Refereeing

Is anybody plain confused by the refereeing? I don't think it has changed the outcomes of any of the games, though I am sure that the losing teams this weekend would beg to differ. After almost every hit this weekend, legal or otherwise, I was looking to see what the referees’ opinion was on the matter. Hockey is tough to ref, I can’t think of a sport that has so much play that falls into a grey area of legality, still I would like a little more predictability. Against both SLU and Clarkson one time hit is boarding or a hit from behind and the next 3 times it isn’t. If I was playing defense out there I would be very worried about getting physical out there.

Anyone think the refereeing is a bit more schizophrenic than last year?

I think Chip McDonald's refereeing leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't say this would apply to all of the ECACHL refs, though (though every ref blows at least one or two calls every game, it seems).

McDonald sucked, but at least he sucked both ways. He sucked for us as much as he sucked for them. So the game is still fair.

WillR
Is anybody plain confused by the refereeing? I don't think it has changed the outcomes of any of the games, though I am sure that the losing teams this weekend would beg to differ. After almost every hit this weekend, legal or otherwise, I was looking to see what the referees’ opinion was on the matter. Hockey is tough to ref, I can’t think of a sport that has so much play that falls into a grey area of legality, still I would like a little more predictability. Against both SLU and Clarkson one time hit is boarding or a hit from behind and the next 3 times it isn’t. If I was playing defense out there I would be very worried about getting physical out there.

Anyone think the refereeing is a bit more schizophrenic than last year?

I always find football, as much as I love it, amusing. you have inaccurate spotting of the ball the whole way down the field and then have to cross the plain of the goal line or get that extra inch. seems funny to me
as for ecachl refs...they all suck some more than others

McDonald had this really annoying habit. Any time opposing players would start going at it, he'd call them both. Early on, one of the Abbotts (would guess Cam, but not sure) started getting pushed a bit after the whistle (and he was pushign back as well). I thought no call would be fine, or a penalty on the Clarkson player. Offsetting calls. Same thing with the 4 roughing calls later (plus that conduct call on Gleed). And at the end, O'Byrne and another player got tossed for fighting. O'Byrne had his arms on the guy, but he was really just trying to push him away. Could have easily been only a minor penalty on O'Byrne.

Anyone know if this means O'Byrne's out for next game? I'm not sure how that rule works.

Dafatone
McDonald had this really annoying habit. Any time opposing players would start going at it, he'd call them both. Early on, one of the Abbotts (would guess Cam, but not sure) started getting pushed a bit after the whistle (and he was pushign back as well). I thought no call would be fine, or a penalty on the Clarkson player. Offsetting calls. Same thing with the 4 roughing calls later (plus that conduct call on Gleed). And at the end, O'Byrne and another player got tossed for fighting. O'Byrne had his arms on the guy, but he was really just trying to push him away. Could have easily been only a minor penalty on O'Byrne.

Anyone know if this means O'Byrne's out for next game? I'm not sure how that rule works.

The announcer referred to it as a game misconduct right when it happened, which (if correct) means he won't be out for the next game.

As far as I could hear, there were no DQs, only misconducts...
which means it counts as a 10min in this game but no future suspension

Cactus12
As far as I could hear, there were no DQs, only misconducts...
which means it counts as a 10min in this game but no future suspension

There are game misconducts too (which still may count as 10 minutes for stat purposes), but this wasn't even that. It was just a 10 minute misconduct. He woulda been back this game had there been more than 12 minutes left (got a 2 and a 10). Since there wasn't, he was sent to the locker room.

The only thing that results in a suspension is a game DQ.

Mcdonald is a horror story. The ref is supposed to be "invisible" in the game and let the attention be on the teams, he makes himself the story line every game.

Drew
Mcdonald is a horror story. The ref is supposed to be "invisible" in the game and let the attention be on the teams, he makes himself the story line every game.

While that is true, it is also the ref's responsibility to reign in the game if it is getting out of hand physically (aka prevent fights from happening). I am not sure if Mcdonald was trying to do this, and just sucking at it, or if just letting them go at it and then reacting. Of course, perhaps ECACHL refs don't subscribe to this philosophy, as I have seen more fights in Cornell games this year than I had seen in all my years of watching college hockey.

This was a good game for a more visible ref, as there was a lot of contact after the whistle, away from the play, etc.

That being said, some of the calls were quite questionable. There was an interference on us at the beginning of one of our power plays toward the beginning of the 3rd that I really was wondering about. Then again, half of interference calls confuse me. And all the opposing roughing/conduct penalties in situations where both teams were going at it, but Clarkson moreso were upsetting.

So far this year, I figure it's not a real Cornell game until Seminoff picks up a penalty, and there's an ambiguous interference call.

Dafatone
This was a good game for a more visible ref, as there was a lot of contact after the whistle, away from the play, etc.

That being said, some of the calls were quite questionable. There was an interference on us at the beginning of one of our power plays toward the beginning of the 3rd that I really was wondering about. Then again, half of interference calls confuse me. And all the opposing roughing/conduct penalties in situations where both teams were going at it, but Clarkson moreso were upsetting.

