Should Referees be in the HHOF?

[SCampo98]

Ever since seeing the list of the members of the Hockey Hall of Fame as a kid, I always wondered why referees were included in the hall of fame. By no means am I trying to discredit the importance of officials throughout the game, I just don't understand why they would be considered for the HHOF.

Currently there are 16 on-ice officials in the HHOF:

Fred Waghorne
Chaucer Elliot
Mickey Ion
Cooper Smeaton
Mike Rodden
Bobby Hewitson
Bill Chadwick
Red Storey
Frank Udvari
John Ashley
Matt Pavelich
George Hayes
Neil Armstrong
John D'Amico
Andy Van Hellemond
Ray Scapinello
Bill McCreary

In my opinion, unless the referee made a significant innovation in regards to the game, they should not be inducted. Simply being good at refereeing should not get one inducted as thats pretty much what you're supposed to do as a ref.

Of all the referees listed above, the only now I feel should be in the HHOF is Fred Waghorne. Not only did he come up with the idea of using a whistle install of a hand-held bell, but he was also the first to drop the puck at the face-off, and is also credited with inspiring the idea for the one-piece puck. None of the other referees on the list have had the impact that it appears Waghorne had. Coincidentally, Waghorne was not inducted as a referee (despite being one), he was inducted as a builder.

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear all of the different opinions out there

 

[Crosbyfan]

Ever since seeing the list of the members of the Hockey Hall of Fame as a kid, I always wondered why referees were included in the hall of fame. By no means am I trying to discredit the importance of officials throughout the game, I just don't understand why they would be considered for the HHOF.

Currently there are 16 on-ice officials in the HHOF:

Fred Waghorne
Chaucer Elliot
Mickey Ion
Cooper Smeaton
Mike Rodden
Bobby Hewitson
Bill Chadwick
Red Storey
Frank Udvari
John Ashley
Matt Pavelich
George Hayes
Neil Armstrong
John D'Amico
Andy Van Hellemond
Ray Scapinello
Bill McCreary

In my opinion, unless the referee made a significant innovation in regards to the game, they should not be inducted. Simply being good at refereeing should not get one inducted as thats pretty much what you're supposed to do as a ref.

Of all the referees listed above, the only now I feel should be in the HHOF is Fred Waghorne. Not only did he come up with the idea of using a whistle install of a hand-held bell, but he was also the first to drop the puck at the face-off, and is also credited with inspiring the idea for the one-piece puck. None of the other referees on the list have had the impact that it appears Waghorne had. Coincidentally, Waghorne was not inducted as a referee (despite being one), he was inducted as a builder.

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear all of the different opinions out there

Bobby Orr would be pretty lonely in the player cesction...just him and a bunch of dead guys...

Seriously though, I really think some of these guys belong in there...It is not like they are displacing players or watering things down...

I've never been to the actual Hall though. Do the refs have their own section?

 

[Killion]

^^^ Oh goodness, no no no... they absolutely belong in the HHOF, some who should be & hopefully will be inducted eventually. I think perhaps some people are unaware of just how hard these guys in a lot of cases have worked to even get to the NHL, many great Ref's & Linesman toiling in Junior or Minor Pro, College or even elite amateur for years before they get their chance. Its no easy task nor an easy life. Theres a real craft and art to Refereeing and yeah, youve gotta really be on your game and THE game in being totally objective at all times & letting the players play, deal with all kinds of ebbs & flows without interjecting your own colors to the palette & canvas that makes for great hockey. That takes some serious talent, total dedication, love for the game & the players.

These guys in the NHL, they are the best of the best and youve got just terrific Ref's & Linesman pretty much from top to bottom & bottom to top in hockey, at all levels. Like Goalies they can be easy targets, though with Ref's much broader in being blamed for making a call that shouldnt have been made according to a Player or Coach, blamed for not making one & so on. And those complaints not delivered politely in a lilac scented envelope. So ya the've more than earned their stripes, places in the HHOF, Halls of Fame everywhere. To suggest otherwise, well, sorry, all due respect mceichel15 but it to me shows a decided lack of understanding of the game, the importance of having "all star caliber Referee's & Linesman" at the NHL level, absolute Heresy to even think they'd be somehow undeserving.

I will also say I dont like the 2 Referee system the NHL began employing. Can cause problems, one guy maybe 2nd guessing the other. One guy having to paint a smile on his face when the other makes a call that he figured he'd let go. Theyve got it dialed in whereby they generally are working different zones but still, I dont like it. One Ref, one guy monitoring & controlling the ebbs & flows, he alone deciding whats gunna go & whats not in a game. Like an artist painting a canvas or a DJ at a Rave, you dont want/need someone with another brush at his elbow or stacks of vinyl yanking discs off the turntable, slowing things down or speeding them up, adding unwanted brushtrokes & colors to the game. The Rules of the game are straightforward but the Rulebok, thats merely a guideline.

