I do agree that consistency is a major issue, but it's been that way since forever, what one referee calls might not be the same as what another referee would call, most of the penalties you can give it is interpretation; what you (the offical) sees on the ice, is not the same as what another referee sees on the ice. Also, even though there are 2 referees they cannot see everything on the ice. The game from up top can be easily followed, but on the ice surface, its another game entirely, players block your line of sight, you have multiple things happening at once, and only 2 sets of eyes looking for penalties, you need to pay attention to the benches for too many men, invalid line changes, cheap shots given near the benches, boards, infront of the net, most importantly, you need to watch out for the puck, get out of it's way.

I'm not gonna defend every referee, because there are a few in the NHL that I personally don't like. But what my point is, is that the problem with referees is that they are human, they make mistakes, they have bad nights, they don't see everything, and they have emotions.

Habtastic wrote:

---

This is kind of on topic... what exactly is a Boarding call?  Is it a hit from behind when on the boards or when someone is 3 feet away from the boards and gets hit into them?  I've never fully understood that penalty.  Thanks. Habtastic

---

From the NHL Rulebook:

1. A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.
   

   (NOTE) Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging".

   
   
2. When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
   
3. Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts for Boarding under Rule 44 (b), in either Regular Season or Playoffs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his Team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
   
4. When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

Wow, that really clears it up.

I think that intent to injure or being reckless (albeit perceived) has something to do with it.  But, again, this definition leaves the call to the refs judgement.

Jay1982 wrote:

---

I do agree that consistency is a major issue, but it's been that way since forever, what one referee calls might not be the same as what another referee would call, most of the penalties you can give it is interpretation; what you (the offical) sees on the ice, is not the same as what another referee sees on the ice. Also, even though there are 2 referees they cannot see everything on the ice. The game from up top can be easily followed, but on the ice surface, its another game entirely, players block your line of sight, you have multiple things happening at once, and only 2 sets of eyes looking for penalties, you need to pay attention to the benches for too many men, invalid line changes, cheap shots given near the benches, boards, infront of the net, most importantly, you need to watch out for the puck, get out of it's way. I'm not gonna defend every referee, because there are a few in the NHL that I personally don't like. But what my point is, is that the problem with referees is that they are human, they make mistakes, they have bad nights, they don't see everything, and they have emotions.

---

Jay- My point is not to poop on officials. They cannot see evrything. Personally I am a fan of going back to the one referee system. I watch alot of Major Junior and I do not really see the game suffer because there i sonly one ref. The ice is crowded enough with the size of the players now without putting an extra official out there. I see now that the officials tend to be in the way of the puck (and players) more and I believe it is because there is just no room.

I believe that the issue lies with the league and supervisors of officials as far as consistency goes. Guys like Tim Peel (who by the way I like and know as a person) need to be told that you do not need to call it every time a player falls down because an opponent farted.  The supervisor needs to do a better job of making sure that the rules are all interpreted the same way so the players know what is ok and what is NOT ok.  Yes calls will be missed. We all make mistakes. That is the human element in the game. Personally I feel that officials overall do a great and thankless job. Having said that, it is IMPERATIVE that the league make sure that all refs interpret the new rules the same way. We cannot keep going from calling everything in site one night then letting everything go the next.

Jay1982 wrote:

---

I agree 100%.  Personally what I'm really hoping for is that they call the game the way they were calling it at the begining of the season, I was loving the calls to be honest, and now I see a few officals being lax with calls.

---

Exactly. I think all the players want is to know where they stand from rink to rink and game to game. There seems to be 2 schools of officials now. The Tim Peel's who call everything, and the Devorski's who are more lax. Personally I would like to see them settle somewhere in between.

When did Patrick Swayze become the ref model?



Also, that description sounds awfully like something the priests used to tell me off about in school

-- Edited by brooklynhabfan at 18:59, 2005-12-17