[article] C'Mon, Ref: Prust violated a "code"

[RUPERTKBD]

I see this situation as a bit different than the Burrows-Auger one.

With Burrows, Auger went over and warned him because of an incident in a previous game, where he felt that Burr embellished in order to draw a penalty, making him "look bad". (Most people who watched Auger over the course of his career would likely say that he needed no help in that department, but I digress)

I was clearly a planned encounter and after Burr was the victim of an extremely weak call that ultimately cost the Canucks the game, the post game rant was predictable.

What was also predictable was the treatment Burrows was subjected to since the incident. I don't think officials were "out to get him", I just think that he rarely received the benefit of the doubt on borderline plays.

I expect Prust to be in for similar treatment. Watson didn't plan to lose his temper with him, but something Prust said after the penalty call clearly set him off. (My guess is that Prust's remarks were not nearly as mild as he claims) It is my opinion that Brandon Prust will likely get less leeway from officials in the future, but not so much for what he does on the ice, but for what he says.

He'll really have to make a point of not mouthing off the zebras from here on in, or he'll be looking at unsportsmanlike calls and misconducts, for saying things that other players might get away with.

Whether you think this is fair or not, officials are human and when you've established a reputation with them, it's not easy to change. However, I don't really think that this falls under the category of "game management".

[Boudrias]

Burrows is still suffering from the Auger incident after all these years. A lesser player would have had his career ended. No matter

how many times Burrows gets slapped down he comes back. He has done more to change the Canuck roster attitude than any other player in the last 10 years. He was a key reason that the club made the CUP finals. IMHO what infuriated the refs and Ron MacLean was that Burrows was not the goon they tried to label him as. He has continued to play the game at a high level.

Alex Burrows is no Brandon Prust! There is no comparable. Burrows is light years ahead of Prust.

[Apple Juice]

The game ended shortly thereafter and Crawford knocked on the dressing room door to apologize for his poor conduct. I invited the coach into the officials dressing and to share a beer with the linesman and myself. I accepted the coach's sincere apology in the privacy of the officials' room and issued a 'career warning' to 'Crow' that any subsequent cursing from the bench would result in an immediate bench penalty. We shook hands to cement the agreement.

Yea nice to know what the officials do in their locker room. I like how he emphasizes private like you know I could have given you many more penalties so if I make a mistake or say something I shouldn't keep it hush hush and lets have a beer over it. This is such total bull with zero accountability. This is like the definition of bush league.

Just an old timer's club thing where it happened nearly 20 years ago. Obviously things have changed in terms of officiating and what not but he made a career pact with Crow and they held onto it until the day Fraser retired.

[Apple Juice]

I see this situation as a bit different than the Burrows-Auger one.

With Burrows, Auger went over and warned him because of an incident in a previous game, where he felt that Burr embellished in order to draw a penalty, making him "look bad". (Most people who watched Auger over the course of his career would likely say that he needed no help in that department, but I digress)

I was clearly a planned encounter and after Burr was the victim of an extremely weak call that ultimately cost the Canucks the game, the post game rant was predictable.

What was also predictable was the treatment Burrows was subjected to since the incident. I don't think officials were "out to get him", I just think that he rarely received the benefit of the doubt on borderline plays.

I expect Prust to be in for similar treatment. Watson didn't plan to lose his temper with him, but something Prust said after the penalty call clearly set him off. (My guess is that Prust's remarks were not nearly as mild as he claims) It is my opinion that Brandon Prust will likely get less leeway from officials in the future, but not so much for what he does on the ice, but for what he says.

He'll really have to make a point of not mouthing off the zebras from here on in, or he'll be looking at unsportsmanlike calls and misconducts, for saying things that other players might get away with.

Whether you think this is fair or not, officials are human and when you've established a reputation with them, it's not easy to change. However, I don't really think that this falls under the category of "game management".

Video proof says otherwise. Prust had his head down the entire time and didn't look up until he sat down in the box. Didnt' seem like he was mouthing back at Watson.

[RUPERTKBD]

Video proof says otherwise. Prust had his head down the entire time and didn't look up until he sat down in the box. Didnt' seem like he was mouthing back at Watson.

Seems like "proof" isn't what it once was....