For years when Bruce Hood was running the Referee Clinics pre-season (NHL, AHL etc) first thing he'd do was in grouping the Refs & Linesman at Center, wave the Official Rule Book around with a "see this? you all know whats in it". Then he'd whip it as far as he could into the stands. "Forget about it. The Rules are Guidelines, not the Gospels. Guidelines that you yourself will interpret, adjudicate & expedite using your own discretion & without interference from players or coaches". In other words, your in control of the game, your job to insure that it is played by the Rules while insuring player safety and without leaving your marks all over any given game with heavy handed officiating. Let the players play. Takes a certain gift to be able to do what they do and they deserve all the respect in the world for doing so.

 

[ICM1970]

I will also say I dont like the 2 Referee system the NHL began employing. Can cause problems, one guy maybe 2nd guessing the other. One guy having to paint a smile on his face when the other makes a call that he figured he'd let go. Theyve got it dialed in whereby they generally are working different zones but still, I dont like it. One Ref, one guy monitoring & controlling the ebbs & flows, he alone deciding whats gunna go & whats not in a game. Like an artist painting a canvas or a DJ at a Rave, you dont want/need someone with another brush at his elbow or stacks of vinyl yanking discs off the turntable, slowing things down or speeding them up, adding unwanted brushtrokes & colors to the game.

Agreed Killion, I've not been a fan of the two referee system either. The other thing that IMHO has detracted from modern NHL officiating is them wearing helmets. Although intended as a safety thing (as I got to see Terry Gregson get injured seriously twice within the space of months on Hockey Night in Canada back in the late 1980s), when you had a Bruce Hood or Art Skov or others like that back in the day, you knew how the game was going to be called and that there was more of that personality in terms of fan identification. Would not mind hearing your view on this.

 

[Killion]

Agreed Killion, I've not been a fan of the two referee system either. The other thing that IMHO has detracted from modern NHL officiating is them wearing helmets. Although intended as a safety thing (as I got to see Terry Gregson get injured seriously twice within the space of months on Hockey Night in Canada back in the late 1980s), when you got had a Bruce Hood or Art Skov or others like that back in the day, you knew how the game was going to be called and that there was more of that personality in terms of fan identification. Would not mind hearing your view on this.

.... I suppose not unsurprisingly.... Im not a fan of helmets PERIOD so thats my answer on that one. False security that IMHO has only served to embolden players from the minute they hit the ice as youngsters right through their careers & into the NHL if they get that far. Togged out like Robocops, already youth feeling its invincible, completely reckless. The best protection for the head is not whats being worn on the outside of it, its whats inside; common sense & respect for the safety of your fellow players, to keep your shoulders, elbows & stick down when checking, obviously at no time hitting from behind and NEVER blindsiding a guy. First thing you learn in hockey? Keep your head up at all times, your stick on the ice. If some guy in the NHL (usually only a Rookie) is tearing around with his head down, if your a true sportsman, yeah, step into him but dont decapitate the guy completely however, even on a light clean check, guys got his head down, not ready or expecting it then sure, could do a lot of damage. Thats hockey. Did a helmet save Lindros? Prove to me it would have been worse without one. More likely it never would have happened at all because Lindros would have been clocked as a Rookie. And if he or anyone else is then thereafter skating around out there consistently with his head down, then theres clearly something very wrong with him already, a pre-condition, something his teammates & Coaches/Trainers should already be aware of. Like in the case of Bill Masterton who had no business being on the ice at all on the night that got checked ending his life.... The Ref's & Linesman look for that as well, and if concerned will start asking embarrassing questions of the Coaches & Trainers. As in "why is this guy on the ice"?. Youve got to wonder how many lives theyve saved as a result huh? .. And yeah, One Ref, Two Linesmen, No Helmets. Watching a good Ref work a game along with his Linesmen is a thing of beauty, work of art. Each one unique. However like everything else with the game, cant be having that anymore. Parity. Automation. Homogenization. Sterilization. Accountants & Lawyers have ruined the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Referees

Definitely. Excellence in any sport be it as a participant, coach, manager, owner has to be rewraded. Referees and linesmen are integral to the game. Paradoxically while players have to excel to be noticed, only bad on ice officiating is noticed.

BTW the NHL did not introduce the two referee system recently.It was phased in starting in the 1998-99 season BUT the old two referee system was replaced by a one referee and one linesman at the start of the 1938-39 NHL season. Soon thereafter a second linesman was added.

 

[Killion]

BTW the NHL did not introduce the two referee system recently.It was phased in starting in the 1998-99 season BUT the old two referee system was replaced by a one referee and one linesman at the start of the 1938-39 NHL season. Soon thereafter a second linesman was added.

