Anybody else frustrated by the offficiating?

[MN_Bowhunter]

This is my third year of watching High School girls hockey and I've noticed a trend. Most (almost all) of the male refs that I've seen seem to think that no checking means no physical contact of any kind. I have seen so many penalties called that were nothing more than incidental contact where someone fell down. I don't pay six bucks to watch 2 guys blow their whistles. Games with 15 to 20 penalties called are not fun to watch. The best refereed games I've watched were done by two women who obviously played the game. Is there anything that can be done about this? Or should I shut my mouth and be thankful they can find two warm bodies willing to show up?

[inthestands]

Where do you normally watch games?

[allhoc11]

This is my third year of watching High School girls hockey and I've noticed a trend. Most (almost all) of the male refs that I've seen seem to think that no checking means no physical contact of any kind. I have seen so many penalties called that were nothing more than incidental contact where someone fell down. I don't pay six bucks to watch 2 guys blow their whistles. Games with 15 to 20 penalties called are not fun to watch. The best refereed games I've watched were done by two women who obviously played the game. Is there anything that can be done about this? Or should I shut my mouth and be thankful they can find two warm bodies willing to show up?

I agree with you, and feel our young ladies deserve better, however the girls game tends to get new officials to the HS level, or refs who no longer can keep up with the speed of the guys game. Occasionally we get refs who also do boys games, because their association assigns them girls games as well, and I'm not sure if they don't understand contact in the girls game, or do a bad job so they don't have to do more girls games but in all it's a very frustrating situation. There are some good refs, and usually if you play for a larger school you usually get some of the better officials especially later in the year, and playoff's. However being a ref is a thankless job, and they are often not treated very kindly by the players, coaches, parents, so it's no surprise we don't have many quality people wanting to take a part time job where everyone tells you "you are horrible" I know it's a difficult job, and one I've never been willing to do.

We could probably gripe about it forever, but how do we fix it, and get more quality people committed to being a ref on the girls side of the game?

[Pens4]

There is definately room for improvement but our games this year have been officiated fairly consistently. I agree that the refs have a hard time making a non-call in situations where a couple girls are just competing and instead they seem obligated to level the field and penalize the stronger and more skilled player.

It is a tough situation for ref because there is often a disparity of talent on any given night. And it's probably magnified in the early season games since most the upper end kids have been playing highly competitive hockey all summer and just didn't see those calls. What's ironic is that we see these same refs all summer and when it comes to the season they get into a different mindset.

I think the single greatest reason for this happening is some directive that makes the refs have to come to the bench when summoned by the coach. And they'll discuss everything from penalties to offsides. To slow things down even more, they them have to go to the other bench and explain it to the other coach. Everytime they get the refs ear it increases the likelyhood of that equalizing call. High school hockey is the only level where refs won't give the coach the proverbial hand from 90 feet across the rink. They need to start limiting the bench contact otherwise I propose they go all in and make a 3rd stop and explain the call to the crowd in attendance too.

[MNHockeyFan]

They need to start limiting the bench contact otherwise I propose they go all in and make a 3rd stop and explain the call to the crowd in attendance too.

Haha, good one. But maybe not that far fetched? Someday might we be hearing the refs getting on the PA system and pronouncing, "The ruling on the rink was ________, but after reviewing the play ________."

[inthestands]

I think the single greatest reason for this happening is some directive that makes the refs have to come to the bench when summoned by the coach.

I've noticed this as well, and from a business perspective it appears to related to giving good customer service. As with anything too much of a good thing is still too much. The better officials don't struggle with this, but I suppose that's the case with the game in general.

Since all the conferences select the officiating associations to work their games, there's probably more to the decision making process than meets the eye..

As long as human's officiate sporting events, there will be questions and hopes for more efficient people working games.

The back and forth here, at least so far has been filled with positive back and forth.

[ghshockeyfan]

What is/are the "point(s) of emphasis" this year? I've heard head contact being an automatic penalty, but not certain as to if this is correct.

