Can anybody shed light as to why USA Hockey and MN Hockey have the 3-Man system as the preferred system for youth hockey?
I can see no advantages.
The disadvantages are numerous with player safety being the most obvious.
1 Referee / 2 Linesmen System
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Re: 1 Referee / 2 Linesmen System
In MH the refs prefer this system (via the ref organization - I am sure not all prefer it).BadgerBob82 wrote:Can anybody shed light as to why USA Hockey and MN Hockey have the 3-Man system as the preferred system for youth hockey?
I can see no advantages.
The disadvantages are numerous with player safety being the most obvious.
I could list advantages but it would be based onmy memory and that might not be so good.
Please list your reasons why it is not as good.
Re: 1 Referee / 2 Linesmen System
As opposed to what alternative?BadgerBob82 wrote:Can anybody shed light as to why USA Hockey and MN Hockey have the 3-Man system as the preferred system for youth hockey?
I can see no advantages.
The disadvantages are numerous with player safety being the most obvious.
-
the_juiceman
- Posts: 369
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:17 am
Re: 1 Referee / 2 Linesmen System
the only youth league I've seen use the 3-man system is A BantamsBadgerBob82 wrote:Can anybody shed light as to why USA Hockey and MN Hockey have the 3-Man system as the preferred system for youth hockey?
I can see no advantages.
The disadvantages are numerous with player safety being the most obvious.
Advantages of 2 linesmen, 1 ref system: 0
Disadvantages: Only single ref to make penalty calls. Most of the time the ref is to far away or out of position to make most calls yet they are the only ones that can call penalties. A lot of times they "guess" at calls, ie "looked" like a trip cause the player went down, player was held, etc....
Just my opinion...
Disadvantages: Only single ref to make penalty calls. Most of the time the ref is to far away or out of position to make most calls yet they are the only ones that can call penalties. A lot of times they "guess" at calls, ie "looked" like a trip cause the player went down, player was held, etc....
Just my opinion...
3 man system is for bantams. Used in play-offs but prior to that it is 2 man in a lot of places.JSR wrote:Ahhh... well all I know is down here we play most of our squirt games with 1 ref and 1 linesman (2 total) because there just aren't enough refs/linesman to field the preferred 3 man unit. It's a luxury when we do have 3elliott70 wrote:HS uses 3 man with 2 refs and 1 linesman.
2 refs is what peewees and girls use.
Squirts should use the one dad and two mom system.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
The advantage I see is the ability to "mentor" young refs. Let them call the lines and have an experienced refs be the "referee".
Major disadvantage is the referee has to cover 200 feet on every transition. And when these can happen with an "high off the glass" clearing of the zone that turns into a 2-1, the ref is making calls on goals from the blue line. They spend so much time and focus their attention on getting down the ice, they miss so much of the play at the puck and away from it. There needs to be no discussion and can be no difference of opinion. One ref can't follow the puck, watch the back end players, and basically "do it all". Anyone that thinks "amateur refs" are capable of this are foolish. Every referee I have talked to hates it. Every Referee coordinator or MH Districtor has no supporting facts in favor of the system, yet can only come back saying I don't know what I'm talking about. "Following the company line".
If USA and MN Hockey are going to talk about zero tolerance on "dangerous play", checking from behind, head contact, etc. then their only paying it lip service if they continue a 1 referee system. In fact, I will go as far as to say they are somehow stuck in the dark ages and their refusal to move to a 2 referee / 1 linesman system shows incompetence at some level. Therefore, if they can't figure out why every other league has moved to 2 referees with 1 or 2 linesmen, then how can they be trusted to make game changing rule changes? i.e. removal of checking from Pee-Wees?
This in no way is an attack on referees! As I said, every one I have asked about it hates the system. Some have apologized in advacne during warm-ups that they will be missing alot of the game with only 1 ref and to please go easy on them. Call me over to the bench to tell me what I missed, please don't scream at me from the bench. Rather telling wouldn't you say?
Major disadvantage is the referee has to cover 200 feet on every transition. And when these can happen with an "high off the glass" clearing of the zone that turns into a 2-1, the ref is making calls on goals from the blue line. They spend so much time and focus their attention on getting down the ice, they miss so much of the play at the puck and away from it. There needs to be no discussion and can be no difference of opinion. One ref can't follow the puck, watch the back end players, and basically "do it all". Anyone that thinks "amateur refs" are capable of this are foolish. Every referee I have talked to hates it. Every Referee coordinator or MH Districtor has no supporting facts in favor of the system, yet can only come back saying I don't know what I'm talking about. "Following the company line".
