Puck Out of Sight

In case you missed it, The NHL referees have had a couple of questionable calls this week. The specific issue is the "intent to blow the whistle" ruling. We referees have a hard job and even the NHL guys can make mistakes.

Below you'll see two examples, links to the video, and then information on what USA hockey says about these situations. Take a look at the videos and info.

Example 1, Red Wings (Click for link to video):

Example 2, Leafs/Hurricanes (Click for link to video):

The NHL has admitted that the Red Wings play should have been a goal. It is pretty clear the puck is in the goal well before the whistle has blown. But as a referee we don't have the benefit of instant replay, so what do we do?

USA Hockey says:

Rule 630 Puck Out of Sight and Illegal Puck:

(a) Should a scramble take place, or a player accidentally falls on the puck, and the puck is out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be “faced-off” at the point where the play was stopped, unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

Situation 2 (From the Case Book):

The puck is outside the crease and the goalkeeper, who is lying on the ice after making a save, reaches out and partially covers the puck with his glove. What happens if the Referee is satisfied that the goalkeeper has enough control to cause a stoppage, but before he can get his whistle to his mouth the puck is shot into the goal? Goal or no goal?

No goal. Rule Reference 630(a).

As soon as the Referee decides that play should be stopped, that is when play is stopped. Whether or not the puck enters the goal in the split second it takes between the time he has reached that decision and the time it takes to bring the whistle to his mouth and blow it is not a factor.

Summary:

I feel the key point in the USA Rule Book & Case Book is the "split second" wording. In the Red Wings example, the puck is clearly in the net for a few seconds before the whistle is blown. If I were the referee here, I would have skated as fast as I could to be in proper position at the goal line, blown the whistle, then as fast as I could look in the net to see if the puck is there. If the puck is in the net I rule it a goal. If the puck is not in the net, then no goal. I would decide what to call only when I see where the puck is located. I'm betting the NHL ref doubted himself when he saw the puck in the net, and probably thought "uh oh!" (I've done this myself - IT HAPPENS and it doesn't feel good.)

We can use the "out of sight rule" only for the split second it takes between knowing we will blow our whistle and actually blowing it. Two or three seconds delay is too long to wait if we want to use this rule in justifying our decision.

In the Leafs example, you will see the referee has his whistle in his mouth before the puck enters the goal. We can't see when he loses sight of the puck, but because his whistle is at his mouth I think he could say he was intending to blow the whistle. He is in the tough spot of having to look for the puck in front of the goal as well as in the goal at the same time (which just isn't possible).

Also, talk to your partner. Maybe he saw something that will help. Maybe he saw the puck go into the net exactly as it happened. If so, he could tell you and the two of you can make a team decision. Make the decision as quick as possible. The longer we take discussing things, the less we seem like we know what we're doing.

Make the decision and explain the decision to the coaches if they seem confused. They may not like the decision, but if we can follow the USA Hockey rules and guidelines, while being in proper position, then we are doing the best we can do.

Take care and see you on the ice!

Stanley Cup Wrap Up

As a referee it's really nice when we can let the players play. The Stanley Cup Final was a hard fought battle where the players skills shined.

“The players this year were unbelievable to work with, and the hockey was very fast and skilled, so we didn’t have to get involved a lot,” said Referee Bill McCreary.

You can view the full article here that quotes McCreary several times and offers great insight into his take on officiating and the Stanley Cup Final.

Stanley Cup Final - Game 7

The Stanley Cup wraps up tonight at 8pm EST. It's been a great back and forth series so it's hard to predict who may come out on top tonight. The home teams have dominated, so I give the edge to the Detroit Red Wings.

And representing Team #3 on the ice, The Officials For Game 7:

The referees are Paul Devorski (#10) and Bill McCreary (#7).
The linesmen are Jean Morin (#97) and Pierre Racicot (#65).

For the Love of the Game

Enthusiasm
As a referee I notice my enthusiasm and interest for the profession can wane. Some games can suck away enthusiasm while others remind me of how much fun officiating can be. I particularly enjoyed my games this past weekend, so I thought it would be beneficial to point out some of the characteristics that made them enjoyable for me:

Officiating Partners
Referees perform as a team and each member has strengths and deficiencies. We had good chemistry and helped each other out when needed. Where I might have missed something, they were there to call it-and vice versa. Overall I feel we were fair with our calls and performed at a high level.

I am pleasantly surprised because I had never worked with a few of the officials before.

Coaches
Coaches that focus on coaching, motivating, and teaching their players are games I like to work. The efforts of the coaches translate into better skilled and behaved players, which in turn translates into better hockey games for everyone involved. The flip side being those coaches that focus more on the actions of the officials. This wasted focus seems like it could be better spent on their players and trying to adapt the team's play to fit how the officials are calling the game. The coaches I dealt with recently raised intelligent questions and wanted to have an open dialog with us officials when appropriate. Their approach was more effective than complaining and yelling with the goal only to complain and yell.

