"Just Letting Them Play..."

[Grinder 2]

Watching Calgary and Vancouver play, I see numerous calls ignored for both teams. Announcer gives it the old "Oh, Bill McCreary's just letting them play..." Here we go again: "Oh, brilliant defensive play, he got the stick up in his face, and it should have been a call, but it stopped a goal and the ref lets play go on..."

Was there an infraction? Call it. Enforce the rules, and you won't have to manage the game. Every year around this time, it starts going this way, and by the time we're into the playoffs, it's anyone's guess what's going to be called on any given night. Inconsistency has won and lost series' in the past, and it drives me up the freakin' wall.

To my mind, this has been the biggest challenge facing the NHL since before the lockout. Prior to the rule changes, if referees had enforced the rules consistently and equally, the games wouldn't have reached the lows that it did. Instead, you had the likes of Kerry Fraser selectively calling games based on a host of factors not found in the rule book: Chelios with a crosscheck and a slash? He's been around a long time, ergo he gets a warning. Less established player commits same infraction? Take two, kid.

Some things never change.

[Chadd 916]

The emails from Colin Campbell that came out in the wrongful termination case filed by the one referee showed that Campbell doesn't like weak calls and hounds the director of officials about it constantly, even when it isn't his son. I said at the start of the year that standards had obviously slipped a lot from the end of last year and it continues to regress.

[GoBucky 0]

IMO, the excuse of, "just letting them play" is what people use when a ref blows a call and they cant think of anything better to say.

[hampshirepuck 2]

Noticing it a lot in college hockey as well, it seems that the way a game is called is based on the ref calling the game, in other words I am finding that some refs are just tuning their backs to high sticking and boarding calls and instead calling more interference calls than anything else, I am no expert but it really doesn't seem right in my book.

[Krev 86]

The way I see it, and the way I call my games, is I will try my very best to let the players play. I am there to enforce the rules when there is an obvious infraction upon those rules, not to be a dictator. If there is an incident that occurs between two players that has no ill effect on the play, and/or no ill effect on the two players, I'll let them go. I'll be vocal, tell them to let it go and move on with the play, and usually that's the end of it. Either they will control their emotions or they won't. When they lose control, that is when you step up and take control. If you're dictating the game, you're doing it wrong.

Granted, I realize this is completely different from the NHL. They have somewhat different standards and procedures, however, the basic principle is the same: If we as referees enforced the rules to the letter, it wouldn't be hockey anymore.

[BenderHockey 127]

The way I see it, and the way I call my games, is I will try my very best to let the players play. I am there to enforce the rules when there is an obvious infraction upon those rules, not to be a dictator. If there is an incident that occurs between two players that has no ill effect on the play, and/or no ill effect on the two players, I'll let them go. I'll be vocal, tell them to let it go and move on with the play, and usually that's the end of it. Either they will control their emotions or they won't. When they lose control, that is when you step up and take control. If you're dictating the game, you're doing it wrong.

I kind of see your point about letting them play a bit, but you never know when someone feels they were wronged (slash near the hands, accidental trip away from the play etc..). If they feel that way, they look to you to make it right. Sometimes if YOU don't, THEY will. And it will ALWAYS be worse if they take care of it.

The book doesn't list seperate rules for "ticky-tack" penalties. They are infractions as well, unless you ask the resident 'super-ref'.

[wrangler 157]

It's still a lot better than it was 40 years ago, when they let them get away with murder, then blew the whistle on a weak infraction. There was no rhyme or reason.

But, both then and now, you could see guys get away with worse fouls, only to see a really weak call at a critical time, that affects the outcome of a game. However they're going to do it, they ought to be consistent, and teams need to know what to expect from period to period, and game to game.

I've seen teams come in, apparently with different expectations, and one team will foul more aggressively than the other. And if the refs don't make the calls, they've given a clear disadvantage to the team that's playing cleaner.

