|
Ask The Ref.
2010-2011 Season
Page Last Modified:
What is "Ask
the Ref"? It’s an area for players to ask questions,
voice concerns or share an opinion. It’s (hopefully) going to be
an informative and entertaining area where players and coaches can
get a better insight into a referee’s point of view. And as a
special bonus, if you coach youth hockey, it may even help you
avoid problems in those games.
My rules for questions: I won’t force any on
you, but I think in an effort to be reasonable you should include
your name and refrain from profanity and insults towards other
players or the refs. If you need to share a nasty opinion, or use
insults or profanity towards someone, then I think you should
include your name, address, phone number and where you park your
car. Basically try to use non-specific titles; "in a game the
other day the ref…", or "the other day a
player…"
Q:
If a player, lets say #4 makes an outlet
pass for a 2 on 1 and #4's pass goes to #8 and then #8 passes it
to #10 and then #10 passes it back to #8 who scores a goal on his
shot what should the scoring play read like?
Your unruly troublemaking pain
in the ass,
George J. Bell (Geob14@aol.com)
A:
The The order for
awarding goals goes: Scorer, person who passed it to the
scorer, and the person who passed it to the person who passed it
to the scorer. That gives you your goal and two assists.
If the scorer gets the puck from the opposing team, it would be an
unassisted goal. Also, you can't receive two points on a
goal, so if the scorer passed it to # 5, who passed it back to the
scorer who "He shoots, he scores!!!!", the scorer gets
credit for the goal and #5 would get an assist. The scorer
can't score and get an assist on the same play. Also, if #5
passes it to a teammate who then skates the length of the ice and
through whole other team, and so on, it would probably be an
unassisted goal. So in your example it would be: Goal
scored by # 8, assisted by # 10.
Q:
Building on the situation introduced by Mr.
"FLASH" Maher in the second question- If the puck does
in fact, split in 2, and 1/2 goes into the net and the other 1/2
goes in front of the net, and another player puts that 1/2 into
the net before the ref blows the whistle, WHO GETS CREDIT FOR THE
GOAL??
Steve G
A:
The play is dead the
instant the puck breaks, whistle or not. Therefore no goal
may be scored.
Q:
IF THERE IS AN INCIDENT
WHERE A TEAM WANTS INFO FROM THE REFS AND A CAPTAIN OR AN
A-CAPTAIN ASKS FOR AN EXPLANATION WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU REFS
TO JUST EXPLAIN WHY AN INCIDENT HAPPENED INSTEAD OF THE REFS
SAYING SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE An OBLIGATION TO
THE CAPTAINS TO EXPLAIN YOU REASONS FOR A PENALTY OR WHY A GOAL
WAS CALLED BACK INSTEAD OF BASICALLY SAYING TALK THE HAND AS
YOU SKATE AWAY REMEMBER WE PAY YOU TO REF OUR GAMES SO THAT WE CAN
UNDERSTAND YOUR STYLE AND WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE OR NOT DONE AND WHY
YOU CALLED IT.
THANKS
FROM YOUR FAVORITE PLAYER #### 14
A:
Dear Favorite Player,
A good question. Now if you would kindly sit down and shut
up I'll try to explain it for you:-) In the cold harsh
reality of hockey, refs only need to explain the following things:
A disputed goal, a problem with the clock, and if there was an
injury, what happened. These are the standards for all the
games we get paid for, not just yours. This is when I try to
remind people that a ref has to manage a game, not baby-sit.
If we take the time to answer every question players will start
complaining that we're wasting time. I'm a little curious
what type of question one could ask about a penalty. If a
ref calls a trip, he saw a trip. If he calls a hook, he was
a hook. It's pretty simple. Now I think you mean
asking a ref how he called a penalty; really a rhetorical
question. Players need to remember that refs are trying to
get everyone the most game time possible, and judgment calls
questioned during the game serve no good purpose. If you
really are at a loss for why something was called, ask after the
game. We know you pay us, not that any of us are making a
living doing this, but remember you don't pay us to take abuse.
It's a lot like cops (like I always say), you can shake your head
if you disagree, and later when things are over you can civilly
talk about things, but if you get stopped and question the hell
out of the cop, he'll probably write you for everything he can.
Reefing, like a lot of other things, is not a perfect science.