So far this year, I figure it's not a real Cornell game until Seminoff picks up a penalty, and there's an ambiguous interference call.

That interference call was somewhat reasonable. Sawada skated across the blue line and held one of their players up as Topher was bringing the puck in the zone. I agree with everyone that McDonald was pretty Inconsistent last night though. I don't know how we came out of that one scrum in front of the net with more penalties than Clarkson did.

Folks,
Having been at both games, (and played the game for over 35 years and reffed for several years) I found the calls inconsistent at times - This is due to I believe in different angles and sight lines from my place in stands - things happen and look completely different depending on angle. But I still have the feel of inconsistent calls thoughout the weekend... Gleed getting double minor and Clarkson player only getting 2 mins. -- when I clearly saw the Clarkson player punch to the face mask of the Cornell player as they were being separated - was hard to understand; only conclusion is ref missed it or saw something I missed.

This is the hardest thing for players and coaches to deal with is inconsistency - and hard to adjust to.
Best we can do is play hockey and not worry about the officiating - try to remember that it is a tough and thankless job... maybe ECACHL need to go to 2 referees or to encourage the assistant referees (linesman) to call more things off the play .

This is first weekend I have seen McDonald referee - so I'm assuning he is newer than most and being an optimist I am hoping he will learn and grow over time and with experience.
P.S. He did catch the St. Lawernce spearing in the last couple of minutes and dealt with it appropriately.

Jacob '06
That interference call was somewhat reasonable. Sawada skated across the blue line and held one of their players up as Topher was bringing the puck in the zone. I agree with everyone that McDonald was pretty Inconsistent last night though. I don't know how we came out of that one scrum in front of the net with more penalties than Clarkson did.

I was thinking whether or not they were gonna call interference prior they called it because it was pretty obvious that Sawada skated to the spot where the Clarkson guy was skating too. As it occurred, Sawada didn't really touch the guy at all, but I guess he did alter the Clarkson skater's path. I'm not sure how interference is called, but if it's anything like soccer, i'd say it was a decent call given the nature of the play

[q]Interference
SECTION 29. a. A player shall not interfere with or impede the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck, or deliberately knock a stick out of an opponent?s hand, or prevent a player who has dropped the stick, or any other piece of equipment from regaining possession of it or knock or shoot any abandoned or broken stick or illegal puck or other debris toward an opposing puck carrier in a manner that could cause the player to be distracted.
Waving of arms in front of a goalkeeper by an opponent is interference.
PENALTY - Minor.
Note: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. In interpreting this rule, a referee should make sure which of the players is the one creating the interference?often it is the action and movement of the attacking player that causes the interference since the defending players are entitled to stand their ground or shadow the attacking players. Players of the team in possession shall not be allowed to run interference for the puck carrier.
[/q]

David Harding
[q]Interference
SECTION 29. a. A player shall not interfere with or impede the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck, or deliberately knock a stick out of an opponent?s hand, or prevent a player who has dropped the stick, or any other piece of equipment from regaining possession of it .
PENALTY - Minor.
[/q]

Which is why some of us were so incensed when Clarkson was playing with our stick.

One could argue that since the Cornell player knocked the Clarkson player's stick into the stands, he could be called for interference as well, so I say it's a good no-call. But then again, I have the nice green-and-gold-goggles. There were a lot of hard hits in a physical game by both teams that probably could've been called for contact to the head, roughing, boarding, and other things, and as others have said countless times, it doesn't seem like Chip MacDonald is quite ready to be an ECAC referee.

one might also argue that there is a difference between a stick going over the glass because of a hit and taking a stick from an opposing player. its not like OB threw the Clarkson guy's stick over. that said, its in the past and doesn't really matter now.

I dont know as I would consider the clarkson players stick going into the stands as a result of the hit cornell's fault...

One could also call it a clever bit of gamesmanship that the Clarkson guy got away with. More power to him, since this didn't involve any chance of injury.

Haven't you heard? Any time a Cornell player checks a Clarkson player, it should be a 5+10 DQ now.

right in line with what you believe when the shoe is on the other foot.

KeithK
One could also call it a clever bit of gamesmanship that the Clarkson guy got away with. More power to him, since this didn't involve any chance of injury.

Now if he had then taken the stick and used it to shoot a puck into the Cornell bench, would that technically have been O'Bs fault?

Look -

O'Bryrn did not "deliberately" knock the stick out of the Clarckson goon's hand. In fact, I challenge anyone to try and check someone with the puck, and to deliberately cause the stick to fly into the stand. You can't do it at full speed unless you obviously just grab the stick and throw it - and that's not what happened.

However, when the Golden Goon picked up O'Bryn's stick and played with it, that was most obviously intentional. It's actually incredibly dirty hockey. Not "gamesmanship" and not something "you get away with" at all. I'm quite glad that Cornell taught him lesson as soon as the puck dropped, the only sad thing was the linesman were around - that Golden Goon deserved to get his face smashed in.

