Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
One suggestion I have heard over the years for improving the standards of officiating across leagues both in North America and abroad is to standardize a review system for officials and to share the information. In theory, it's a great idea. The problem is practicality.
When I was in the NHL as a referee, we tried a rating system. Finding a reliable methodology was elusive.
One suggestion was peer review. That was difficult to do because, during games, officials do not watch what their brother officials are doing. They are concentrating on their own duties during the game. There is also the issue of personality clashes and popularity contests that can intrude on creating a fair system.
Another suggestion was to have coaches and teams do it. Here's the thing: they watch their players, line changes and in-game execution. They only look at officiating if a call is good or bad for them, particularly the calls that go against their side. As such, they see snapshots of officiating and not the whole game for that one official.
Leagues have supervisors they send to games to audit whether standards are being upheld and to review the work they witness, which is then reported back to the directors. In the capacity of a league director of officiating -- after having previously been an AHL supervisor for the NHL and, of course, a longtime on-ice NHL referee -- that when you keep getting tapes on the same guy or hear a name coming up over and over again, it's often justified to audit the next game or have a supervisor go to focus on the one official.
Regardless of the league, it should be all about the truth and the basics of officiating. You have to have watchers who understand what good hockey is and whether the official does his part or if he butchered the game. Ultimately, it SHOULD be all about gathering information from respected people and then using that information productively: coaching and making the official better. Not every official is going to be a star -- just as not every player is going to be a star -- but we can put them in position to successfully play a role. If they don't take the coaching, we demote them or redirect them to a different profession.
In theory, it would great if leagues took an all-for-one-and-for-all standard and shared information freely but that's never been the case in a competitive realm. Leagues want to keep their best officials, although if someone is a star, he's going to be in demand.
What we really need to avoid -- and I have to be completely honest here in saying that the NHL has been disinterested in addressing it right from the commissioner on down-- is to make sure its standards of hiring, assigning, critiquing, rewarding/rebuking officials is based on performance and performance alone. Not personality conflicts or power struggles. Not cronyism, nepotism and all other manner of ism schism games. Not on selectively mined "analytics" that are either used or ignored depending on whether the handpicked data supports whom they want to reward or punish.
The game has to come first. That must hold true whether we are talking about ranking systems or the realities of pulling on the sweater and working with teammates on the ice.
************
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 serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC at both the Division 1 and Division 3 levels.
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.