It's not the black and white in the book, it's common sense
application of the rules. And this necessitates an
understanding between players and refs. I know you truly
think your questions are harmless, but if you ask a question, then
the next guy will, too and the next guy and so on. The next
thing you know, the buzzer goes. So, if you can, save it for
after the game. I'm sure most guys would talk to you then.
And one more thought; you can lose your "bitch
privileged" by abusing it. Listen to your benches and
players, and other teams benches and players, and if it's constant
nag, nag, nag... nobody in their right mind will want to talk to
you. And lastly, if you're the type of player that's always
getting penalties, you need to change your ways, not the ref's.
As always when this type of question comes up, it's very difficult
to answer in this type of media, so next time you see me at the
rink if you'd like further information...
TALK TO
THE HAND;-)
No, seriously, ask me.
Bill
Q:
Bill,
does not seem you get a lot of questions here. How about
this: Player takes a slap shot, hits the goal post, and the puck
splits in half. Half the puck enters the net and other half
bounces out front. I assume this is not a goal, because
entire puck does not cross the goal line. But, what if, the
half that bounces out as a rebound is shot into the net before the
whistle blows? Goal or no goal?
Terry
Mahar (over 40) tmahar@ha-i.com
A:
Terry,
I don't know. I'm forwarding the question on to USA Hockey
for their interpretation. My guess would be no goal.
Here's why: At any time if the puck were to split in half,
play would have to be stopped. One important point most
players don't realize is that play is stopped/dead/over when the
ref decides it is over, NOT when he blows the whistle. So,
if the goalie covers the puck and the ref goes to blow his
whistle, he's deemed the play stopped. If the puck comes
loose and goes in, it's not a goal. I know you've seen cases
of this; the ref looses sight of the puck and blows the whistle,
the play is over when the ref decides to blow his whistle.
Whatever happens in the second or two or three that it takes to
blow the whistle, from when he decided to doesn't count, except
for a penalty.
Q:
Dear Mr. Ref,
Last season I was "run", or as a forward would say
accidentally on purpose mowed over at least 5 times, once causing
a serious injury to my neck, but never once was a penalty called.
Another time a forward eh hem, fell into me and was not pushed by
my defenseman ( I have it on tape) while the puck was being shot.
The net was off it's pegs when the puck went in, the ref counted
the goal and gave no penalty. I want to know what if anything
constitutes roughing the goalie or interference?
A:
Come on, how in the world can
you hurt a goalie with all that stuff on? I'm having a hard time
believing this isn't just a case of "forward envy".
I mean you have to stand in the goal all that time, and everybody
expects you to stop everything that comes near you. That's
your job. You have no choice but to stop the puck; EVERY
time. But forwards, they only have to try to score to look
good. I mean look at Sergei, he doesn't score every time he
gets the puck and he still gets Anna K. But, Chris Osgood,
Patrick Wah, Eddie Belfour, who are they with? See my point?
Anyway,
you are correct. Unnecessary contact with the goalie is a
no-no. See rules 606b and 621c. But please note the
comments after 606b. As I've mentioned before, not
everything gets called, we all know that. I will make a note
of mentioning it to the refs, and if it happens again just ask the
ref (which I'm sure you did) to watch. For the goal; if the
net comes off the pegs, but remains on the plane it was originally
set on, close to the center of the crease,I would consider that a
good goal. Much like when the net gets bumped and you reset
it during play. Have a good season, and I hope this helps.
Q:
Dear Mr. Ref,
Do you think that it is in the game's best interest for officials
to purposely goad and bait players into verbal exchanges that
often lead to hostilities between the two? This seems to
happen quite frequently with several of the officials who choose
to "chime in" on a conversation between teammates.
Can we do anything about this?
Large-mouthed-bass
A:
Dear Large-mouthed-bass,
And any other species that might find this interesting:
I agree
100% that goading and baiting should be frowned upon, and I have
stated this many times to both the refs and players. Player
to player, as you may know, is an Unsportsmanlike penalty.
Player to ref is a Misconduct or Game Misconduct. Ref to
player should never happen.
Goading
and/or baiting can be loosely described as: a negative or
demeaning comment offered specifically to elicit a response.