If USA and MN Hockey are going to talk about zero tolerance on "dangerous play", checking from behind, head contact, etc. then their only paying it lip service if they continue a 1 referee system. In fact, I will go as far as to say they are somehow stuck in the dark ages and their refusal to move to a 2 referee / 1 linesman system shows incompetence at some level. Therefore, if they can't figure out why every other league has moved to 2 referees with 1 or 2 linesmen, then how can they be trusted to make game changing rule changes? i.e. removal of checking from Pee-Wees?
This in no way is an attack on referees! As I said, every one I have asked about it hates the system. Some have apologized in advacne during warm-ups that they will be missing alot of the game with only 1 ref and to please go easy on them. Call me over to the bench to tell me what I missed, please don't scream at me from the bench. Rather telling wouldn't you say?
its simple follow the money, the older guys are getting to SLOW so that is why they wanted 3, soon they will be talking about 4, Heck D-6 is already talking about it, the cost of officials will and is driving this sport nuts, you got 13,14,15 year olds doing squirt games and making $25.00 an hour,
but back to the three man, , the refs always tell it is to prepare them for the higher levels, HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , NHL now has 4, Wcha has 1 ref , and alternate {whatever that means,}and 1 linesamn, high school has 2 refs, and 1 linesman, so what is it prepare them for,
Show me the money ---lets use 5 one at each line
but back to the three man, , the refs always tell it is to prepare them for the higher levels, HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , NHL now has 4, Wcha has 1 ref , and alternate {whatever that means,}and 1 linesamn, high school has 2 refs, and 1 linesman, so what is it prepare them for,
Show me the money ---lets use 5 one at each line
What????????
From the comments I have seen here I can tell most of you have no idea how any of the official systems work. You might want to find a USA Hockey officials manual and study it before you criticize any of the systems.
I have worked all 4 of the systems out there and each of them have their good and bad points. The HS system with 2 refs and 1 linesman is good but the linesman cant always get to the blue lines fast enough. Result- Coaches get mad. The USA system of 1 ref and two linesmen is great but the Ref might miss some calls Because we are taught to be 10-15 feet behind the play as it moves up the ice. Result- Coaches get mad. Does anyone see a pattern here? The other systems have their flaws too. The best by far is the 4 man but that costs to much to be used at the youth and HS level for regular season games.
Just like the teams playing the game,if the refs aren't working hard they wont be in position to make the calls. And just like the players,Position is everything. When these systems are done right they all work great. If you get a lazy official it will definitely be bad no matter what system is being used.
Note: Ive got no time for "Lazy Refs" ,they make the ones who work hard look bad.
I have worked all 4 of the systems out there and each of them have their good and bad points. The HS system with 2 refs and 1 linesman is good but the linesman cant always get to the blue lines fast enough. Result- Coaches get mad. The USA system of 1 ref and two linesmen is great but the Ref might miss some calls Because we are taught to be 10-15 feet behind the play as it moves up the ice. Result- Coaches get mad. Does anyone see a pattern here? The other systems have their flaws too. The best by far is the 4 man but that costs to much to be used at the youth and HS level for regular season games.
Just like the teams playing the game,if the refs aren't working hard they wont be in position to make the calls. And just like the players,Position is everything. When these systems are done right they all work great. If you get a lazy official it will definitely be bad no matter what system is being used.
Note: Ive got no time for "Lazy Refs" ,they make the ones who work hard look bad.
-
Chuck Norris Fan
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:01 pm
- Location: North Metro
- Contact:
A three man system should be 2 refs and 1 linesmen, can't see why you need two guys just for off sides and iceing... especially with touch up back in play. Either go two man system both being refs or a two ref one linesmen system. Can't tell you how many goals that have either been missed or called a goal that weren't because ref was a full zone away trying to get down the ice.
"I'm the cream of the crop, I rise to the top"
I've been an official (high school and youth) for many years. I used to be an advocate for the 1 referee 2 linesmen system but that was before USA hockey made checking from behind, head contact, abuse of officials, etc. their points of emphasis.
