Hate to say it as one time I would agree with this, but not anymore.
When you have a ref caught on audio intentionally targetting a team for a penalty all credability is shot to hell. You have Morton and Pochmara who were so attrocious at the AHL level with game managing it became utterly presictable when a penalty was coming and to whom. Hell, Pochmara earned the nickname Poochy for all his “pooched” reffing.
The NHL reffing is sadly lacking and beyond suspect. It’s integrity and credability is shot to a point that until it gets really addressed openly and “game management” is dead, fans are, and rightly so, going to armchair quarterback officiating.
I think there is a difference between "general bias" and "specific bias".
General bias is when a ref favors a team from the outset, for example a "hometown bias". The calls heavily favor one team from the beginning to end of the game. I think this is what Paul's blog is about. For the most part I think this is uncommon in the NHL but it does happen. It actually is most common in the playoffs when one team is up by a game or two in a series. It seems like the refs (probably at the behest of the league) heavily favor the team that is down, likely hoping to extend the series. I think the league strongly prefers 6 and 7 games series over 4 and 5 game ones, for ratings and ticket sales. Another instance is in Sidney Crosby's rookie season it seemed like certain refs were really out to get him. Many refs were former tough guys in the league and hate players like Crosby. A lot of opposing fans called Crosby a whiner in his rookie season but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the officiating concerning him at that time was atrocious. I also remember a game in his second season against NJ where the refs called 5 hooking penalties against the Pens in one period. For whatever reason it really seemed like the refs were out to get the Pens in that game. However, that is very rare.
Specific or situational bias, on the other hand, happens in every game. Every hockey fan who isn't living in a fantasy world knows that it happens. This is situations like "I just called 3 penalties against team x, the next one has to be against team y no matter what" and "I just missed a call against team x, now I need to find something else to call against them" and "So far I have called 7 roughing penalties against team x, I am tired of calling them and will "just let them play" from here on". I don't think Paul's blog is really about this type of bias, though. If it tried to refute this I don't think anyone would take it seriously
.