The state of officiating

[PCM]

First, let me say that I am not using officiating at the reason for North Dakota's loss. That isn't the point of this post.

However, after what happened to Robbie Bina at the WCHA Final Five, I continue to be amazed at the state of officiating in college hockey. Here is an admitedly poor screen shot from the non-call when Spirko went down in the second period.

As the replay was shown, ESPN's sportscasters said the following:

Pang: That stick by O'Leary is right up in the jugular of Spriko. And right in the throat.

Clement: Or little lower in the collar bone.

In watching the replay, what happened is obvious. O'Leary attempted to intercept a pass at neutral ice. He missed and knew that Spirko would be heading the opposite direction with the puck and with speed into DU's zone. So he brought his stick up in an effort to give Spirko a hook and slow him down. Instead, the tip of his stick caught Spirko in the neck or just below it.

I'm not sure where the referee was, but there's an AR close by looking directly at the play. He could have easily called O'Leary for spearing under the NCAA rules:

Spearing

SECTION 48. A player shall not spear an opponent. Spearing shall mean stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade while the stick is being carried with one or both hands. Spearing includes all cases where a spearing gesture is made regardless of whether contact occurs.

PENALTY

[sprig]

I agree with you PCM, in spite of the rhetoric on USCHO board, that is a spearing, and, if Pio wasn't looking, the call should have been made by the AR. Pio was calling this game much closer than the MN/UND game, but, in spite of the fact that he did a better job than Shegos (IMO), he blew that call, big time. Apparently overlooking major penalties is not limited to the WCHA.

[sioux rube]

Totally agree with you PCM.They need to sit down this summer and come up with something to clamp down on these infractions,before it is to late.Probably to late already,but like they say,better late than never.

[dagies]

I don't think that was an intentional act, therefore I wouldn't have called it a spear, but certainly warranted a high sticking call. I think a high stick call went against the Sioux in the gopher game (goligoski).

We could have used the PP there. O well.

[#1siouxfan22]

Greene highstick vs. DU was a sketchy call and wouldnt be called 9 out of 10 times.

[PCM]

I don't think that was an intentional act, therefore I wouldn't have called it a spear, but certainly warranted a high sticking call. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intent is not part of the rule. If you do it, it's spearing, no matter what the intention was.

[MafiaMan]

Greene highstick vs. DU was a sketchy call and wouldnt be called 9 out of 10 times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're not referring to the call that led to DU's third goal. That was pretty much a textbook cross-check and should be called 10 out of 10 times.

[PCM]

Let me take you back to this incident from 2000. Former WCHA referee Mike Schmitt called Maine's Corey Larose for butt-ending with 1:16 reamining in the Black Bear's game with Michigan. Maine was leading 4-2 and on its way to the Frozen Four. Larose said:

"There was no intention to injure. All I was trying to do was hold [Mike Comrie]back. He had a step on me. If he was on the other side of me, I would have been hooking him. I was just hooking him with the other side of my stick. He embellished it a little bit and it caught the referee's eye.

"I really don't think it warranted a game suspension, especially at this time of year."

Larose, a senior, Hockey East's sportsman of the year and the Black Bear's leading scorer, had to sit out Maine's game against UND in the 2000 Frozen Four. The Sioux won 2-0 and went on to defeat Boston College for the national championship.

It took guts for Schmitt to make that call. The NCAA stood by it and refused to rescind it. Larose's intent didn't matter. It didn't matter that Comrie wasn't even injured on the play. But the message sent to players and coaches was very powerful. Engage in this type of play and it will cost you -- big time.

Nobody seems interested in sending those types of messages any more. What will it take for college hockey to wake up? More serious injuries? A death? A lawsuit? It's only a matter of time.

[BigGame]

I hope you're not referring to the call that led to DU's third goal. That was pretty much a textbook cross-check and should be called 10 out of 10 times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am pretty sure the high stick that is being refered to happened at center ice. Coming off a face off DU you was pushing into the UND zone and made a pass. As soon as the pass hit the DU players stick Greene toasted him and got a penalty (I think they called high stick). It certainly wasn't a high stick, but I am sure they could have found another penalty to give him anyway.

When I watched it happen I remembered thinking to myself that he is will not be back with the Sioux next year. I can't blame him when officials are giving him undeserved penalties for physical play and his reputation. That just can't sit well with him considering how much time he spends in the box for the actual penalties he commits.

[sprig]

It it odd that even players think "intent" is part of the rulebook, when it is not. You'd need a jury trial to even attempt to prove intent, that's why it's not part of the rule. Yet even officials, I think, often try to determine intent and make a lesser call if they feel the action was "accidental".

[The Sicatoka]

My solution:

- Make the "assistant referees" into "linesmen" again. They don't make the calls anyway so why have them there.