I think the "issue" is present for multiple reasons - emphasis points, in conjuction with what transpired last season for checking from behind, and add in what I believe to be a greater opportunity for disparity in size/ability in girls hockey (7th grade 11/12 year olds playing with 12th grade 18/19 year olds in addition to very inexperienced players skating in weaker programs vs those in highly talented larger programs). Mix in that it is early in the season and the calls are always more early on and taper off as the season progresses.

Maybe this is what we are seeing?

And - to get back to the original post - I agree there are some great female refs out there and it's awesome to see them getting back into the game as former players that understand the subtle difference in a penalty vs good body check/play that is legal.

I also believe some refs are still warming-up as well having had the off-season off (some don't ref year round).

Not certain why the officials need to talk to the coaches so much. Many times I stood in the bench door holding it open until a ref would come to talk as it was the only way to get them to come over. One ref in particular would always say to me "I know there's a real reason why you're calling me over here this time coach" (usually well after we started the conversation).

Being a ref is a thankless job and I give them a lot of credit. Here's to hoping that we can continue to attract good people to do this job and more former women's players return to this aspect of the game in addition to coaching.

[inthestands]

Points of emphasis are difficult areas.. Most relate to sportsmanship and player safety. From what I've seen there are a number of them coming from past tragedy, and areas of concern.

Part way through last season, there was a change in severity of calls related to checking from behind, boarding and head contact.

Those points have remained, outside of the check from behind. Last season that call was moved to a 5 min major and 10 min misconduct, unless a player went head first into the boards as a result. In that case it was a game misconduct.

After many revisions, the game misconduct rule applies any time the player comes into contact with the boards or goal cage after being checked from behind. They removed the head first portion of that ruling.

There are also some head contact revisions that allow less than a 5 min major depending on circumstances.

All coaches and official associations were given the updates in hopes to keep everyone on the same page.

While watching the boys state HS tourney last year, I wondered how anyone could be satisfied with the game calling we see today.. These televised games in no way resembled the second half of the season games as far as calls being made with these same points of emphasis. I guess I'll just have to wonder why the games are officiated differently when watching regular season, as they compare to those state tourney games.

I would have thought that would have been the perfect place to solidify these new points of emphasis for the hockey community to see and learn.. Guess I'll just have to talk to myself in the corner while watching games again this season..

[ghshockeyfan]

Calling the tourney the same way - with points of emphasis in mind - would have been the perfect way to solidify things for all. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice - but I'll take your word for it that it didn't happen that way.

I seem to remember points of emphasis including things like stick holds, interference on faceoffs, etc. from years past. It seems it would be sportsmanship and just general rule stuff too.

All related things get called heavily early on in the season and then over time it works into a better understood threshold for what's OK. Or at least that's how I remember it playing out.

[Sparlimb]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

[Hock3]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

Then have your daughter tryout for boys hockey!

[inthestands]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

How would you go about making that change a reality?

[Sparlimb]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

How would you go about making that change a reality?

You'd allow it in the olympics, and then it would spread to College and eventually to High School. You can keep it out of youth to a certain point, just like they do with the boys. The only worry is if it would cause participation to drop or not, which obviously the sport doesn't need to lose any more girls. Participation is already dropping at an alarming rate.

[MNHockeyFan]

The only worry is if it would cause participation to drop or not, which obviously the sport doesn't need to lose any more girls. Participation is already dropping at an alarming rate.

Along with the continued sluggish economy, I believe the fear of injury is a big part of the declining numbers. Hard to say which is having the most impact, but with all the publicity surrounding the very tragic Jack Jablonski situation, you can see why some parents would discourage (or not allow) their daughters to play hockey. Hard to blame them after seeing (on multiple occasions in various news reports) a very courageous Jack struggle to regain use of his limbs. Although most of us here understand that this was a freak accident, I think that making checking legal in the girls' game would only make many parents more wary than they are already. And I can't see any way that it would it help grow the sport, given the perceptions that are already out there. So I don't think we should go down that road, especially now.