If the response is answered with a penalty, this is clearly wrong
and should not be tolerated. If this occurs, please let me
know immediately!!!
Now
let's talk about practical applications. As I mentioned
above, if the player starts it the ref has two choices, a penalty
or answer it. The penalty speaks for itself. the answer can
go two ways, a light-hearted sluff off, or an equally venomous
response. Now the equally venomous response can go two ways,
it can be general, or personal. (Personal is bad and whoever
goes there first is in trouble. Personal usually includes
the word "you" or "your"). The
light-hearted sluff off can also go two ways, it can disarm the
whole thing, or make it worse. (It seems odd talking about
hockey players and going two ways, but you never know with some of
these guys). {DISCLAIMER for the Politically correct:
Sorry!}
Think
Nuclear deterrent. The Game Misconduct is the referee's
nuclear arsenal. As long as things are being said evenly and
impersonally things are fine. Little DMZ skirmishes happen
from time to time. But they are small, short lived events.
However, cross the line and the world's toast. And the ref
should never cross the line first.
Next
point: Most players and refs here (and most places) see each
other all the time, and most of them get along OK. Now
getting along with each other isn't a necessity, but it certainly
makes it more enjoyable for everyone. Personally I try to
get along with everyone, and I recommend that attitude to all
participants, players and refs. However, utopia this ain't.
So if I don't have a friendly relationship with a player, I will
usually look for an opening to say something which may open a door
to building a better (or any) line of rapport. So naturally
this includes perhaps adding a friendly comment or attempting a
humorous comment while overhearing something. If this
thought bothers you, or you don't care to get along with the other
people here, refs and opposing players, maybe the problem is
you're not allowing yourself the opportunity of enjoying the WHOLE
game, maybe you're just playing your game.
I hope
this helps shed some light on this situation. If not, please
ask me personally when we would have time to talk. Before or
after a game for example.
And
again, if anyone feels a ref is goading or baiting them, please
let me know asap, and I will need specifics.
Bill
Q:
In a five on three (or 4 on
3, or 3 on 3, or 5 on 5, or 4 on 4 (I think that covers
everything) situation if a fight breaks out and a second player
from the team with three skaters joins in, what is the appropriate
series of penalties so that justice is served?
A:
It could be a lot more interesting than one would
think. A lot depends on how the refs choose to handle the
situation. Theoretically everyone on the ice could get an all
expenses paid visit to the local penalty box. Here’s, simply,
how that would work:
Players
are required to follow the directions of the ref. I know it seems
like players only think they’re "supposed to", but
they really are required to follow his instructions. If the ref
orders the players to the bench, and they don’t go there, any
offending player (and I’m not referring to olfactorally
offensive which is a whole separate issue) could receive a
penalty; same for the goalie if he leaves his crease during an
altercation. So you could end up with a bunch of penalties.
Normally this doesn’t occur.
In the
situation mentioned in the question, both initial participants
would receive their appropriate penalties, and the additional
(third man in) player gets ejected from the balance of that game.
That is the minimum. He could receive more if the ref feels it’s
justified. No penalty time is assessed to his team.
And
speaking of offending players, if you just can’t bring yourself
to wash those lucky socks (or whatevers), get some Wintergreen
Rubbing Alcohol (at RiteAid) and some Hydrogen Peroxide and a mix
them 50-50. Put it in a spray bottle and spray away. You can use
it on anything. If you spray the inside of your skates and then
wear white socks a little green may show up on the socks because
of your foot perspiring.
Bill
Q:
Hey, Ref, why didn’t you call that!?
A:
I’m sure you meant, "Excuse me, Mr. Referee,
Sir, why didn’t you call that?" This is the biggest
question in hockey. Usually it’s because we can only look in one
direction at a time, but there can be other reasons. An
experienced ref (and actually a professional) once told me
"the rule book is a book of guidelines; every situation is
unique". Common sense (which some of have better than others)
lets us look at the whole situation, neutrally. What really
happened? What caused it?, and What was the outcome? Many times
it’s a matter of perspective (where you are). There are
basically four perspectives: The refs, the players, the benches
and the stands; and where you physically are impacts what you see.
Bill
So, send in the questions
and comments. An open line of communication creates
understanding and respect. We may not always agree, but we can
always respect each others opinions.
Bill Williams
|