Craig writes:
>
>1. The players will know when they see the ONE referee what type of
>game its
>going to be.  Each referee has his owen style. Some will allow more
>stick work,
>others will allow harder hitting and some call everything.
 
Yet isn't the larger problem that of inconsistency through the game -
sometimes calling a penalty and sometimes not for the same infraction?
And for that matter, what about the strange idea that because "the game
should be decided on the ice" that towards the end of a game the ref
becomes reluctant to call penalties.  If its a penalty in period one,
its a penalty in OT.  In any case, having one ref does not solve the
worst inconsistency problems.
>
>2. Linesman in the CCHA have the authority to call penalties behind the
>play.
>Normally these are two guys giving it to one another up the ice. The
>linesman
>can also call major penalties. .....Referees will tend to try and cover
>for the other and usually more questionable calls are made.
 
So what is so terrible about that?  And if the linemen can call
penalties, isn't that the same as a defacto 3 ref system?  Actually,
that idea has more merit than one ref, two linemen.  If there is
disagreement about a call, the 3rd ref can break the tie.
 
Hockey is a rough sport and it should stay that way.  But its also a
sport with rules, and those should be enforced, IMHO.  I say the more
refs the better.  Consistency comes from training and working together
as a team.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.