FanHouse

It's the gargantuan adult zebra in the left-wing corner.

We're all hockey fans, and as such, it's hard to imagine a ton of pleasure with how the playoffs have been officiated. We've had blood-drawing high-sticks ignored. We've had countless obstruction and interference penalties that should have been called but weren't. There have been controversies over allowed and disallowed goals.

Sunday, there were two games. In one of them, the only third-period penalty was a high-sticking penalty that had to be called because blood was drawn. In the other, there was nothing called (NOTHING!) between 12:08 of the second period and 3:00 of the third overtime. That would be a span of over 70 minutes.

I've passed the point where I trust these guys to get the calls right. You're not going to get every interference or hooking call, nor should you. However, we've reached a stage where the officials are completely devoid of any guts to make tough calls in close games. They'll call the delay of game on a puck shot out of play, too many men on the ice, high-sticks that draw blood, and the occasional dangerous hit, but not much else.

What say you, FanHousers, on the quality (or lack thereof) of officiating in these playoffs?

Pat Lackey: I won't deny that the officiating has been incredibly inconsistent in these playoffs because it certainly has (the Drury/Malone high stick incidents are more than enough proof of that), but is it really worse than any other year? (not rhetorical: I'm really asking for an opinion) I could be wrong, but I can remember wailing and moaning about officiating for as long as I've been watching playoff hockey (which is the early-mid '90s ... I'm a young'n). Either a call is made that some fans feel shouldn't be made, or the call isn't made and the other fans are upset. The problem is that no official wants to make a ticky-tack call late in a close game, but each official seems to have a different definition of what's acceptable to call and what isn't and they're influenced by a ton of different things (home crowd, where things happen on the ice, how late in a game it is, etc.). You can push for more even application of the rules, but it's still subjective to the referee in question. I don't really know what the answer is here, to be honest.

Jes Golbez: I'll have to agree with Lackey, in that I don't really see a big difference between this year's officiating and previous years. The NHL has always had problems with consistency and, despite having TWO refs on the ice, seems to miss an awful lot of stuff that they should be getting.

The NHL has gone to great lengths to emphasize that they constantly monitor their on-ice officials and go through video with them to 'teach' the on-ice to do a better job.

Now, until this process gives us more transparency, we can't really see if it is effective or not. Maybe the meddling from the offices in Toronto and New York causes the refs to do a worse job? Maybe the refs just get confused with all of the mixed messages, or perhaps the teaching system is just poor? Perhaps the media ought to demand some accountability in the way the league handles its officiating.

Bruce Ciskie: What amazes me, Pat, is that you hear all the time about how the officials "don't want to decide the outcome of a game by calling a penalty". Then you get a game like last night.

The call on Grossman in the third overtime had to be made. No issues there. The call on Campbell was ticky-tack, and was probably let go a half-dozen times already in the game. It was only called because the officials felt they had to issue a make up call for a good call. Amazing.

As for the answer, I have no clue. I do think it starts with more turnover in the playoffs. I'd rather have a young, less experienced official screw up a playoff game than Don Koharski, who's screwed up more playoff games than I can count.

Pat Lackey: I'm not disagreeing with you on that first point, Bruce. My point is that if you asked the ref who made the call on Campbell about it (and I apologize for not knowing who it was off the top of my head), he'd tell you it was a call he thought had to be made. The severity of a penalty and the necessity of calling it is completely subjective, especially at ice level without the aid of a replay. That's really the problem here that doesn't have a clear answer, especially because those things change depending on game situation.

Earl Sleek: I guess I might be a bit contrarian here, as I'm not that upset with the officiating we've seen thus far these playoffs (note: I'm mainly commenting on the western games here). Is it inconsistent? Yes. Does it have a feel of manipulating a game to get to an exciting result? Yes. But is it unexpected? Nope, in fact it's nearly exactly what I expected.