[Bandy]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

Although body checking is against the rules in girls'/women's hockey, that does not mean it doesn't occur. There is grey area. You routinely see rubouts along the boards. A rubout is a body check; it usually just isn't very overtly physical, so it's allowed. Sometimes rubouts are a little greyer; sometimes they cross the line. A little bodywork in the corners--pushing, shoving, jostling is generally allowed (as it should be). Jostling for position in front of the net is legal; sometimes it crosses the line -- hard body checks or cross checks in the back to clear players out. Sometimes these are called, sometimes they're "allowed." The rules, as currently enforced, allow for significant body contact, and there's no need to open the door further.

Although a lot of female players are strong, girls typically don't have the physical stature or muscles that boys do. A lot of boys weight train more than girls (although girls do weight lift too). A lot of boys play football in the fall, where they train pretty intensely, and include neck-strengthening exercises that help minimize neck & head injuries. Female players get concussions at a higher rate than males--even in the college ranks. The game is physical enough.

Regarding the original post--seriously 15-20 penalties per game? Can you post a few gamesheets from hockey hub? In my experience, it's usually it's a 1 or 2 penalties per period. They catch some of the flagrant trips, some of the overt checks & slashes, but mostly let them play. Maybe it's different in your area.

[HSRef77]

I'm actually in favor of allowing checking in girl's hockey. To me, the rule is a joke. Girl's are not more delicate nor in need of extra protection. Let the girls loose and let them hit!

Although body checking is against the rules in girls'/women's hockey, that does not mean it doesn't occur. There is grey area. You routinely see rubouts along the boards. A rubout is a body check; it usually just isn't very overtly physical, so it's allowed. Sometimes rubouts are a little greyer; sometimes they cross the line. A little bodywork in the corners--pushing, shoving, jostling is generally allowed (as it should be). Jostling for position in front of the net is legal; sometimes it crosses the line -- hard body checks or cross checks in the back to clear players out. Sometimes these are called, sometimes they're "allowed." The rules, as currently enforced, allow for significant body contact, and there's no need to open the door further.

Although a lot of female players are strong, girls typically don't have the physical stature or muscles that boys do. A lot of boys weight train more than girls (although girls do weight lift too). A lot of boys play football in the fall, where they train pretty intensely, and include neck-strengthening exercises that help minimize neck & head injuries. Female players get concussions at a higher rate than males--even in the college ranks. The game is physical enough.

Regarding the original post--seriously 15-20 penalties per game? Can you post a few gamesheets from hockey hub? In my experience, it's usually it's a 1 or 2 penalties per period. They catch some of the flagrant trips, some of the overt checks & slashes, but mostly let them play. Maybe it's different in your area.

My daughter played 4 years of high school and I have been officiating girls high school for the last 10 years. I can only recall 2 games where there were this many penalties. There must be something going on in your area or with the team you are watching. In the 4 girls varsity games I have officiated this year there were a total of 14 penalties.

[inthestands]

Bandy, there's a big difference between body contact and body checking. The rubout you reference, in most cases is a legal manuver that is taught by all HS coaches. There are extreme cases that should be called, but most girls have this action down pretty well.

As for the games with 15-20 penatlies, you may want to look past the officials calling the game in some scenarios. That is an uncommon occurance, and there's a lot of responsible parties involved, including but not limited to the guys wearing stripes..

My daughter is playing college hockey, and I'd not be in favor of checking at any level in female hockey. There may be a small percentage of players that would excell in that environment, but overall it would be a step backward for the majority of girls. "IMO"

[Bandy]

Bandy, there's a big difference between body contact and body checking. The rubout you reference, in most cases is a legal manuver that is taught by all HS coaches. There are extreme cases that should be called, but most girls have this action down pretty well.

