Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
The next time you watch a game and see a controversial call, try to see it from the eyes of an officiating supervisor. Just as with hockey teams themselves, there is a matter of process and a matter of outcome. Following the right process won't lead to the desired outcome (a win for a hockey team, correct calls for an officiating team) 100 percent of the time. However, the outcome will be desirable far more often than not when the process is followed properly.
Rather than question number one being "was this a good or bad call?", instead start by deconstructing the process that was involved: Was the official in proper position to have an optimal look at the play? Was the call too hasty? Were the teammates communicating? Were there issues throughout the game that warned of high risk of a close call being missed?
In watching several NHL games over the past two weeks, I have noticed that something I have harped on in blogs for several years: the "fix-it-in-replay" mentality that has taken hold of the game has had a negative effect on officials' positioning and judgment. There are some younger officials in dire need of better coaching and also some veterans who have fallen into bad habits.
As I have written numerous times, this issue is especially evident on plays around the net. Way too often, officials are not in the proper position -- frequently, off in the corner -- because they are not coached to get to the net.
I've talked many times about how the goaltender interference rules (Rule 69 in the NHL Rule Book) are convoluted, sometimes self-contradictory and even counter-intuitive in their instructions. I hear all the complaints of "we don't even know what goaltender interference is and isn't anymore, so we'll just challenge the first goal where it maybe, just maybe happened."
Frankly, there is validity to the complaint. However, what most folks don't understand is that there are three factors at work that lead to such a high degree of inconsistency: 1) the rule itself needs to be re-written and clarified, 2) the coaching of officials needs to improve because mediocre positioning and less-than-authoritative judgment strongly play into inconsistent enforcement, and 3) the overreliance on replay and the coach's challenge system has only contributed to a further erosion of the process from whistle to whistle.
When I am watching a game from an officiating standpoint, I always first go through the process that is involved on the front end. Positioning is what sells a close call as authoritative and, conversely, is the first suspect to question at in instance where a call was obviously missed. If the process is faulty but a close judgment call was made correctly, it is still not nearly as authoritative as one derived properly. The officiating team may not be so lucky the next time around, so corrective coaching is in order.
On the flip side, because there is a human element involved, sometimes the right process is followed but a bad outcome (missed call) still happens from time to time. When that's the case, a pat-on-the-back and "hang in there" is in order. Keep the faith that if you keep doing the right things, you'll usually get the result you want.
*****************
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.