Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Sometimes when I write these blogs, I am amazed at the seeming disconnect between the central idea I am trying to put across with the message that some readers take away from it. I do not "excuse" missed calls. I try to educate readers, including many fellow officials at various levels of the sport, about the common reasons why mistakes happen and how to maximize the chance for getting the correct call.
Another central point: Hockey is played and officiated and managed by human beings. Even the best coach will sometimes push the wrong button strategically. Even the best GM has some clunker trades and signings and high draft pick busts along the way.
In every single game on every night of the season, there are flubbed passes and shanked shots. Promising rushes that go offside. A needless icing or two. We understand and accept that even the best of players will have some unforced turnovers; hopefully not into a dangerous area of the ie. Even Vezina Trophy candidates can let in an ugly goal at a bad time in a big game (see Pittsburgh's first goal in last night's game against Washington, for instance). Even Norris Trophy defensemen have bad nights or forgettable shifts (I once saw Ray Bourque get beaten three times on the same shift).
What we don't see is blanket statements like "Wow, there sure have been a lot of lousy players in these playoffs. What's the league going to do about it?" as we inevitably do with commentary on the playoffs. If that is so, why do we never comment on when the officials hustle into proper position all night and nail the calls on numerous blink-of-an-eye decisions?
Spare me the nonsense about "a good official is one you never notice" nonsense, because it is simply untrue. Good officiating is noticeable if you know what to look for, but most folks (even hockey people) either do not know or do not care because personal rooting interests rule the day in this most emotional of sports.
What may stand out to the trained eye goes unnoticed by most others -- whose notion of good officiating can basically be defined as "did he make a controversial call that went against my favorite team? If he did, he's a lousy official."
As I wrote yesterday, if you get nothing else from these blogs, I hope you learn to look for these things first from officials: positioning, conditioning and skating.
Additionally, when you need a tough call, you want someone reffing or lining who has the jam to make that call regardless of the consequence. That is why I am so stubborn about conditioning and skating....because without those two aspects in top form for officials.
Some folks think I defend the officials no matter what. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask anyone I supervise or assign if I shield guys who are out of shape, out position, fail to hustle or do not know the Rule Book. I believe in tough love for these guys, the same as my mentors such as Frank Udvari and John McCauley showed me.
If a goalie isn't getting the job done, what do we do? We pull him and put in the team's other goalie. I have no problem whatsoever with holding officials to the same standard.
In fact, I'm wholeheartedly in favor of that idea. Putting people into games and then seeing that they can't do the job is a mistake if you don't make a change regardless of the consequences. You are compounding the problem, and two wrongs will not make it right. Players and officials alike could get hurt or miss something that would make the game more dangerous or unfair.
I believe that the good of the game comes first. I can live with some "blown" calls -- just the same as I can live with the bad turnover or the soft goal -- because hockey is a human game and the truth of the matter is that a hockey game is a collection of dozens of plays that get made or fail to be executed. It's really not all about one play or one call, even though they may be the ones that stand out the most.
When an official screws up on a pivotal call, whether an error of commission or omission, no one feels worse about afterwards than he or she does. Besides,what are we going to do? Hang them in the town square?
I am the first to give an official who makes an honest mistake a straightforward critique of where the play went wrong and then a word of encouragement and slap on the shoulder to go back out there. That is what coaching is about. But show me an official who is out of shape or takes the lazy way out rather than hustling into proper position and no one gets angrier than I do.
Try watching the game from an official's eyes sometime and I guarantee that you will get a whole different sense of what constitutes good officiating. It's not just about "that one call", it's about preparation, process and, yes, rapid recovery after a mistake happens so that it does not compound.
Does that sound an awful lot like coaching players? At its root, it is. It's all part of the game.
*********
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 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.