Refereeing

[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?

[Will]

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).

[Oat]

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.

[jy3]

[quote 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?[/quote]

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

[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.

[Lauren '06]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[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

[DeltaOne81]

[quote 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[/quote]

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.

[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.

[ajec1]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[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.

[Jacob '06]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[profudge]

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.

[aznxjz]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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

[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 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]