I mainly agree with you. My point is that because the standard of enforcement allows this form of body contact--a "legal body check"--that there is some grey area. And in the heat of games, sometimes the rubout crosses the line.

As for the games with 15-20 penatlies...

That was in reference to the original post in this thread. I've never seen that in a girls game. I'd say 10+ penalties per game are rare.

My daughter is playing college hockey, and I'd not be in favor of checking at any level in female hockey. There may be a small percentage of players that would excell in that environment, but overall it would be a step backward for the majority of girls. IMO

I agree--they physical contact allowed in girls' hockey is just fine as it is, if it's called consistently & the dangerous infractions are strictly are enforced. No need to open it up to full-blown checking.

[observer]

It is a tough situation for ref because there is often a disparity of talent on any given night. And it's probably magnified in the early season games since most the upper end kids have been playing highly competitive hockey all summer and just didn't see those calls.

I think this is the primary reason things aren't consistent early in the year. The play a summer player makes backchecking Hannah Brandt during the summer will be called a penalty against a 110 lb weakling, that hasn't skated since March, early in the varsity season. Adjustments need to be made by the players and the refs.

[inthestands]

[/quote]I think this is the primary reason things aren't consistent early in the year. The play a summer player makes backchecking Hannah Brandt during the summer will be called a penalty against a 110 lb weakling, that hasn't skated since March, early in the varsity season. Adjustments need to be made by the players and the refs.[/quote]I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. What types of adjustments should those players and officials be making?

If a bigger, stronger player does something to a weaker player that causes a rules violation, that should be called no matter what point of the season we're in, shouldn't it?

There's always going to be a wide spectrum of ability, committment, size and speed in girls hockey. The bigger, faster, stronger players are always going to need to be cognisent of the weaker player that can't stand up to the more aggressive style of play. If not, they are probably going to get a few more penalties.. Not a big deal, just part of the game for them.

[observer]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. What types of adjustments should those players and officials be making?

I agree with you a violation is a violation.

What I was trying to say is a strong player doesn't know what will happen when they bump another player on the backcheck or flying in on the forecheck until it happens. The same play that worked all summer is now a 50/50 proposition as to whether it will be a violation or not. The players need to be careful because penalties usually hurt the team and the refs need to understand that just because a player crumples to the ice there may not have been an actual violation.

I watch a lot of boys hockey too and there are several hits on similar sized players that aren’t a penalty but the same hit on a small player can be. Can be tricky adjustments for the players.

[inthestands]

Agreed, that makes sense to me.

[hemiman]

I did just see my favorite no-call the other night. Forward carries the puck into the offensive zone going backwards and somehow stays onsides.

[MN_Bowhunter]

I did just see my favorite no-call the other night. Forward carries the puck into the offensive zone going backwards and somehow stays onsides.

That's actually not offsides if the player has control of the puck.

I have witnessed two games this year that have had more than 10 penalties called, unfortunately nobody seems to think that statistic important enough to upload to Hockey Hub. I'm not saying that 4-6 of those penalties shouldn't have been called, but when you call those AND a half dozen more that are simply weak skaters falling down it gets pretty frustrating.

My daughter plays for a near the bottom dwelling single A team and that is also a fair amount of their competition. Players are constantly falling down and it seems that if there is contact and somebody falls a penalty gets called on the kid who's still on their feet. Conversely, these kids will interfere or hook and if somebody doesn't fall there's no call. In my experience the worse team should have the most penalties called on them because they are constantly getting outplayed and reaching with their sticks or getting frustated and taking a penalty. This has also not been the case, the better team gets more penalties called because the weaker team falls down more.

I watched SSP vs MV last night and there were a few penalties not called that should have been. It still made for a more enjoyable game to watch because they were 5 on 5 for most of the game. That's my biggest gripe, the game has enough whistles as it is, adding all these iffy penalties just slows it down more.

[MN_Bowhunter]

http://www.mngirlshockeyhub.com/game/game_sheet/3801021