Thats interesting, I did not know that. So, from 1917 ~ 1938, two Refs', no Linesman? I wonder what it was that precipitated this change, searched a bit on-line, couldnt find any explanations. My first thought was "economic measure". That the NHL probably paid a Linesman less than a Referee and what with the Depression, War looming, possibly as well a lack of talent available however if they then shortly thereafter another Linesman, no cost savings, indeed, more expensive.... Id imagine they'd have split things up then as now between 2 Refs, a Non-Action Referee who watches from the peripherals and who covers the Close-in Action in the Neutral Zone with an Action Referee who covers play In-Close and down-low in both ends. These roles of course can quickly alternate due to the nature of the game, the speed, but that seems to be the basic template a 2 man Ref system works from.

 

[Jumptheshark]

People just don't like refs

 

[mbhhofr]

People just don't like refs

Really?

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Thats interesting, I did not know that. So, from 1917 ~ 1938, two Refs', no Linesman? I wonder what it was that precipitated this change, searched a bit on-line, couldnt find any explanations. My first thought was "economic measure". That the NHL probably paid a Linesman less than a Referee and what with the Depression, War looming, possibly as well a lack of talent available however if they then shortly thereafter another Linesman, no cost savings, indeed, more expensive.... Id imagine they'd have split things up then as now between 2 Refs, a Non-Action Referee who watches from the peripherals and who covers the Close-in Action in the Neutral Zone with an Action Referee who covers play In-Close and down-low in both ends. These roles of course can quickly alternate due to the nature of the game, the speed, but that seems to be the basic template a 2 man Ref system works from.

From what I gather, in the two ref system, each official acted as both referee and linesman. I personally think the change to the 1 ref/2 linesman was more due to the increasing responsibilities that each official faced as the rulebook expanded. Each official can focus on their specific duties in relation to whether they are a ref or linesman.

I also believe that's the same reason the NHL has slowly phased into the 2 ref/2 linesman model more currently.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Qualified Referees

From what I gather, in the two ref system, each official acted as both referee and linesman. I personally think the change to the 1 ref/2 linesman was more due to the increasing responsibilities that each official faced as the rulebook expanded. Each official can focus on their specific duties in relation to whether they are a ref or linesman.

I also believe that's the same reason the NHL has slowly phased into the 2 ref/2 linesman model more currently.

Issue was the availability of qualified referees in the feeder leagues who could handle the speed of the NHL. Coupled with the ripple effect of the feeder leagues all the way down to midget AAA changing to the two referee system.

With the declining number of referees at the feeder levels it was far from realistic to maintain quality work while doubling the pool of referees.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Issue was the availability of qualified referees in the feeder leagues who could handle the speed of the NHL. Coupled with the ripple effect of the feeder leagues all the way down to midget AAA changing to the two referee system.

With the declining number of referees at the feeder levels it was far from realistic to maintain quality work while doubling the pool of referees.

True. Completely forgot that Hockey Canada(along with other leagues) changed to a 2 ref/1 linesman model.

 

[mbhhofr]

True. Completely forgot that Hockey Canada(along with other leagues) changed to a 2 ref/1 linesman model.

Back in the 1970's when I refereed in the Western Collegiate Hockey Assn. (NCAA), we used the 2 referee, one linesman system.

 

[Killion]

People just don't like refs

Really?

... and as you well know jumptheshark's comment simply isnt true. Certainly from a players perspective in most cases there is absolutely a respect, admiration & warmth towards, a kinship with Ref's & Linesman. Of course your going to get the odd forever constant protagonist, be it a Coach from the bench or a mouthy player (fans from the stands a whole other issue) who think they or one of their teammates have been wronged with a non-call or on a call that shouldnt have been made. Total Whiners. Personally cant stand Whiners so who cares what they think? Seriously. Get a grip. Your emotional outburst isnt going to change a GD thing so save your breath. Embarrassing yourself & your teammates and in fact if not for objective Ref's, as in imagine that the crime you claimed they committed while calling them every name in the book could possibly be provoking retribution, calling you & your team on absolutely everything thereafter huh? Fortunately that wouldnt happen & the Mouthoff's knew it. Particularly unseemly in Star players like Gretzky & Lemieux. Speaks to an arrogance that is decidedly unattractive, character flaw. That they know better and because of who they are their opinions trump all & that their wishes should be obeyed. Yeah. Eat Me Superstar, Schoenfield, Keenan, Smythe or whomever. Talk to the hand. Later... Fans of course, entirely different matter. As a former Goalie I can easily relate to & empathize with Ref's. The catcalls & trash talk hurled from the seats in some (not all but enough) arenas' that you'd visit could be downright Fugly. That included being hit with or near misses of the odd projectile. Goalie or Ref, your out there for the whole game, no escaping to the bench, and if your the Goalie on the visiting team or a Ref you really just have to shut it out. Thankfully a very small % of fans figure they can distract & disrupt the play of a visiting Goalie and the Officials with Boorish behaviour, and if bad enough they'd usually wind up getting tossed out of the building. Some buildings however, that just wasnt the case. The most notorious of the lot being the old Spectrum in Philly, wide~spread in some of the old Minor-Pro Leagues and Junior.