Players
Like coaches, players that focus on their own actions and behavior are a joy to work with. Even in one very lopsided game, both team's players played with integrity and respect for each other. The winning team celebrated (not excessively) their performance and goals while maintaining good sportsmanship. The losing team never gave up; instead they worked hard, skated hard, and played better as a team as the game progressed.

Keeping the Enthusiasm High
With the hockey season over half way through, I will strive to keep my enthusiasm at a high level in order to finish the season strongly.

Do Referees Control or Lose Control of Games?

Referees of all sports take much verbal abuse from fans. No matter what the officials do, someone will be upset. It's often joked by officials that "we didn't do our job well if someone is not happy."

Players, coaches, and fans often throw out the "you better get control of this game before it gets ugly" -even right after a penalty is called. As if the official was the one that just hit the player in the head with the stick. Of course the officials can REACT to a situation and assess a penalty which may help calm the situation-but that is not guaranteed. The players themselves have the biggest impact on what occurs; coaches would be next up; then lastly would be the referees and fans. Yep, the fans too. I've worked many high school aged games where a crowd that loudly cheers for big hits will directly contribute to players forgetting about playing hockey and instead focus on delivering the next big hit to hear the crowd roar once again.

Below you'll find a good question and answer posting that deals with this topic. This article can also be found on the USA Hockey's "Ask The Official" site. Matt Leaf holds the title of Director of the Officiating Education Program for USA Hockey.

QUESTION:
What is up with the Officials in High School Hockey? I just came home from a game and the officiating was terrible. Several players were hurt, a coach and player were thrown out. The game was totally out of control. You know with the talk of "no tolerance" from the fans, the officials need to start doing their job so that everyone stays in control. What is it going to take to get the high school level of officials to start doing what they get paid to do? I am writing to you because I really am not sure who to address this issue to. This is not the first game that has been like this. I am just tired of sitting in the stands and watching this outrageous behavior go on game after game. These players are teenagers, they get frustrated when there is continuous illegal hitting, slashing, hooking, etc. and nothing is called. The officials need to step up and do what they have been taught to do. Is there no recourse for these officials? I believe this group of officials' need to start working on how to improve the calls and control at the games.
-- Lori Sheive and similar concept from many others

MATT'S RESPONSE:
First off, with all due respect, a player and a coach received severe enough penalties to be thrown out of the game (and ultimately suspended) and the officials lost control of the game? If throwing them out doesn't get their attention, what exactly can an official do to encourage the players and coaches to be accountable for their actions and control themselves?

As you can imagine, this is a no-win situation for administrators. I will be the first to admit that we have some officials who do not call enough penalties. However, I am also going to say that it is not the officials' job to control the game. The official's role is to enforce the rules to the best of their ability. Ultimately, it is the players who have to be responsible for their own actions and the coaches have to be responsible for the actions of their team. Just because an official does not call a penalty, under no circumstances does a player have the right to hit an opponent over the head with a stick. You mention that teenagers get frustrated when continuous illegal hits, slashing and hooking take place. My question is why is it occurring in the first place? Who is coaching these tactics? Why would a coach let his team do that in the first place? Why would a parent let his/her kid slash someone consistently without addressing it with him/her? I've seen games where the officials called 35 penalties and the game was still out of control. Is that the fault of the officials? There is much more to the game of hockey being played fairly than the officials calling penalties. Maybe the officials you refer to are not doing a good job. But from what you describe, the root of the problem is not the officials, it is something that is happening long before game time that encourages players to play in a reckless, careless and unsportsmanlike manner.

With that being said, USA Hockey and the Officiating Program has every intention of holding officials accountable for their actions. That is why we have an education program that is recognized throughout the world as a leader in officiating education. That is why we also have an avenue to file complaints against officials that has been outlined in a previous edition of "Ask the Official". If officials do not want to enforce the rules, then we do not want them assigned to games. Basically, you need to submit the complaint, in writing, to the Local Supervisor of Officials in your area. They are then in a position to conduct an investigation and take the appropriate action. However, I must caution you that it is difficult to investigate the judgment of an official from a game that has already occurred. It is also difficult to distinguish between those complaints that are legitimate versus those that are biased and unfounded. Just think, have you ever been at a game where you thought the officials did a pretty good job and, yet, the spectators from the other team are complaining? Have you ever seen a spectator scream at a referee when he/she has called a penalty? So, who is right?

The bottom line in what you should expect from the officials is that they are professional, they enforce the rules, they work hard and do the absolute best they can every time they step on the ice. I still believe the vast majority of the officials do that, but we seldom ever hear about them. They are not going to be perfect and will make some mistakes. But they are also probably the only people in the rink who have an unbiased perception of what is actually going on.

