Paul Stewart: No Need to Worry About Neutrality

for me it's not so much whether they have an actual bias or not...like you mentioned at the beginning, why would the NHL even leave that discussion as a possiblity? if a French ref doesnt do a game in Montreal, there's no discussion.

Well said.


Thanks

for me it's not so much whether they have an actual bias or not...like you mentioned at the beginning, why would the NHL even leave that discussion as a possiblity? if a French ref doesnt do a game in Montreal, there's no discussion.
- flyershockey

This is the problem here. A French ref gets labelled as favouring the only Quebec team. The truth is the ref who made the bad call is from Gatineau. He's more of an Ottawa native. A rival team of the Montreal Canadiens.

No one would have had a problem with Ron saying "they shouldn't have a Montreal native ref the Montreal game", even though that's ridiculous to think it actually has an influence.

For labelling everyone with a French Canadian background as secretly pulling for the Habs is ludicrous.

Ron deserves all the heat for what he said. He brought in French when he likely wanted to use geographic.

Good Stuff!!!

Paul, just wanted to say that your blogs are some of the finest on the site, and I always involve reading them. I agree with the point of your blog that there was (most likely) no favoritism in the Montreal series.

However, your defense of referees sometimes borders on the support coaches give to players after they've committed a suspendable offense. You know, "Well, I mean, Cookie went to make a play, and unfortunately, their player was hurt. I don't think he meant to do it, and we're moving forward with him."

Take a referee like Stephane Auger, who basically had an agenda every time he stepped on the ice. Although there's no physical proof, he definitely went after Burrows. He showed clear favoritism throughout his career. He was a bad referee who was a black mark against all NHL officials.

Maybe it's because you were a referee who was as unbiased as could be and you just assume that all other refs are the same. But don't you think, as both human beings as well as people who grew up watching and rooting for teams, that some referees are unable to put their personal biases aside?

Paul Stewart: No Need to Worry About Neutrality
- Paul Stewart

Great write-up, but I'm still left with the fact that the officiating this year, playoffs included, has been inconsistent at best. When you mix inconsistency with the possibility of favouritism, you get the question Ron asked - rightly or wrongly.

This year I've seen Price sell a lot of incidental contact calls, while other goalie who don't sell it tend to miss out. I get the point that, 'if you go into the blue paint or near the goalie, you risk having a goal called back' but that doesn't cut it for me. Is it really what we want for hockey, telling people 'you may or may not get caught up in a vague rule, enter at your own peril...' it's inviting this to happen all over again.



What is there to do? I don't think it's the fault of the refs - it’s the game-to-game inconsistencies that really annoy me. I think it's the league's fault, maybe for not being clear enough with how to apply the rules in-game - maybe there should be more pre-playoff/post-game reviews where the NHL and all playoff officials go over game tape and address good, missed and blown calls - or maybe more visible reprimands (i.e. demotions) would do the trick.

After all - attribute not to malice that which can be equally explained by incompetence (on the league’s part)

Side note: Do NHL refs need to take public speaking courses, or are they trained in explaining calls to fans? I see NFL refs explain calls like they’re well prepared, confident and know exactly what to say, while NHL refs seem to awfully shaky. Just wondering…

Paul, just wanted to say that your blogs are some of the finest on the site, and I always involve reading them. I agree with the point of your blog that there was (most likely) no favoritism in the Montreal series.

However, your defense of referees sometimes borders on the support coaches give to players after they've committed a suspendable offense. You know, "Well, I mean, Cookie went to make a play, and unfortunately, their player was hurt. I don't think he meant to do it, and we're moving forward with him."

Take a referee like Stephane Auger, who basically had an agenda every time he stepped on the ice. Although there's no physical proof, he definitely went after Burrows. He showed clear favoritism throughout his career. He was a bad referee who was a black mark against all NHL officials.

Maybe it's because you were a referee who was as unbiased as could be and you just assume that all other refs are the same. But don't you think, as both human beings as well as people who grew up watching and rooting for teams, that some referees are unable to put their personal biases aside?
- jmatchett383

I agree with you, to an extent.

I agree that refs seem to have certain biases. I am sure, sometimes, it's true. I agree on the Burrows incident, and how certain teams have brutal records when certain refs do their games.

