Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

Having been a player and a referee, an officiating boss and a rank-and-file member, and someone who was suspended during my playing days and now reviews plays for supplemental discipline, I sit in a unique spot when I watch games. I understand the point of view of the fox and I know where the hound is coming from, too. (No, I'm not just talking about my old friends Bill Dineen and Bob Kelly!)

It is so much easier for me now to sit and watch games, reffing from the nosebleed heights of the balcony, easily critiquing the National Hockey League, the referees and linesmen on calls that are made or let go: Kronwall's hit, Subban's slash, a cross check here, a charge there. I can blog about it and wag my literary index finger in the sternest tsk-tsk fashion.

Honestly, as a Monday morning quarterback, I have made very few mistakes. When I was down at ice level, things were exponentially tougher. I certainly made more than my fair share of errors of commission and omission, whether my sweater had a team logo or stripes and a league
crest on it.

Part of the reason why I beat the drum for more ex-players to take up officiating -- and for still-active players and coaches to give officiating a try to better understand some of the psychology and details of things lost when winning a game is the single focus -- is that we need people with both athleticism and the innate hockey sense to read plays. Likewise, too many of the rule-makers in the game never officiated it.

On the flip side, when an official has previously played the game at a reasonably high level, there is a more innate understanding of where the puck will be going and a better sense of how to embrace -- not fear -- the emotional frictions that arise in the game. It's just hockey, nothing personal.

It was never personal with me. As a referee, I freely admitted that I "suck", that I'm an a-hole, c-sucker, MFer, a "retard", and blind as a bleepin' bat. Now, what else do you have for me?

My advice to officials: Don't blink, and don't talk too much. State your position and don't waver. If the persist, give 'em a logical choice to extract themselves from the situations. In other words, it's their choice to go take a seat on the bench, the penalty box or the locker room.

If the player's response was an f-you, then they sat in the box or showered early. Easy, peasy from my point of view.

Meanwhile, I can tell you that there is nothing a player or coach can say to make an official feel any worse about a call the ref quickly realizes was missed. A missed call from my NHL refereeing debut still gnaws at me to this very day.

If you have seen Elliotte Friedman's 30 Thoughts for today (see Thought 3), there is a great example of how a coach can set a positive example for his team in how to react to a missed call. Kudos to Dave Cameron for realizing that: 1) the referee already felt worse about a hasty whistle than even the Ottawa coach himself, and 2) overreacting to the call could cause his own players to lose their composure, whereas a "play through it, boys" demeanor was in order to keep his young team focused. Good stuff.

Whenever a controversial call arises, especially in the playoffs, everyone dissects it. It's typically very outcome-driven and filtered through a team-interest bias, as in "how could could he make/miss that call?"

Incidentally, I have learned over the years not to engage in debate with any so-called grownup who uses the pronouns "we" and "us" in reference to a team for which the person is not employed in any capacity. Such folks are typically incapable of a rational discussion of a call, and will hear what they want to hear. I don't bother wasting my time with them.

As for everyone else, if you want to find answers for your "why" and "how" questions about controversial calls, there are specific areas at which to look. When I ponder the same questions, I do so from this framework:

1) Positioning: Did the officials get a good look?

2) Skating: Did they give themselves the best chance by skating to a good spot to see the entire play?

3) Timing: Was the official too hasty in blowing the whistle, such as in Game Six of the Ottawa versus Montreal series? Taking an extra split second to process what one sees reduces the risk of a missed call.

The only other question comes to mind is one that that the average observer is not privy to see but officials themselves know all too well. Have they been told to let certain things go or to crack down on such-and-such? This goes on all season.

I am dismayed when leagues change directions on things that would be "bothersome" to them, especially on safety issues and what I call violent and non-hockey acts that must be penalties 12 months a year, in any rink and any league.

For these reasons, my blogs rarely dwell much on the outcome of a call. I am process-focused.
As such, I will stick to looking at the game as an analyst for coaching the officials to be better: looking at their positioning, conditioning, skating, their thinking, their look and the perception they offer.

As we well know, what we can say or think really doesn't affect what the NHL would do now or in the future. That's too bad. The NHL places less emphasis on the quality of the product than its bottom-dollar profit margin and perpetuating what is comfortable (i.e. cronyism and patronage) in the hockey operations department. Rules get tinkered with but few ever ponder the practical impact or the long-term consequences on the quality control aspect. Instead, we get folks who are clueless about officiating dictating how games ought to be called and then operate in a perpetual state of reactive damage control.

Paying your dues, doing the bus time, working everywhere, anywhere, any night and for any league, all for the good of the game is often secondary in the realm of the political machines that are the NHL, Major League Baseball, etc.

*********

Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.

Today, Stewart is an officiating and league discipline consultant for the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and serves as director of hockey officiating for the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC).

The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.

In addition to his blogs for HockeyBuzz every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, Stewart writes a column every Wednesday for the Huffington Post.