Prust's own words:

"I am apologizing for everything. I am apologizing to Brad. It should stay out on the ice. We got heated and I should know more than anybody what happens out there stays out there and there's a code and there's an honour.

[DalesArmy]

The NHLPA should take issue with this. Honour and integrity don't seem to be prerequisites when one takes a position as a referee in this league.

We don't pay to watch the referees.

[Tre Mac]

Seems like "proof" isn't what it once was....

Prust's own words:

He was forced to apologize. That could've been a statement Made by the team's pr. Dept.

[LuckyLuciano]

Prust got bitch slapped by the ref

[HC20.0]

The difference between here and Burrows was Burr had a legitimate case. Auger personally skated up to him during warm ups and then called a couple VERY questionable penalties including the one that cost Vancouver the game. Prust must've said something to make Watson react like that. Watson's usually a decent enough ref. Auger on the other hand got fired eventually after more controversies.

[PhillipBlunt]

I disagree.

IMHO, what's been happening the past several years is the pressure to ref a game is way higher and sometimes that pressure gets to the refs - just like how we as fans boil over every now and then as well as the players.

There's a lot more at stake now (financially) than there was 10 years ago and more....

Wow. You're giving these hacks way too much credit. They manage games and blow obvious calls occurring in front of their eyes while calling make up penalties to make up for their own deficiencies.

These assholes are a bunch of vindictive control freaks that abuse their power at every opportunity.

[DalesArmy]

He was forced to apologize. That could've been a statement Made by the team's pr. Dept.

I just listened to the Prust apology. Man that was painful.

[RUPERTKBD]

He was forced to apologize. That could've been a statement Made by the team's pr. Dept.

Source: Your ass....

[poetica]

Apparently Fraser thought his comments about refs holding grudges were taken badly so he tried again:

C'Mon Ref: Finding fault in both Watson and Prust

Thank you for your questions and the opportunity for me to clarify some points I made (and didn't make) in Monday's column that might have been misinterpreted.

I do not condone the manner in which Brad Watson "lectured" Brandon Prust following an obvious comment from the player that the referee took exception to. Without actually being able to hear the verbal exchange between the player and the referee, "body language" was the most visible form of communication which we could observe as the incident unfolded at the penalty box. Regardless of what Prust might have said, the finger point and angry facial features demonstrated by Watson were inappropriate and quite frankly less than professional.

A referee should always attempt to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. The physical demeanor of a referee, especially in a heated exchange, can either further incite a player or firmly but effectively bring the emotional temperature down. In order for an Official to control hostile situations that occur during a game, he must first demonstrate self-control! Beyond just the appearance of unprofessional, yelling back at or using profanity directed toward a player or coach by a referee is counterproductive and a recipe for disaster.

When Referee Watson elevated his emotions and engaged Prust with the lecture that we all witnessed, it should have pretty much prevented an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty from being assessed to the player. Once a referee takes the initiative to place himself in the face of a player or a coach, it needs to be done in a peacekeeping role or to convey information or direction that is presented in such a way as not to further escalate the situation. Given Watson's NHL officiating experience, he should have have managed this situation much differently. I also believe Brad Watson would be the first to agree that he should have handled this situation and himself differently.

That being as it may, I still do not believe that Watson said the unspeakable things that Prust accused the referee of saying. It is likely that some profanity was interspersed with the lecture delivered by the ref. While that's not appropriate, I am certain it will be proven by testimony obtained from neutral observers that the comments and personal attack alleged by Prust are inaccurate.

To Bob's point, referees are human and as such subjected to frailties that can affect their judgment based on past dealings with players. Once Prust stepped outside of the acceptable protocol (code) and attacked the referee in a very personal manner publicly, I said that his comments would not sit well with the officiating fraternity. That too Bob is a human response. What I did not want to infer is that officials will compromise their personal integrity or that of the game to target or unjustly punish Prust in future dealings for his public comments.

Officials make hundreds of judgments every game to determine the legitimacy of a potential infraction or violation of the rules. Not every penalty is clear cut or black and white. There are times when a player will receive the benefit of the doubt and not be penalized when it concerns a grey area call. Personal history with a player, or the player's tendencies that he has demonstrated over the long haul can sometimes influence the final judgment that a referee will make on a play. Players who have established a reputation for diving/embellishment are judged differently each time they fall to the ice or reach for their face than a player that fights to remain on his feet.