[hampshirepuck 2]

how do you call this? haha

http://www.sportspickle.com/video/4097/wisconsin-hockey-player-picks-fight-with-the-net

[larrivee 3]

Two examples of this, one that worked and one that didn't:

Blues at Lightning- very, very physical game. A number of borderline obstruction non calls- but the players kept the pace fast and there was no retribution- the few times there were the refs called it- both the initial infraction and the retribution (so they were watching, not just ignoring). They "let them play" but kept the game under control.

Sabres At Lightning- Lots of non-calls and lots of retribution- nothing getting called. The game spiraled rapidly out of control with a massive imbalance in calls as they only called the retributions when they decided to try and get the game back under control, ignoring the initial infractions (which were clearly penalties).

The key to "letting them play" is consistency and making sure there is a clear line for the players. I see this as the key to good officiating as a whole.

[Chadd 916]

Two examples of this, one that worked and one that didn't:

Blues at Lightning- very, very physical game. A number of borderline obstruction non calls- but the players kept the pace fast and there was no retribution- the few times there were the refs called it- both the initial infraction and the retribution (so they were watching, not just ignoring). They "let them play" but kept the game under control.

Sabres At Lightning- Lots of non-calls and lots of retribution- nothing getting called. The game spiraled rapidly out of control with a massive imbalance in calls as they only called the retributions when they decided to try and get the game back under control, ignoring the initial infractions (which were clearly penalties).

The key to "letting them play" is consistency and making sure there is a clear line for the players. I see this as the key to good officiating as a whole.

The key is the players. First example, no retribution. Second example, lots of payback. No matter what the refs do, it all comes down to the players and how they handle it.

[RadioGaGa 162]

how do you call this? haha

http://www.sportspickle.com/video/4097/wisconsin-hockey-player-picks-fight-with-the-net

When nothing else fits...Unsportsmanlike should work. I guess a delay of game would be fitting as well.

[Krev 86]

When nothing else fits...Unsportsmanlike should work. I guess a delay of game would be fitting as well.

That's what I was thinking. Delay of game first, and if I felt like adding another two on if he's being a douche, unsportsmanlike.

[zebra_steve 11]

Definitely a Minor penalty delay of game for deliberately displacing the goal.....

Krev, I like the minor for "unsportsmanlike douchliness".... That ranks right up there with two for "giving him the business"

[Krev 86]

Definitely a Minor penalty delay of game for deliberately displacing the goal.....

Krev, I like the minor for "unsportsmanlike douchliness".... That ranks right up there with two for "giving him the business"

If he's being a little brat, I'll knock him for two. Not in my game, son.

Kind of on that topic, my personal favorite was a Junior game out here last year that I was watching. Two guys dropped the gloves, took their helmets off, squared up and... never threw a punch or latched on.

The referee (who I know) got the announcer to say this: "Penalties to [insert name] and [insert name] at [insert time] of the 1st period. 5 minutes each for dancing."

Best penalty announcement ever.

[hunterphfr 12]

When nothing else fits...Unsportsmanlike should work. I guess a delay of game would be fitting as well.

Same thing happened in one of our adult games. Only difference was the guy attacked his own net after one of our guys beat him and scored on a breakaway. One ref said it was the other refs call to make. Other ref said it wasn't a penalty. I asked him how he couldn't call that an unsportsmanlike penalty. He went into this long dissertation about how it couldn't be unsportsmanlike because there was no intent or attempt to injure anyone. I just looked at him dumbfounded, shook my head, said you just don't have a clue do you and skated away. Our reffing completely and totally sucks most of the time.

[zebra_steve 11]

If he's being a little brat, I'll knock him for two. Not in my game, son.

Kind of on that topic, my personal favorite was a Junior game out here last year that I was watching. Two guys dropped the gloves, took their helmets off, squared up and... never threw a punch or latched on.

The referee (who I know) got the announcer to say this: "Penalties to [insert name] and [insert name] at [insert time] of the 1st period. 5 minutes each for dancing."

Best penalty announcement ever.

Not a penalty, but I had one announcer at a college game (after I was joking with him about it prior to the game) give me.....

"And the referee for tonight's game is Mr. Richard Cranium."! Our whole crew almost died laughing.....