In the past, the "let em play" philosophy made it easier for the single referee. With the points of emphasis (which I agree with), USA hockey needs to give the officials a better chance to enforce these rules. Changing to the 2/1 system would be a good first step. There are many good referees that can manage the game but they have lost a step and cannot keep up in the 1/2 system. They are perfect for the 2/1 system.
When we talk to coaches (A Bantam and Metro League), they are clearly in favor of the 2/1 system. We tweak the game to make it better, now let's tweak our systems to keep up with the changes.
In the past, the "let em play" philosophy made it easier for the single referee. With the points of emphasis (which I agree with), USA hockey needs to give the officials a better chance to enforce these rules. Changing to the 2/1 system would be a good first step. There are many good referees that can manage the game but they have lost a step and cannot keep up in the 1/2 system. They are perfect for the 2/1 system.
When we talk to coaches (A Bantam and Metro League), they are clearly in favor of the 2/1 system. We tweak the game to make it better, now let's tweak our systems to keep up with the changes.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
mvbiever makes typical "referee" comments. "Grab a manual and read how we are taught". Obviously many versions of "Grab a whistle and you do it if you think its so easy". My original point was USA Hockey prefers 1 ref/2 linesman. And that is a flawed system for too many reasons. As HSref77 points out, USA is emphasizing "player safety" yet is advocates 1 referee on the ice. No other way to say it but USa Hockey is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Player saftey is so important yet we will only have one ref protecting the kids. Yet 2 people calling lines.
mvbiever also points in typical ref fashion that the pattern is "coaches will get mad at anything and everything". It is this arrogance that some referees have that makes me wish they'd step away from the game.
Ever watch the SSP HS assistant coach ride referees? Yet is the same guy enforcing zero tolerance at the youth level for complaining about refs.
mvbiever also points in typical ref fashion that the pattern is "coaches will get mad at anything and everything". It is this arrogance that some referees have that makes me wish they'd step away from the game.
Ever watch the SSP HS assistant coach ride referees? Yet is the same guy enforcing zero tolerance at the youth level for complaining about refs.
Where in God's name do you coach? Working it through logically, I can't imagine any ref saying this before a game. I call BS on your part.BadgerBob82 wrote:This in no way is an attack on referees! As I said, every one I have asked about it hates the system. Some have apologized in advacne during warm-ups that they will be missing alot of the game with only 1 ref and to please go easy on them. Call me over to the bench to tell me what I missed, please don't scream at me from the bench. Rather telling wouldn't you say?
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Brandy: Our association won't use the 1 ref system. It's some of the goofy Districts that force it at tournaments. Most refs are too cocky to apologize in advance. But two of them did and both said they absolutely hate the system.
I am waiting for ONE person to actually state ONE factor that makes this system better than having 2 referees on the ice. (And getting 3 people paid to ref a game isn't valid)
I am waiting for ONE person to actually state ONE factor that makes this system better than having 2 referees on the ice. (And getting 3 people paid to ref a game isn't valid)
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
1-Mentoring, you have to start somewhere and since we use the 3 man system it needs to be as a linesman. If you think we're awash with experianced refs...well listen to your own comments and see why we're not. (refs should apoligize in advance for one)BadgerBob82 wrote: I am waiting for ONE person to actually state ONE factor that makes this system better than having 2 referees on the ice. (And getting 3 people paid to ref a game isn't valid)
2-experiance, you need to gain it and then advance in reponsibility. You don't gain it by starting out as a referee
1 ref or 18 won't make difference in safety, enforcing the rules will and as long as USA Hockey continues to give lip service to safety it's not going to happen. As long as coaches serve on boards there is no reason to think their behavior will change and as long as it doesn't and it (hockey) is the worst of any youth sport, you can't put kids in the position to take that abuse and that may mean using the 1 referee 2 linesman system.
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
I don't understand this. I don't disagree, I just don't understand it. Are you saying that USAHockey talks a mean game when it comes to safety but doesn't support refs in getting more strict about making calls? Or that refs are dropping the ball here? What are coaches doing to aggravate the situation? How does the 1 -2 system protect kids from "that abuse" (Which abuse? Bad coaches? Bad refs? Bad checking? Bad offsides calls?)goldy313 wrote:
1 ref or 18 won't make difference in safety, enforcing the rules will and as long as USA Hockey continues to give lip service to safety it's not going to happen. As long as coaches serve on boards there is no reason to think their behavior will change and as long as it doesn't and it (hockey) is the worst of any youth sport, you can't put kids in the position to take that abuse and that may mean using the 1 referee 2 linesman system.