Less tolerance is offered to a player or coach that is nasty, verbally insulting or has attempted to embarrass an official. Trust and respect are established between officials and participants of the game to form a good working relationship. When the bond of trust is fractured or broken it takes some effort to repair it. By "less tolerant" I don't mean that the referee will invent a penalty to punish a player that he takes issue with. What I am saying, is if there is a benefit of the doubt to be extended it is less likely to be granted to a player or coach, that in the mind of the official doesn't deserve it or earned it.

By example, in the season following the highly public playoff confrontation between Devils Coach Jim Schoenfeld and Referee Don Koharski, many of the referees were much less tolerant of any disrespect that came their way from 'Shoeny'. I assessed what believed to be an obvious penalty to the Devils in a game at the Meadowlands. My call was met with verbal and physical displeasure from Schoenfeld behind the bench. I then imposed a bench penalty at the stoppage as well. The visiting team scored on the two-man advantage and one player was released from the penalty box.

Prior to dropping the puck at center ice Coach Schoenfeld mocked me with an unpleasant facial expression coupled with a sarcastic round of applause. I "calmly" pointed for the coach to put another player in the penalty box as I assessed the second bench minor to the Devils. I didn't compromise the rules or the integrity of the game by assessing the bench minor. I didn't fabricate a penalty infraction. In my judgment, I felt the penalty was warranted as a result of the coach's actions. It is safe to say that I just had less tolerance for the disrespect he demonstrated.

I understand that Brandon Prust has now apologized for his conduct. Good for him. That is the first big step in reestablishing a solid working relationship with the Officials. Moving forward, the second thing that should occur is a private meeting arranged between referee Watson and Prust to clear the air and put this unfortunate experience behind them.

[Mustapha]

You have to think, it's a tough job being an official. Chances are either one side or the other will think you did less than stellar job each night, and if the league mandated officials to address the media, I am positive that there would be some nervous breakdowns occurring all the time.

It really is a thankless job, nobody loves the officials. Hell, the fans even cheer when they wipe out or get hurt.

I am not trying to make this into a pity party for them, but I do believe most officials try to be as impartial as they can and it's in the NHL'S best interest to support them and offer them resources to do their job more effectively. Players and coaches should have an avenue to file a grievance if they deem necessary, but Prust did harm Watson's reputation publicly with his actions, which helps no one at this point.

[RUPERTKBD]

You have to think, it's a tough job being an official. Chances are either one side or the other will think you did less than stellar job each night, and if the league mandated officials to address the media, I am positive that there would be some nervous breakdowns occurring all the time.

It really is a thankless job, nobody loves the officials. Hell, the fans even cheer when they wipe out or get hurt.

I am not trying to make this into a pity party for them, but I do believe most officials try to be as impartial as they can and it's in the NHL'S best interest to support them and offer them resources to do their job more effectively. Players and coaches should have an avenue to file a grievance if they deem necessary, but Prust did harm Watson's reputation publicly with his actions, which helps no one at this point.

As someone who has reffed both hockey and football (and Umpired softball) for several years I can confirm this.

Different officials have different styles. Personally, I was always a "let 'em play" kind of ref. The vast majority of complaints that I got (and rest assured, there were a lot) were because of calls that I didn't make.

However, there is a huge difference between reffing in a beer league and the NHL. If guys like me find it tough to call a game that means nothing but bragging rights, I can only imagine how tough it must be for NHL guys.

We should also remember that the officials are instructed on a regular basis as to what calls they should be more diligent about making and what calls might not be quite so important. Some penalties are open to interpretation and often we fans don't particularly care for the way certain guys "interpret" the rules. (Sutherland) But the fact is, to an extent at least, these guys get their marching orders from above.

It only makes a tough job even tougher, IMO.

[D-Money]

Burrows is still suffering from the Auger incident after all these years. A lesser player would have had his career ended. No matter

how many times Burrows gets slapped down he comes back. He has done more to change the Canuck roster attitude than any other player in the last 10 years. He was a key reason that the club made the CUP finals. IMHO what infuriated the refs and Ron MacLean was that Burrows was not the goon they tried to label him as. He has continued to play the game at a high level.