Obscene and Profane Language

Hockey, being a competitive game with competitive players, can bring out some not so pleasant moments in the participants at times. Shocking, I know (sarcasm)! Let's take a look at what various rules are in place to deal with players that let the F-bombs fly. This will be specific to player-to-player pleasantries. The below table will reference three common organizations to show how organizations can differ.

Organization	Rule:	Penalty:
USA HOCKEY:	Rule 601: (c)(1) In the vicinity of the players’ bench, using obscene, profane or abusive language to any person or using the name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks.	MINOR
	(d)(1) Using obscene, profane or abusive language to any person on the ice or anywhere in the rink before, during or after the game.	MISCONDUCT
NCAA:	Rule 6 Section 1g: A player shall not use obscene, profane, threatening or abusive language or gestures or other unsportsmanlike conduct before or during a game or after a game.	MINOR. If this action persists, a GAME MISCONDUCT shall be assessed.
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS)	Rule 6-1-9: No player shall use obscene language, directed at officials or others during the warm-up, during the progress of the game, or during intermission.	MINOR and MISCONDUCT. If continued or excessive, GAME MISCONDUCT. If further continued or if after the game, GAME DISQUALIFICATION

So you can see that each organization differs on what penalty/penalties to assess.  If the player is on the bench, USA hockey says it's a 2 min bench minor. If the player is on the ice, it's a 10 min misconduct (no 2 min minor penalty). NCAA says it's a 2 min regardless of the player being on the bench or on the ice. Lastly NFHS says it's a 2 min plus 10 min misconduct.

You gotta love the differences that exist for an official to know depending upon the rules in place for the game being played. 

When an Official Does Not See a Penalty

In last nights NHL game between the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators, Jarkko Ruutu appears to bite the finger of the Sabres Andrew Peters. Take a look at the video before we discuss what penalties-if any-to assess.

I said what penalty, IF ANY, because there are instances where the official(s) will not see the infraction. In this NHL game the Referees did not see the actual biting occur and consequently did not assess a penalty. Once Peters started flailing his hand around and yelling, I bet each of the two Referees were thinking “did I just miss a very severe penalty?!?”

Hockey is a fast paced game and the officials have to keep track of up to 12 players on the ice at a time. It's to be expected that the referees will not see everything. It has been my experience that excellent positioning gives an official the best opportunity to see a penalty; but during a gathering of players a lot can occur simultaneously. This video brought up a several questions in my mind:

• How clearly do you as an official need see an infraction to assess a penalty? For a minor penalty one may be able to assess the penalty without getting a great look at it, however for a severe penalty (biting) the official (or linesman) should see it to assess it.
• Can you assess a penalty based on the victims reaction alone? The reaction of a victimized player can be a good indicator of a past action, but this reaction should not be the sole determining factor in what penalty to assess.
• Can you check the player's hand for a cut, then assess a penalty based on the findings? This happens often for high stick penalties; why not in this case? If the officials did not see the infraction, then the cut hand could have come from a separate incident.
• What if the victimized player is indulging and merely trying to trick the official into assessing a penalty?

Calls get missed but let's hope it's not frequent or more severe than this NHL example.

Supplementary Action:
Even though the NHL officials assess no penalty during the game, I'm betting Gary Bettman will be taking a look at the video and determine if Ruutu will be suspended.

USA Hockey allows for supplementary disciplinary action to be assess by the appropriate governing bodies. When a Match penalty is assessed, a formal meeting and review will take place to determine the exact severity of the suspension to be served.

USA Hockey Rule references:

From the Rulebook:
Rule 603 Attempt to Injure/Deliberate Injury of Opponents (Head Butting)
(a) A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately injures or attempts to injure an opponent and the circumstances shall be reported to the proper authorities for further action. A substitute for the penalized

Pg 212: Situation 2:
If a player “bites” an opponent during an altercation, should this be considered an attempt to injure and a match penalty assessed?
Answer: Yes. Rule References 603(a).
A match penalty must be assessed whether or not there is
actual injury.

Pg. 243: Situation 12:
The Linesman is trying to stop a fight between two players, but before he can break it up, one player bites the other on the finger causing profuse bleeding. Should the Referee assess the offender a match penalty for deliberate injury and, if so, should be assessed a fighting penalty as well?
Answer: Yes. Rule References 613(e) and 603(a).
The Referee should assess a match penalty as well as the fighting penalty. As a general rule, assess the most serious penalty which occurs during any single altercation and do not penalize the lesser offenses. In this situation,

What if a player bites an official?:
Pg 209, Situation 14
If a player bites a Linesman who is attempting to break up an altercation, should the player be assessed a match penalty?
Yes. Rule Reference 601(g.1).
The penalty is the same regardless of whether or not injury results. It is assumed, however, that the length of suspension assessed to the player by the Proper Authorities

Helpful Links:

USA Hockey Rule Book

USA Hockey Casebook