Again, not disagreeing. Just not getting it. (I'm kinda new to the politics and administration side of the game as a parent.)
At every district meeting I go to, the head ref is kind of aggro about how tough the refs are going to be and how intolerant of "nonsense" and about USAH's tough new stance on things like head contact or facewashing. And then at just about every game (B and C level), we have teenagers reffing who are terrified to blow the whistle. It's tough to teach my kids the rules of the game when refs don't call penalties. I think it's awesome to have young developing refs, and I'd never yell at them as a coach. In fact, I find myself constantly encouraging them at the beginning of games to be more authoritative. (Again, at the B and C level. I realize there's a big jump up in reffing quality and experience, but hey, you guys all go through the same certification process, right?)
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Shinbone has got it. Talk of cracking down, District ref guys talking big game. Reality is 1 ref on the ice puts player safety at risk. It's not the coaches.
And to Goldy, you don't get it. I don't think refs should apologize for a terrible system before the game even starts. The fact they have and state they hate the 1-2 system speaks volumes. Mentoring of young referees takes place at Level 1 games. i.e. Squirt B/C U-10 girls. 12 year olds have a hard time blowing the whistle at Squirt C games. But my point is looking at upper level refs at PW and Bantam levels.
Again, I ask for one person to make a claim in favor of the 1-2 system. Goldy did not.
And to Goldy, you don't get it. I don't think refs should apologize for a terrible system before the game even starts. The fact they have and state they hate the 1-2 system speaks volumes. Mentoring of young referees takes place at Level 1 games. i.e. Squirt B/C U-10 girls. 12 year olds have a hard time blowing the whistle at Squirt C games. But my point is looking at upper level refs at PW and Bantam levels.
Again, I ask for one person to make a claim in favor of the 1-2 system. Goldy did not.
In a previos post you yourself said there was an advantage to the 1-2 system in mentoring. When I agreed with you you say I don't get it 
The bantam game is far different from the squirt game, in a district or association where there is a shortage of experianced officials the 1-2 system makes sense to get more experianced officials until the time comes when you have enough to go to the 2-1 system. It's really hard to put a high school kid in a situation where there are adult coaches who put pressure on kids unless you have an experianced official there to stand by the kid.
The NHL uses 4 officials and the league is no safer than it was they used 3. The only thing you could say makes it safer is the suspensions the league hands down after watching tape of the game. Nearly every hit happens within the play and an official is always watching the play. You could have 3 guys watching it and it still won't make it safer, it may cover offsides better but in hockey penalties are judgement calls and 3 people l will have 3 different opinions of what happened in live action.
In youth the same people charged with enforcing policy (boards) are also the same people who won't back up their own policies because they're also coaches and parents. You don't have that in higher levels where the MSHSL, NCAA, or NHL are charged with enforcement. USA Hockey can say whatever they want but ultimately it goes back to local control. If an official calls to many penalties for hits to the head against the home teams he won't be officiating long and the judgement of if you're a good official or not is up to a biased group, not an outside impartial entity. I don't think there really is a way to change it but that is the system which we work under.
The bantam game is far different from the squirt game, in a district or association where there is a shortage of experianced officials the 1-2 system makes sense to get more experianced officials until the time comes when you have enough to go to the 2-1 system. It's really hard to put a high school kid in a situation where there are adult coaches who put pressure on kids unless you have an experianced official there to stand by the kid.
The NHL uses 4 officials and the league is no safer than it was they used 3. The only thing you could say makes it safer is the suspensions the league hands down after watching tape of the game. Nearly every hit happens within the play and an official is always watching the play. You could have 3 guys watching it and it still won't make it safer, it may cover offsides better but in hockey penalties are judgement calls and 3 people l will have 3 different opinions of what happened in live action.
In youth the same people charged with enforcing policy (boards) are also the same people who won't back up their own policies because they're also coaches and parents. You don't have that in higher levels where the MSHSL, NCAA, or NHL are charged with enforcement. USA Hockey can say whatever they want but ultimately it goes back to local control. If an official calls to many penalties for hits to the head against the home teams he won't be officiating long and the judgement of if you're a good official or not is up to a biased group, not an outside impartial entity. I don't think there really is a way to change it but that is the system which we work under.
