As I must admit, I sometimes butcher opposing team names as I cannot
always tell how they are spelled from our announcing staff. The mistakes
are mine and I alone am responsible.
 
My apologies to the Wisconsin players (Williams, Tok, and I think, Rafalsky)
who suffered at the fingers in my ears. Otherwise, I hope my game reports
were more or less accurate.
 
I have received a number of supportive comments on WCHA ref's in addition to
those made public on Hockey-L. One commentator asked that I publish why I am
upset with the ref's on a play by play basis. I am unable to do this
as I do not note each or any faux pas of a particular ref. Ref's are
human despite my comments otherwise. Thus they are entitled to blow a
call now and then. While there may be instantaneous reaction to this, it is
soon forgotten. However, certain ref's tend to set a pattern over time
which is more distinctive than an occassional blown call.
 
In the WCHA this year and over the past several years, a number of officials
seem to feel that their views of hockey are more important than the game
between the opponents. Some see any contact as cause to whistle down the
play. Some can't tell which side of the blue line is which and whistle
offsides more or less randomly.  Others, sometimes members of the previous
sets, can't seem to tell if icing occurred or did not occur. Holding was
supposedly one of the special points this year: most refs made their own
inconsistant interpretations. I clearly do not like a game of hockey
which is broken up by needless stoppages and dominated by specialty team
play. Grievous and blantant disregard for rules must be called; however
the players are now beginning to realize that diving is an important skill.
Hockey is game meant to flow and to create dynamic plays. Hitting and
checking is part of the game. The players know this; the coaches know this.
Some of the refs know this, some don't.
 
A few of the WCHA refs are excellent: I have admired the ability of Greg
Sheppard to call a game. There are not many that are better in any
league.  I feel that Christenson and Ames have improved despite the
reputed performance in Minnesota this weekend. I would much rather
Christensen and Ames than several like Yackel, Goddard, Krieger, and
Schmidt to name a few. That is not to say that Christensen and Ames are
good: not yet. But they are making progress and that is encouraging. Others,
such as Anderson and Brandt seem to be ok: they occassionally make mistakes
(probably fewer than I do trying to spell opposing player names) but they try
to make the best call of the game that they can. I don't think we can ask
more than this. However, I have named four (some in Minnesota will claim
six) ref's that are extremely inconsistant, do not seem understand the
game or the rulebook, influence the game with blown calls and do not seem
to improve their judgement over time.
 
The coaches are muzzled by the league from making statements about the refs;
there many indications that the coaches are not happy about the refs or
the muzzlement. We need to look at what can be done to improve referee
quality. Muzzling the coaches is not the answer does not help the situation.
I believe that one learns to be a referee and that training is essential.
I don't know how much training is done for college hockey officials: perhaps
someone will comment on this. My guess at this point is that not enough
has been done to train and qualify referees for this level of play, speed
and complexity. The coaches probably can help in this regard.
 
Walt Olson
MTU