SWINDON, UK – The NHL has used two referees on the ice for a few years now, and while British hockey has experimented with the idea, the EPL still wait to follow suit. They probably will do if and when the bank of officials and money is sufficient to accommodate the increase. The point is, though, it is currently being talked about again and while anything which produces more consistently accurate and fairer decisions should be welcome, I am not convinced a fourth official on the ice is the best way forward.
To start with, the field of vision of the referee moving forwards with the play is not improved. Of course his/her blind side is now covered to some extent by the second referee, but could be by a linesperson and either way the eye-level viewing point has not changed and is still restricted by the sheer number of bodies in such a small area. Plus it is yet one more body on the ice getting in the way, as they do. A further drawback is ensuring consistency of decisions which, even with just one referee, can be contentious as any fan will attest. I mean, it will be more than just theoretically possible to have say, a hooking penalty called, yet three yards further the same incident could be considered well, infringementless.
So is there an alternative? Well, some time ago the NHL toyed with the idea of placing the goal judge in an elevated position at right angles to the goal line rather than behind, as at present. OK, so the NHL also has the benefit of fifty-six cameras directed solely at the goal and a panel of eighteen watching on closed circuit TV in Toronto, but a view along the goal line rather than behind and possibly obstructed by the netminder seems like a good idea. A bit like the linesman in football, I suppose. So, if the NHL considers an elevated view to the side of the rink gives a better view and presumably results in more accurate decisions, why not site that official centrally and make them a referee?
Several other factors come to mind in favour of this. Firstly, why do fans at any sporting venue more often than not prefer an elevated position, if available, and get charged more for the privilege which tends to suggest the sporting promoters agree? And, with this superior view how often do they vocalise when an infraction has occurred unseen by the ground-level officials? This has nothing to do with the standard of referring, but simply a visibility matter.
Also, some other sports already use a remote official to some degree, such as cricket and rugby, and while not specifically calling the shots live, so to speak, it is an example of how a detached official can be utilised to ensure better decision-making.
In a nutshell, a grandstand referee strikes me as being better placed than a second on-ice referee, and certainly won’t be getting in the way. In fact, I think it would enhance the standard of refereeing whether a second one was ever used on the ice or not.
Alternatively, scrap the line officials, have two qualified referees with line responsibilities on the ice, who I am sure would do the line job just as accurately, and a third ref in the stands. And all for no increase in person-power.
Contact the author bill.collins@Prohockeynews.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.