[quote="Shinbone_News"]
I don't understand this. I don't disagree, I just don't understand it. Are you saying that USAHockey talks a mean game when it comes to safety but doesn't support refs in getting more strict about making calls? Or that refs are dropping the ball here? What are coaches doing to aggravate the situation? How does the 1 -2 system protect kids from "that abuse" (Which abuse? Bad coaches? Bad refs? Bad checking? Bad offsides calls?)
Again, not disagreeing. Just not getting it. (I'm kinda new to the politics and administration side of the game as a parent.)
quote]
The best way I can describe it is to use a football example. Years ago when I used to coach high school we had 4 officials for a game, every couple of years spearing would be a point of emphasis but it wasn't called very often if ever. We went to 5 officials, the NCAA and NFL use 7 but even though spearing was long against the rules it just wasn't enforced at any level. The MSHSL, the NCAA, and the NFL all would make it point of emphasis but it took years and a new approach where the league, officials, coaches, and players all came to the same page on the rule and enforcement of the rule. I've been an official for nearly 20 years now and only in the last 3 has spearing been actually and effectively enforced. In years prior you'd hear "it's just football" and you still will on Sunday TV broadcasts even though it's a foul. In high school after a year or two of clear enforcement I don't think I've thrown a flag for spearing in almost 2 seasons, it doesn't happen to the extent it used to. When it is called coaches and players understand it is a safety issue. To get to trhis point took years and a proactive effort that involved everyone.
Hockey hasn't got there yet. USA Hockey says one thing, refs aren't enforcing it as strictly as they should but if they do they get the rath of coaches who think it's just hockey (at least when it's their kid getting penalized). My opinion is that Fair Play points have a lot to do with it and by getting rid of Fair Play points we could get back to safety.
In football and hockey you have administrative calls, advantage calls, and safety calls. We need to get to the point in hockey where safety calls are non debatable, as they are for the safety of the kids. Even if the call was wrong the intention was to protect a kid which is always the right call. As you move up that changes but in youth levels where kids are 15 and under erring on the side of safety is always correct.
I don't understand this. I don't disagree, I just don't understand it. Are you saying that USAHockey talks a mean game when it comes to safety but doesn't support refs in getting more strict about making calls? Or that refs are dropping the ball here? What are coaches doing to aggravate the situation? How does the 1 -2 system protect kids from "that abuse" (Which abuse? Bad coaches? Bad refs? Bad checking? Bad offsides calls?)
Again, not disagreeing. Just not getting it. (I'm kinda new to the politics and administration side of the game as a parent.)
quote]
The best way I can describe it is to use a football example. Years ago when I used to coach high school we had 4 officials for a game, every couple of years spearing would be a point of emphasis but it wasn't called very often if ever. We went to 5 officials, the NCAA and NFL use 7 but even though spearing was long against the rules it just wasn't enforced at any level. The MSHSL, the NCAA, and the NFL all would make it point of emphasis but it took years and a new approach where the league, officials, coaches, and players all came to the same page on the rule and enforcement of the rule. I've been an official for nearly 20 years now and only in the last 3 has spearing been actually and effectively enforced. In years prior you'd hear "it's just football" and you still will on Sunday TV broadcasts even though it's a foul. In high school after a year or two of clear enforcement I don't think I've thrown a flag for spearing in almost 2 seasons, it doesn't happen to the extent it used to. When it is called coaches and players understand it is a safety issue. To get to trhis point took years and a proactive effort that involved everyone.
Hockey hasn't got there yet. USA Hockey says one thing, refs aren't enforcing it as strictly as they should but if they do they get the rath of coaches who think it's just hockey (at least when it's their kid getting penalized). My opinion is that Fair Play points have a lot to do with it and by getting rid of Fair Play points we could get back to safety.
In football and hockey you have administrative calls, advantage calls, and safety calls. We need to get to the point in hockey where safety calls are non debatable, as they are for the safety of the kids. Even if the call was wrong the intention was to protect a kid which is always the right call. As you move up that changes but in youth levels where kids are 15 and under erring on the side of safety is always correct.