- Have a game referee in the press box and connected wirelessly to the on-ice referee. Each has the power to make calls, but only one guy is making the calls (because that's all the fan will see blowing a whistle).

- The press box referee would be a more senior official, a guy who can't keep up with the pace on skates any more but knows the game.

- Did I mention that the press box referee would be wired so that everything he looks at during the game would be video recorded so he could be graded, and sanctioned, for not calling things?

[The Sicatoka]

One other idea (please note the sarcasm dripping from it):

- If they aren't going to call a major, even when it is clear it is the appropriate call, why not just pull those useless sections out of the rulebook?

[Fedorov]

It it odd that even players think "intent" is part of the rulebook, when it is not. You'd need a jury trial to even attempt to prove intent, that's why it's not part of the rule. Yet even officials, I think, often try to determine intent and make a lesser call if they feel the action was "accidental".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if the refs would make the call for a spearing motion that doesn't hit anyone.

[PCM]

I wonder if the refs would make the call for a spearing motion that doesn't hit anyone. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Under some circumstances, I could see it being called.

[Fedorov]

[PCM]

And what circumstances would that be?

[jloos]

To call a spear the player has to intentionally make a spearing movement - not intentionally hit someone just make the stabbing motion. That was not the case - clearly it should have been a high stick but I can't see that being called a spear in any league.

The high stick penalty on Green was not the Xcheck - it was the nice open ice hit the ESPN guys went back on the replay and couldn't figure out why it was called.

Nobody is mentioning my favorite call - the unsportsmanlike on Prpich for drinking out of Manino's water bottle. I believe that is the first time he has been given a penalty for that - at least the DU player that went after him also got a penalty.

[Fedorov]

Nobody is mentioning my favorite call - the unsportsmanlike on Prpich for drinking out of Manino's water bottle.   I believe that is the first time he has been given a penalty for that - at least the DU player that went after him also got a penalty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Manino hit Prpich too, so I think we should have had a power play.

[PCM]

To call a spear the player has to intentionally make a spearing movement - not intentionally hit someone just make the stabbing motion.  That was not the case  - clearly it should have been a high stick but I can't see that being called a spear in any league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Rule: Spearing shall mean stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade while the stick is being carried with one or both hands.

The "spearing movement" or gesture portion of the rule only applies when an attempt to spear is made.

All you have to do violate the rule is stab another player with the end of your stick blade, which is exactly what O'Leary did to Spirko. Whether it's intentional or accidental doesn't matter.

In any event, if the ref didn't want to call it spearing, he could call it a high-stick worthy of a five-minute major because it was.

Isn't the reason for having major penalties to discourage and deter dangerous play? It's exteremly easy to come up with reasons, excuses and rationalizations for not calling major penalties. Every time an official bypasses an opportunity to enforce the rules by calling a major penalty, he's sending the message that dangerous play is tolerated.

[PCM]

Manino hit Prpich too, so I think we should have had a power play. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had a 5-on-4 power play coming out of that incident. If Manino would have been given a penalty, it would have been a 5-on-3.

[jloos]

Spearing shall mean stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade while the stick is being carried with one or both hands.

The "spearing movement" or gesture portion of the rule only applies when an attempt to spear is made.

All you have to do violate the rule is stab another player with the end of your stick blade, which is exactly what O'Leary did to Spirko. Whether it's intentional or accidental doesn't matter.

In any event, if the ref didn't want to call it spearing, he could call it a high-stick worthy of a five-minute major because it was.

Isn't the reason for having major penalties to discourage and deter dangerous play? It's exteremly easy to come up with reasons, excuses and rationalizations for not calling major penalties. Every time an official bypasses an opportunity to enforce the rules by calling a major penalty, he's sending the message that dangerous play is tolerated.

I guess I agree with your point, but not on that particular play. It was an errant stick that got Spirko in the throat. This has happened to everyone who has played at least a few times - at first it feels like you can't breath, then you feel like you have a lump in your throat for the next day or two. I would guess that is what happened to Spirko. Major penalties are reserved for intent to injure plays - that was not that type of play IMO, but I can see why you disagree. Highsticking isn't as serious as it is in the pro's- (facemasks), but it can turn dangerous if you get hit in the neck area. I don't see college hockey going the way of the pros- giving out a lot of double minors and majors for high sticking because of the shields.

I guess what I think was missing from this particular play was the "spearing motion".

[Fedorov]

It is only important to know what the NCAA thinks, and I think it should have been a 5-minute major for high sticking.

[PCM]

It is only important to know what the NCAA thinks, and I think it should have been a 5-minute major for high sticking. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I rest my case!

[PCM]

I guess I agree with your point, but not on that particular play.

Edited April 11, 2005 by PCM

[Fedorov]

I rest my case! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What happened to this?