I have never, ever seem someone deliberately pick up and play with someone elses stick. Spearing, I've seen. Cross-Checking, I've seen. Dirty play is one thing, but only a Class A jerk deliberately plays with someone elses stick.

It's no wonder that Schaeffer went balistic.

So Clarckson man - you should just give up this lame defense and admit, your player was moronic, and he deserves to be penalized and punished should he ever try that crap again, anywhere.

Cisco
It's no wonder that Schaeffer went balistic.

S-C-H-A-F-E-R.

[q]O'Bryrn did not "deliberately"...[/q]O-'-B-Y-R-N-E.

Ok, Cisco, way to post the same thing in two threads when you really didn't need to. Was it wrong? Sure. Did O'Byrne deliberately try to knock Sullivan's stick into the stands? Of course not. So both those players got into a fight right after that event? I thought that happened several minutes before the misconducts were handed down to Sullivan and O'Byrne for their little fight (I don't know who started it but I'm sure both were willing participants).

Who was it that buried Dodge's head into the boards late in the 3rd, away from the puck, totally unnecessarily, and got away with an extremely dirty and dangerous hit? I thought it was O'Byrne, but he might have been in the locker room by that point. Anyone remember? Hockey is a physical game, hits happen that look dirty and dangerous, things happen on the ice that shouldn't. You still won the game, nobody got hurt (thankfully), so lets just all agree that Chip MacDonald sucks and get on with it.

One thing all ECAC fans can agree on!

daredevilcu
Who was it that buried Dodge's head into the boards late in the 3rd, away from the puck, totally unnecessarily, and got away with an extremely dirty and dangerous hit?

it is my experience as an official (youth hockey up through boys 18 and under) that hits often look much worse from the stands than they really are. I can't count the number of times a player has been legally hit right next to me and parents in the stands go nuts that "his head was driven into the boards." now, I did not see the hit in question, so I will not comment on it, but it is common when a larger player (i.e. O'byrne) hits a smaller player (i.e. Dodge) that it looks like a check to the head has been delivered. unless the elbow/shoulder is deliberatly driven into the head of a player, it is not a penalty. You cannot rightly penalize a player for being too tall to hit the short little kid completely cleanly

Refs didn't have a problem doing it to Nickerson... oh wait...

well, ECAC reffing is questionable at best most of the time... and it IS a penalty if you extend an elbow/arm/shoulder/knee/etc. into the midgets head.

I agree. I played hockey and the amusing thing is that hits along the boards never really hurt. They sound really loud and for that reason, fans think they must be really hurtful and sometimes cheap (if the other team hits us). As long as it is a legal check there should be no penalty call, regardless of the noise or size of the players.

Now, open ice hits are a different story...lol.

nothing hurts more than a good open ice check, the ones where you just go in the opposite direction are the worst. however, my experience as a player is, board hits don't hurt if you are within about a foot of the boards and you get crushed... from a foot on out is just plain ugly...

Cisco
Look -

O'Bryrn
Clarckson
O'Bryn's
Schaeffer
Clarckson

MORONIC

Talk about the pot calling the kettle...

You bring up a good point about the noise of the hit. It seems like once a game someone like Sawada or Glover lays a big clean hit, face to face, on a player who then falls backwards into the boards. The sound of the player falling into the boards almost always draws the refs attention who sees a player spilled on the ice, and the arm goes up. Any time I hear a big hit I find myself looking for the delayed call.

Also, it seems that hits from the side are being called boarding and checking from behind all the time. It's like they can't even finish a check anymore.

As for open ice hits, they seem awfully few and far between. I don't know if that is the refereeing as much as it is the lack of Hornby

Sawada has delivered a few really solid open-ice hits this year. Although, to be honest, in several cases he's wound up flat on his ass, too.

canuck89
I agree. I played hockey and the amusing thing is that hits along the boards never really hurt. They sound really loud and for that reason, fans think they must be really hurtful and sometimes cheap (if the other team hits us). As long as it is a legal check there should be no penalty call, regardless of the noise or size of the players.

Germain (ne TECO) Arena, home of the Everblades and the Florida College Hockey Classic, mics the boards so those hits are even louder and more impressive. Of course, the greatest hit I've seen in that tournament was a clean open-ice check by Murray that stopped a breakaway. It also left the recipient down on the ice for a long time.

a la a Scott Stevens hit...but many of his were not clean.

The Hartford Courant has a good article today about AHL/ECAC ref Kevin Redding. He'll be working the Olympics.

[www.courant.com]

jtwcornell91
Germain (ne TECO) Arena, home of the Everblades and the Florida College Hockey Classic, mics the boards so those hits are even louder and more impressive. Of course, the greatest hit I've seen in that tournament was a clean open-ice check by Murray that stopped a breakaway. It also left the recipient down on the ice for a long time.

Was that the one against OSU where the guy he hit helicoptered around a couple times before coming to rest? Best hit I've ever seen live.