WiSioux Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I was just wondering if anyone knew why they decided to use four refs last night. I thinks it's like new NHL rules or something like that... and that they tried it out during the exhibition game, but why randomly in the third series of the season are we switching from three refs to four refs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 said on the radio last night it is expirmental for some wcha games this yr but could be the norm next yr - it is the last time we will see it at home this yr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Looks like a disaster to me. 4 ref systems work, the NHL is proof of that. However, in order for it to work you need a combination of two things: 1. Competant managing of said officials 2. Competant officials. WCHA has neither. This will be a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I agree Redwing, imagine if you had Shephard, Adam, Mason and Freeman on the ice. The penalty count would be in the low to mid-fifties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Obviously the hangup is going to be finding someone anyone competent to officiate a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stack Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I hated it. They couldn't move there sorry arses out of the way. How many times did the puck hit a ref this weekend? Gees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Let's clarify for everyone: It's two refs and two lineman for a total of four officials on the ice. And yes they were in the way. A lot. Even odder is that all four missed a high stick that led to a Maine goal on Friday. Tonight when the Sioux had the 5 on 3 PP they missed the puck hitting the net and Maine was able to clear. Cost us about 15 seconds I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riders06 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I agree Redwing, imagine if you had Shephard, Adam, Mason and Freeman on the ice. The penalty count would be in the low to mid-fifties. Freeman huh? Good thing he calls a lot of penalties. He's a linesman and doesn't call any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Let's clarify for everyone: It's two refs and two lineman for a total of four officials on the ice. It is two refs and two assistant refs actually, they call them AR's now and no longer linesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I think it's stupid too. You could have the two AR's seated on a chair in a box overlooking his particular line and that could be his job without touching the ice unless there was some form of melee or fight to break up. Then you have the goal judge who is there to make a decision but if it's even a close call he can be overruled. Is there a less significant person at the game? The ref could call the goals from the ice and if they aren't sure about it, let it go upstairs. The refs on Friday were not strong. PERIOD, but I hate when we as Sioux fans use it as an excuse. This weekend the team against us was superior in all phases. PERIOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLW4GOPHERS Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I can feel your pain. When the Gophers played Maine at the X, we had Shepard and Champion as ref's. Also had a Shepard as a linesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I don't buy it that the extra ref had anything to do with the puck hitting the officials. The 2nd ref never enters the offensive zone. When the puck is moving up ice the official should be moving into position deep in the other offensive zone. The only change is that you do have a ref ahead of the play, instead of behind. That should be a good thing because you shouldn't have an official make a goal/no goal call from the neutral zone. In the case this weekend it was more about cluelessness and laziness (mostly the former) not about too many officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 The refs on Friday were not strong. PERIOD, but I hate when we as Sioux fans use it as an excuse. This weekend the team against us was superior in all phases. PERIOD. I don't blame the referee's for either loss, although I believe they did a horrible job. Friday night the penalties early in the second period did take us out of our game. But that doesn't mean we should have given up. Saturday we got beat because IMO their goaltender was better than ours. Not the refs fault. Maine's a very good team and our youth definiately showed, but I wouldn't agree that they were superior in every way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I think it's stupid too. You could have the two AR's seated on a chair in a box overlooking his particular line and that could be his job without touching the ice unless there was some form of melee or fight to break up. Then you have the goal judge who is there to make a decision but if it's even a close call he can be overruled. Is there a less significant person at the game? The ref could call the goals from the ice and if they aren't sure about it, let it go upstairs. The refs on Friday were not strong. PERIOD, but I hate when we as Sioux fans use it as an excuse. This weekend the team against us was superior in all phases. PERIOD. There have been games in the past where officiating was at least partially responsible for altering the outcome of the game, but this series wasn't one of them. There were bad calls, yup. There was one that resulted in a goal, sure, but it did nothing to the outcome of the game. We lost these games because we played REALLY bad hockey. That's really all there is to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce poobah Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 One thing this weekend's refereeing demonstrated clearly is just how differently (inconsistently) that different referees call things. Usually, we have to wait a couple weeks for a different ref to come into town, and we're