Tom Blooming wrote:
> Those are eyes that are under-utilized in my opinion.

IMHO, the hockey Assistant Referees need to, foremost, be committed to watching for offsides.  *Allowing* ARs to call fouls that are obvious to them is a great thing, but I don't think one should design a refereeing system that *relies* on ARs to call fouls.  Likely both would suffer: attention to offsides would be compromised AND the ARs eyes couldn't have time to watch a foul develop to get the whole story, in the context of initiation, retaliation and diving.

An AR does have some time to kill when the puck is in the other AR's zone, and they are then, indeed, relied upon to call fouls near them, behind the play.

Charlie, your soccer example is interesting, and I like those system ideas--I'm a soccer ref, too.  You make it sound pretty happy-go-lucky, though.  I presume the AR is still pinned to the 2nd-to-last defender (hockey translation: the offside line moves while defenders run and deke) and also needs to stay close enough to the touch line.  Also, given my experience, I find it dubious that I should be relied upon to catch fouls around the ball while I also keep up with the jockeying near the 2nd-to-last defender.

...but no flags to snap into the air?  That's the worst change. :)

Kirk Eisenbeis


On 10/2/06, Charlie Shub wrote:
> Tom makes a good point. In soccer (i an qualified to officiate at
> several levels) the traditional referee and linesmen system (called
> the diagonal system) is similar to the ice hockey system.
> 
> Our state high school association has adopted a three person system
> called the "double dual" that has a center referee and two side
> referees. differences include
>        side referees have whistles insatead of flags
>        side referees can be on the field instead of pinned to the
>                touch line (sideline)
>        side referees still have primary responsibility for off side
>                and out of touch (out of bounds)
>        side referees can assess fouls and misconduct (cards) on their
>                own rather than informing the center referee that they
>                think there has been an infraction
> 
> the purists continue to bad mouth the system, but it seems to me that
> it is better because there is always an official at least as close
> to the play as in a traditional system.  For example, as center refs
> we can go deeper and get closer to the play when it is in the
> off-diagonal corner because we know the trail side ref is already in
> position to cover a transition. Thus, we don't have to be as worried
> about being caught well behind the play in a transition.
> 
> Calibration of how tightly and consistently the cgme is called really
> isn't the problem coaches think it will be.
> 
> It might be something worth an experiment (3 referees) in the future.
> > Date:      Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:42:41 -0400
> > From: Tom Blooming <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Hockey-L Digest - 29 Sep 2006 to 2 Oct 2006 (#2006-140)
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > I've never understood why 4 officials were needed.  You have two
> > linesman/assistant referees that could be given more of a mandate to
> > make calls but that doesn't ever seem to be an option on the table.
> > Those are eyes that are under-utilized in my opinion.
> >
> > -Tom
> 
> 
>  /"\    ASCII Ribbon   | charlie shub
>  \ /  Campaign Against | University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
>  X    HTML in e-mail  | [log in to unmask]           (719) 262-3492
>  / \      and news     | http://cs.uccs.edu/~cdash   (fax) 262-3369
>