 

[sr edler]

Cooper Smeaton

Smeaton was also a player, not a HHOF player though but one nonetheless, a stay at home defenseman. Played with the Cleghorn brothers on a Montreal Westmount team that was very dirty, and also one season with Sprague & Odie in New York City.

Sprague & Odie sounds like show on Cartoon Network.

 

[Killion]

^^^ Yeah, and some of them were All Star athletes in multi sports including Football like Red Storey & Mike Rodden for example. Others excellent Junior players who for whatever reason sort of "fell into" officiating, picking up a dollar a game to officiate in the old OHA Junior Leagues & so on, extra money part-time. One guy in particular who had a very colorful career was George Hayes, worked as Ref in the NHL from the 40's to the late 50's, bit too much the Rebel for the straight laced Clarence Campbell, tea-totaling & often sanctimonious Conn Smythe & others. Hayes almost always in trouble with the Powers That Be. Post game's, adrenaline still rushing, unwind with several jugs' sometimes well into the next day & night; showup unshaven, bit ragged for his next assignment. One time got caught padding his expense account, charging the NHL for a 1st Class Train Ticket when in fact he'd traveled Coach & so on. If you think the players were underpaid in the 50's & into the 60's... at anyrate, Hayes a big guy and well respected by the players & coaches but definitely someone who walked to the sounds of his own drumbeat. Lust for life. Despicably was Suspended indefinitely by Campbell in the late 50's when he refused to take a newly mandated "Eye Test" for Referee's & Linesman. Never Reffed another NHL game. Seven times nominated for HHOF induction thereafter & 7 times denied before finally receiving his due & rightful place alongside the greats.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Neil Armstrong both walked on the moon and is a HHOFer?

All jokes aside one argument you made struck a chord about them just doing their job. Are these refs in the HHOF there for screwing up the least? I know this is an impossible standard but to me the default should be perfect and everything less than that detracts from the game and is a black mark on the ref.

 

[SCampo98]

It's just my overall feeling that referees are supposed to be good at their job. Players for example are expected to be good in the NHL, but some excelled beyond all expectations, and thus have been inducted into the HHOF. The same can be said for coaches and GMs who won a multitude of championships. How can the same be said for refs. I find it hard to think of how a ref could excel at his job seeing as being the best ref possible is part of the job. Would anyone notice a difference in he way a game was played if in one game the refs were McCreary and Ashley, while in the other game the refs were Koharski and van Massenhoven?

One consistent criteria for refs who are inducted into the HHOF is longevity. Many of them were referres for a couple of decades. How can this be a justifiable criterion? If the same were the case for players, people like Mark Recchi, Dave Andreychuk and Glen Wesley would be inducted for sheer longevity. I just don't think there are enough things a ref could do in his career (except for innovations like Waghorne), that could make them seem worthy of being in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[Big Phil]

Yeah sure, I'm fine with them getting in. Now, it isn't as if refs ever get brought up on here. Because the interest level in talking about refs getting into the HHOF is pretty much zero. We always expect the refs to call the game fair though right? However, there was always a couple of guys who I knew would be able to handle any situation. Bill McCreary is one of those guys. He refereed some great games and if you forgot that McCreary refereed some great game it is exactly why he was a great ref. Nobody wants Don Koharski in the HHOF, because he too often stood out during the game. You don't want that in a ref.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Longevity

It's just my overall feeling that referees are supposed to be good at their job. Players for example are expected to be good in the NHL, but some excelled beyond all expectations, and thus have been inducted into the HHOF. The same can be said for coaches and GMs who won a multitude of championships. How can the same be said for refs. I find it hard to think of how a ref could excel at his job seeing as being the best ref possible is part of the job. Would anyone notice a difference in he way a game was played if in one game the refs were McCreary and Ashley, while in the other game the refs were Koharski and van Massenhoven?

One consistent criteria for refs who are inducted into the HHOF is longevity. Many of them were referres for a couple of decades. How can this be a justifiable criterion? If the same were the case for players, people like Mark Recchi, Dave Andreychuk and Glen Wesley would be inducted for sheer longevity. I just don't think there are enough things a ref could do in his career (except for innovations like Waghorne), that could make them seem worthy of being in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Much smaller sample size relative to era for one thing when compared to players.

Couple of decades = being in shape and better than any aspirants for your job who are younger. The under-performing referees/linesmen are eliminated rather quickly at the NHL level.