I yell at the players.  999 times out of 1000 I will
refrain from swearing or yelling out personal insults.  I don't consider all
calls that go against the team I'm rooting for to be "bad calls."  And actually
the post I sent out today was the first time I've "flamed" someone in a public
forum for a long time.
 
> There is only one fair way to address this issue.  Netiquette should dictate
> that the same respect be shown for officials as we require when discussing
> our opponents.  Just as I cannot flame against Clarkson, St. Lawrence, BGSU,
> or Lake Superior, I should not be able to flame about Harry Ammian or Bill
> Jones.
 
Agreed.  But there is some criticism (some justified, some not) of players,
coaches, and announcers that appears here.  Justified criticism of officials
has a place.  As I stated above, I believe my criticism of Saturday's events
was justified.  It's just my method that wasn't.
 
And criticism has a role.  I don't think it would serve the leagues well if
they never heard ANY criticism of officials, since it wouldn't let them know
whether those officials are doing that good of a job or not.  Nobody is so
much an expert in their field that they shouldn't weigh, with at least the
minimum of validity, justified criticism from someone who may be a novice.
 
As an on-ice official, would you prefer that those who share your profession
who do not perform adequately continue to not perform adequately?  If someone
continues to do a poor job, wouldn't it be better to replace that official with
someone who would do a better job, in the name of the profession?
 
G. M. Finniss
Michigan State University 12-4-3, 17-7-3
WVU '87, UTenn '92, MSU who the hell knows when?