left wondering whether its just our imagination that Adam calls things totally differently from Albers. On this particular Friday and Saturday, we got instant feedback. Play goes down to Adam's end of the ice and attackers can slash at will and not get called for it, but when the play comes down to Albers end of the ice (the Maine end) and attackers get penalized for the identical slash that just went uncalled on the other end. Meanwhile, on Albers end of the ice, defenders get to interfere and hook at will, while defenders on the other get get called for hooking. If this is going to work, we need a LOT more consistency of standards. Perhaps even switch the referees from end to end every five minutes to at least balance the inconsistencies. I don't think it affected the outcome. Maine kicked our clocks. I just think the 4-ref system needs more work before it gets implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 One thing this weekend's refereeing demonstrated clearly is just how differently (inconsistently) that different referees call things. Usually, we have to wait a couple weeks for a different ref to come into town, and we're left wondering whether its just our imagination that Adam calls things totally differently from Albers. On this particular Friday and Saturday, we got instant feedback. Play goes down to Adam's end of the ice and attackers can slash at will and not get called for it, but when the play comes down to Albers end of the ice (the Maine end) and attackers get penalized for the identical slash that just went uncalled on the other end. Meanwhile, on Albers end of the ice, defenders get to interfere and hook at will, while defenders on the other get get called for hooking. If this is going to work, we need a LOT more consistency of standards. Perhaps even switch the referees from end to end every five minutes to at least balance the inconsistencies. I don't think it affected the outcome. Maine kicked our clocks. I just think the 4-ref system needs more work before it gets implemented. See my earlier post and refer to item 1 as to standardizing consistency. Then look below #2 and you'll have why we'll never see it. My sig states the remedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I agree with RedWing: The reason why every referee is crappy is because that's how the guy at the top wants it called. By the way IMO Bruce McCloud is a lightweight and Greg Sheppard calls the shots in the WCHA. I don't have any inside info on that, just my impression from watching him speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I agree with RedWing: The reason why every referee is crappy is because that's how the guy at the top wants it called. By the way IMO Bruce McCloud is a lightweight and Greg Sheppard calls the shots in the WCHA. I don't have any inside info on that, just my impression from watching him speak. I don't agree. I think Mcleod and Shepherd need to be dismissed, but I don't think SHepherd runs the WCHA. I DO think that, regardless of what McLeod wants the WCHA to be like, he defers to Greg in ALL things officiating. If he sees something wrong with the officiating he may bring it up to Greg, but if Greg gives even the slightest most half arsed excuse for it, McLeod will accept it. Accountability goes all the way to the top and when that infamous hit went down, McLeod reacted by giving Shepherd a full time job instead of firing him. Whistler, if you want a higher profile relationship to compare to, think this: McLeod is to Shepherd as Ford is to Matt Millen. Both McLeod and Ford want the WCHA to succeed but neither realize just how incompetant the people are who surround him in the organization really are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Redwing, how is that disagreeing with me? Usually when people disagree with me (which does happen, a lot ) I can tell why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce poobah Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 See my earlier post and refer to item 1 as to standardizing consistency. Then look below #2 and you'll have why we'll never see it. My sig states the remedy. Agree. It just took me more words to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KEH Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Agree. It just took me more words to say it. I am glad that I wasn't the only one that noticed that Albers and Adam need a lesson in consistency....Furthermore how is it Albers can call a penalty(I believe it was a weak slash) that didn't even occur on his end of the ice? What if Adam did see that and just wanted the boys to play it out? How fair is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Redwing, how is that disagreeing with me? Usually when people disagree with me (which does happen, a lot ) I can tell why. Because there is more to running the WCHA than officiating? I can't claim to know what McLeod does in his job outside of overseeing Greg Shepherd and, by assumption, all others who work for the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux Hockey Fanatic Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I agree Redwing, imagine if you had Shephard, Adam, Mason and Freeman on the ice. The penalty count would be in the low to mid-fifties. Or worse--Shepard, Mason, Adam and Anderson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Because there is more to running the WCHA than officiating? I can't claim to know what McLeod does in his job outside of overseeing Greg Shepherd and, by assumption, all others who work for the WCHA. I wonder how busy a job being comic-star of the WCHA would be if you allowed someone else to worry about what happens on ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I'm impressed that this past weekend only saw one injury and how it happened was unclear. With Adam on the ice, I wouldn't have been too shocked to see, perhaps, a stretcher being pulled onto the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.