There is a huge difference between a ref having a dislike for a certain player (dove and made him look like a fool for calling a hooking penalty, for example), or a team (coach and players constantly whine and complain and say inappropriate personal things to a ref). It was no secret that refs hated Corey Clouston in Ottawa and the way he conducted himself, and the Sens suffered for it.

It is another, entirely, to think that a ref would pull for a team. IE make calls for their benefit.

Now, if you want to say that the ref in question made those calls because he had a bias against the Lightning, I could see it. But to say he was pulling for the Habs? Total garbage.

I agree with you, to an extent.

I agree that refs seem to have certain biases. I am sure, sometimes, it's true. I agree on the Burrows incident, and how certain teams have brutal records when certain refs do their games.

There is a huge difference between a ref having a dislike for a certain player (dove and made him look like a fool for calling a hooking penalty, for example), or a team (coach and players constantly whine and complain and say inappropriate personal things to a ref). It was no secret that refs hated Corey Clouston in Ottawa and the way he conducted himself, and the Sens suffered for it.

It is another, entirely, to think that a ref would pull for a team. IE make calls for their benefit.

Now, if you want to say that the ref in question made those calls because he had a bias against the Lightning, I could see it. But to say he was pulling for the Habs? Total garbage.
- Charliebox

I'll say this: I think it's more likely for a ref to have a bias against a certain team that for a certain team. And again, I don't think that was the case in the game in question.

Solid post, solid responses. I've really struggled with the inconsistency of reffing the past year or two. Stewart's mentioned the poorly written rulebook, poor training and lots of other things... to me, it's INCREDIBLE that with all the great hockey folks that we, as fans, can't get solid refereeing. To me, this smells like a giant organizational problem that starts somewhere at the top.

Most recent example of horrible call? The other night Carcillo of the Rangers getting called for hooking or whatever on what was simply a great defensive play late in the game. (Ps, Flyers fan. Also, stop blocking all the shots NYR.) What in the name of anything was that??

And, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE START CALLING EMBELLISHMENT.

Last note, I freaking love JY Roy... watched him as a kid and wore #28 for a couple years because of him.

Great blog!!!!!

And to all these people crying about "favoritism" or a ref having grudge against a coach or player is just ludicrous.

In my opinion, if they do hold such bias', they would not have made it to the NHL level of officiating.

Best blog you ever wrote Paul. Even on the levels of the sports I officiate I hear the same crap all the time, about how we officials cheat for the home team, or the visiting team, or whoever someone thinks is getting hosed at that particular moment in time. And the loudest ones are the losers who never have the guts to even try and officiate a pee wee game or the family volleyball game at the reunion every year.

I enjoyed the blog Mr. Stewart. Thank you for having the courage to bring this up and hopefully putting it to rest.

Great blog!!!!!

And to all these people crying about "favoritism" or a ref having grudge against a coach or player is just ludicrous.

In my opinion, if they do hold such bias', they would not have made it to the NHL level of officiating.
- ViolentEd1

it's pretty obvious ref are biased look at how they give all the calls to the rangers in the flyers series

I agree with you, to an extent.

I agree that refs seem to have certain biases. I am sure, sometimes, it's true. I agree on the Burrows incident, and how certain teams have brutal records when certain refs do their games.

There is a huge difference between a ref having a dislike for a certain player (dove and made him look like a fool for calling a hooking penalty, for example), or a team (coach and players constantly whine and complain and say inappropriate personal things to a ref). It was no secret that refs hated Corey Clouston in Ottawa and the way he conducted himself, and the Sens suffered for it.

It is another, entirely, to think that a ref would pull for a team. IE make calls for their benefit.

Now, if you want to say that the ref in question made those calls because he had a bias against the Lightning, I could see it. But to say he was pulling for the Habs? Total garbage.
- Charliebox

Well said. I don't think ref's have bias towards teams but it's human nature if a guy is always arguing obvious penalties, whining or upstaging officials that the player guilty of conducting himself in this manners wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.

Like when Matt Cooke or Raffi Torres make a hit that could be considered borderline they will get suspended on reputation. James Neal and Corey Perry elude this stigma but that is neither here nor there.

That being said it's hard to argue that the Pen's and Crosby have gotten the "Jordan rules" treatment with some of their power play opportunities. This is unexplainable to me.

As always best read on the site Mr. Stewart. Great insight and explanations.