Yeah, I guess we (and of course the fans in the stands as well) have
been picking on the refs a lot lately. I have never been a ref, and I
don't agree with the saying "If you [the ref] are doing a good job the
fans don't notice you" but I do agree that when the ref isn't noticed
-- neither for making controversial calls nor for missing calls, he
probably is doing a good job, and he doesn't get credit from the fans,
reporters, coaches, etc.
 
Others have addressed the consistancy issue -- I will have to defer to
those with experience, but lets face it -- we've all seen *good*
officiating (and not just the games that "are easy" to officiate). Some
refs *are* more consistant, from game to game, period to period, play
to play. It is interesting to note that after some games, both the
winning and the losing coach criticize the officiating (to the extent
they can without getting in trouble).
 
Another thing which annoys fans (or maybe it pleases them because they
get more "evidence" that the ref is incompetent?) is when the call
doesn't match what they thought the call was ("Hooking?  That has an
elbow!" "High-sticking? How about holding?!" "Roughing? they call
roughing whenever they don't know what to call!"). From my perspective
(although I enjoy seeing if my call is the same as the ref's call) it
doesn't matter -- 2 minutes is 2 minutes. Perhaps a player feels
different and wants to know what he did (meaning what he got caught
for)?
 
Recently I have also observed more delays and discussion about making
calls than seems necessary.  Several years ago the officials (all of
them collectively) never seemed to be able to figure out the penalty
clock for more than 2 players on the same team -- although it isn't
that hard (2 minutes is a fairly easy number to add and subtract) and
after doing it for a few years you would think that they'd get the hang
of it).  Now, with matching minors when already shorthanded not
counting against the number of skaters (is there are better way to
state that rule?), plus perhaps a few more years of experience, it
doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.
 
Instead, other things seem to crop up (not all the time, but often
enough): first it takes a conference of the ref and linesman to figure
out what the penalty is, then the captains object, then the ref talks
to one coach, then he talks to the other coach, then the ref and
linesman talk again... then they argue about where the faceoff should
be...
 
I also think that fans enjoy picking on the ref -- I don't know about
other sports (I don't really follow them) but hockey fans seem to know
the refs more than in other sports. Maybe this is just because hockey
is a smaller world, and the play-by-play and color people know them and
tell us about them?
 
To some extent, this seems to have replaced personal rivalries and
antagonism between coaches (at least I don't see it from my perspective
as a Wisconsin fan). It used to be that the fans would taunt certain
coaches even more than cheering for their own teams (The Bob Johnson --
Herb Brooks rivalry and the warm reception always used to give MSU's
Amo Bessone come to mind).
 
	--david