Alex Burrows is no Brandon Prust! There is no comparable. Burrows is light years ahead of Prust.

Burrows has 194 career goals (regular season and playoffs). Prust has 40.

...So...um... ..."duh".

[-DLC-]

Usually when there's a code to keep silent it's to cover up some sort of corruption or dysfunction. Keeping things in the closet only serves to perpetuate them.

I believe there is a time/place and you have to "vent" in an effective way that gets your message heard. But it's not ok to "hush" people who are frustrated with a system in place...there's this little thing called freedom of speech which means we get to voice our opinions, even if unfavourable. If we stay within the rules (not a secret code), there's nothing wrong with expressing dissatisfaction...it's actually the first step to any changes being made.

[-DLC-]

You have to think, it's a tough job being an official. Chances are either one side or the other will think you did less than stellar job each night, and if the league mandated officials to address the media, I am positive that there would be some nervous breakdowns occurring all the time.

It really is a thankless job, nobody loves the officials. Hell, the fans even cheer when they wipe out or get hurt.

I am not trying to make this into a pity party for them, but I do believe most officials try to be as impartial as they can and it's in the NHL'S best interest to support them and offer them resources to do their job more effectively. Players and coaches should have an avenue to file a grievance if they deem necessary, but Prust did harm Watson's reputation publicly with his actions, which helps no one at this point.

You sign on for the gig knowing this and with the agreement that you'll do your best. Some of these guys get lazy and it's not "their best" we're seeing.

Many jobs are thankless, however, they pay the bills so it's what we have to do. You're not hired to be "liked", you're hired to do your job (well). So it's important in selecting the right candidates in this...those who won't be swayed by popularity or ego. That the rules guide the way and their job is to enforce them, not pick and choose in a subjective way that lets personal interests filter in. That's when these guys go astray. They get caught up in that and then the professionalism gets cast aside while they settle scores.

I don't feel that they all do their best....I think some have lost their way and it's more a popularity contest, with them siding based on that criteria in some instances. No secret that Burr can't catch a break and that some use the fact that it's him moreso than looking directly at the nature of an infraction.

Sure, warnings and repeat offenders come into play...but each game should come with a clean sheet. Or it is corrupt and pointless.

[poetica]

It's absolutely true that being a ref is a thankless job. We fans love to hate them. (Like last night when Calgary fans chanted, "Refs, you suck!" after a goal was disallowed despite the fact that they know it was Hockey Operations that made the call, not the refs.) But the truth is without them hockey would be little more than roller derby on ice. They are part of what makes the sport possible and we really should do a better job of appreciating refs. In fact, as fans we should try to find a way to thank them so that they know we do notice and appreciate it.

That being said (and meant!), refs also MUST be held to a high ethical standard. Mistakes happen, sure, but consistent biased calls or blatantly bad calls (like multiple 7 minute 5-on-3 penalties for little stuff when teams don't even get penalized that severely for deliberately injuring a player) that favor one team needlessly need to be addressed publicly. It's not about homerism. We've all seen blatantly bad, uneven reffing in games that don't involve our favorite team(s). While most refs may try to do a good job at least most nights, something rotten in the state of Denmark that has allowed any ref at any time to call a game any way he wants for any reason he wants. That is not okay.

As Deb said above, the "Vegas code" only applies to hiding something you know you shouldn't have done. Enforcing the "don't talk about the reffing or anything the refs said" code only makes them look even more guilty. Punishing players publicly but doing absolutely nothing to punish a ref who is at least equally guilty only solidifies the belief that refs are allowed to act as if they are above the rules and more important than the game itself. They are not above the game but they are an essential part of it and only by talking about reffing, both good and bad, and actually addressing bad reffing can we hope to create a culture where refs can finally get the respect most of them deserve from players, coaches, and fans.

[Apple Juice]

Seems like "proof" isn't what it once was....

Prust's own words:

I was talking about what he was doing in the penalty box after according to video proof. Yeah he chirped Watson on his way to the box but that's normal. Refs get that all the time from all sorts of players. It was just that Watson reacted and responded differently and started doing what he shouldn't done and that's when it got wrong. That's why Prust was saying "yeah ok, yeah ok" in his post game interview because that's when Watson was scolding Prust, which I was referring to video proof here (at 18 seconds):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoCrSpv5-v8