...
Dom, you are praised here frequently for the kind of information you provide to the board and the type of conversation that it can bring in speculation. But this is the best hockey topic conversation I've seen on the Bruins board all season long.
A couple of things:
1) Has the idea of an officiating "team" come up in meetings or is it a topic of debate among those you speak with who are connected with hockey on a professional level? And if so, what are the reasons against going to such a system? It's the best idea I've heard in some time to increase the accuracy of our officials, but I believe (and I could be wrong) that there isn't a current major sport that employs that strategy. I'm curious to know what the opposition to it would be that couldn't be considered "nitpicking" or impossible to navigate.
2) I'm not sure how I feel about a coach's challenge. In any improvement I would suggest for this issue, it would be to make the officiating for lack of a better word, less prevelant. I want the players to be able to play the game as safely as the rules allow it, without infractions becoming more present than the game itself (as we see they often are). I fear the ability to dispute calls would be a step in the wrong direction.
I think "dead in the head" is a rule that HAS to go. But that between the whistles, it is the official's responsibility AND their right to call the game the way they see fit. However, review every goal like one does every touchdown. If it can be proven that the puck has crossed the line before the play has been whistled dead, then the referee should have his call overturned.
I haven't heard the "officiating team" concept discussed anywhere, but it doesn't mean it hasn't taken place.
The Idea came to me after talking to an on ice official after the opening game of the London/Guelph series on Friday night when Guelph was assessed 3 minor penalties within a minute of each other which allowed London to come back from a 4-0 deficit.
Off the record? That official's exact words were "When you work with a different partner almost every night, you have to make adjustments." Now, the conversation went further and probably not one I should talk about since it was off the record, but I just thought at the time that if you worked with the same crew night in and night out, you wouldn't "have to make adjustments."
I'm not suggesting my idea(s) are the way to go. In fact, they could be way off base. But I see this complaint about officiating daily and want to get some serious ideas from anyone who has them as to how to solve the problem.
As for the coaches challenge, obviously it would have to be more defined than the way I wrote in the article. I mean, I don't have all the answers LOL.
And I don't think coaches would challenge every single call, especially if they are penalized for "getting it wrong." But take the Bruins' disallowed goal the other day. While it wasn't reviewable under the current rules of review, what would have happened if Julien was to challenge the ref's interpretation of that call? Most certainly would have been a goal.
The missed high stick on Hamilton? I would bet that Toronto had already watched it by the time the next whistle had come and if Julien challenged it, Toronto would have an answer to them in seconds.
I get that there is a human element and that some don't want that taken away. But the point is, if you don't want that taken away, you (not you specifically) shouldn't complain when the wrong call is made - that's the human element.
The league says they want to use review to get it right. Well, it's not working when you allow certain goals to be reviewed and others not.
Just my opinion though Scott