Refs yelling at the players

[snucks]

I hate the way they ref now. Who came up with the brilliant idea to have refs doing all the talking (yelling) in a game. The refs are not team players. Its almost like, "Who's side are they on anyhow?" They are supposed to be neutral. No wonder the players don't communicate anymore. The refs are doing all the talking. Then they can't even make a call in a game. They have to call over the phone to determine the correct call. The NHL has ruined the game of hockey.

[Alflives]

Just now, snucks said:

I hate the way they ref now. Who came up with the brilliant idea to have refs doing all the talking (yelling) in a game. The refs are not team players. Its almost like, "Who's side are they on anyhow?" They are supposed to be neutral. No wonder the players don't communicate anymore. The refs are doing all the talking. Then they can't even make a call in a game. They have to call over the phone to determine the correct call. The NHL has ruined the game of hockey.

Don't good refs "yell" at the players, so the players can hear them?  And isn't it mostly about encouraging players to move the puck, keep their sticks down, and the like?  Isn't the yelling more of a warning?  Refs have "yelled" like this from the beginning, no?

[JM_]

I don't care if they yell or hand out roses as long as its fair and they don't let things get stupid. 

[khay]

I agree. I actually think that yelling affects the players decision making process. Sometime he has no play available and just wants to freeze the puck (especially the defensive player) or hold the puck until help comes. Then, you hear the refs yell, which forces you to make a suboptimal decision and turn the puck over.

 

The only yelling that is probably not too harmful is the offside call. 

 

The refs should have 0 impact in the game and by yelling they are impacting the game in some ways. But I guess it's minor compared to the fact that they suck at their jobs. 

[elvis15]

Refs communicating during the game is a positive. The only other way they can influence the game is to blow the whistle. What they want is for the game to continue to move along without whistles, so they let the players know what's going on and they try to encourage continued, positive play.

[Canuck_Fan_52]

Refs yell as it can get noisy during games.  Players need to hear what it is that they are telling them.  This will avoid any controversy when players protest something claiming they were not informed of it..

[Green Building]

I like it. I liked it as a player, and I yelled a lot as a ref when I was still doing that. I view it as a safety thing, and a common sense thing really. Put yourself in a referee's shoes and ask yourself how you would feel if a man had the puck in his feet down low, unaware, and a forechecker was bearing down on him. You see this from 10 feet away and stay silent, watching, as he gets smashed. You might say "well he should have been paying attention", and you're right, he should be, but the game is so damn fast and the refs job is to keep it as safe as possible. 

 

Silence is not the way to do that.

 

On another note, when players tried to freeze the puck for a whistle, forget it. Unless someone is hurt or in danger, they can play the puck and keep the game flowing. Communicating that to the players simply speeds up the game. 

[elvis15]

Yup, we heard that loud and clear on the broadcast for last night's game when they were tying up the puck behind the net.

[Qwags]

22 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Yup, we heard that loud and clear on the broadcast for last night's game when they were tying up the puck behind the net.

I feel like that is the only time it is appropriate for the refs to be talking. It keeps the flow of the game.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

1 hour ago, Canuck_Fan_52 said:

Refs yell as it can get noisy during games.  Players need to hear what it is that they are telling them.  This will avoid any controversy when players protest something claiming they were not informed of it..

 

I can't the remember the last time anyone could describe Rogers Arena as noisy.

[HK Phooey]

3 hours ago, khay said:

I agree. I actually think that yelling affects the players decision making process. Sometime he has no play available and just wants to freeze the puck (especially the defensive player) or hold the puck until help comes. Then, you hear the refs yell, which forces you to make a suboptimal decision and turn the puck over.

 

The only yelling that is probably not too harmful is the offside call. 

 

The refs should have 0 impact in the game and by yelling they are impacting the game in some ways. But I guess it's minor compared to the fact that they suck at their jobs. 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've probably never played a game of organized hockey in your life...just a hunch.  The only voices players hear are that of other players (mainly teammates/linemates) and their coaches (and most of the time, you tend to ignore the coach while the play is on).  You learn at a real early age to tune out the refs while the play is on...the only time you actually hear what the refs say is in between the whistles and even at that, you tend to ignore them unless you initiate the dialogue.

[Canuck_Fan_52]

2 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

 

I can't the remember the last time anyone could describe Rogers Arena as noisy.

Maybe not these days, but during the times when the Canucks were at their best it was a mad house

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

5 minutes ago, Canuck_Fan_52 said:

Maybe not these days, but during the times when the Canucks were at their best it was a mad house

I went to a game in 2003 and it was brilliant.

 

I'd say after 2011 things went stale atmosphere wise. The decline maybe even began before then.

[khay]

49 minutes ago, HK Phooey said:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've probably never played a game of organized hockey in your life...just a hunch.  The only voices players hear are that of other players (mainly teammates/linemates) and their coaches (and most of the time, you tend to ignore the coach while the play is on).  You learn at a real early age to tune out the refs while the play is on...the only time you actually hear what the refs say is in between the whistles and even at that, you tend to ignore them unless you initiate the dialogue.

Yeah, I never played organized hockey with formally trained refs and formally trained coaches and I was nowhere near going pro in any sports so I don't know if these pros learn to completely tune out the refs at an early age; I'm guessing you must know better since it seems like you are one of those people that learned to tune out the refs at an early age.

But at least at various intramural levels that I played in, I found myself to be hearing the refs. In fact, in all sports that I play/played, I hear my teammates, opponents as well as the refs. That might be because I have only played at a lower level with lower intensity and maybe the pros (or the people wanting to become pros), with high intensity level just completely tune them out; again, I defer to your experience as it seems like you are either a professional hockey player or someone who's pursued that path.

 

Anyhow, in almost all sports, say basketball and soccer, the refs do not say anything to you ever while the play is on. They let you be. Only in hockey, the refs are talking to you while the play is on. Maybe the pros are good at ignoring them, but as an amateur, I could never completely tune them out.

 

[khay]

3 hours ago, Green Building said:

I like it. I liked it as a player, and I yelled a lot as a ref when I was still doing that. I view it as a safety thing, and a common sense thing really. Put yourself in a referee's shoes and ask yourself how you would feel if a man had the puck in his feet down low, unaware, and a forechecker was bearing down on him. You see this from 10 feet away and stay silent, watching, as he gets smashed. You might say "well he should have been paying attention", and you're right, he should be, but the game is so damn fast and the refs job is to keep it as safe as possible. 

 

Silence is not the way to do that.

 

On another note, when players tried to freeze the puck for a whistle, forget it. Unless someone is hurt or in danger, they can play the puck and keep the game flowing. Communication that to the players simply speeds up the game. 

I understand what you are saying and I somewhat agree. I'm guessing you were not an NHL ref? In that case, what you did to protect the players makes complete sense, especially if you were refereeing a junior league.

 

But I still think the refs should have 0 effect on the game especially at the pro level. For example, freezing the puck. I think the refs should just let the player be. If his team is winning, then it is a good way to waste few seconds off the clock. If his team is losing, then he's doing that at the risk of costing his team a game. 

 

[Rocky Balboa]

Spoken like someone who can't skate, never played a game of hockey in his life and never been to a game live. 

 

One of those guys who fancy themselves as an expert hockey analyst by watching it on tv. 

 

 

 

[on the cycle]

Don't care just wish that if the closest ref sees something and doesn't call it, the ref at center ice doesn't call it.

 

 

[insomniac604]

from what we have seen on Mic'd Up and various other platforms, the refs are just people. they chat about the game, about close calls, good goals and basically try to reason with players to keep themselves in line. telling them that they don't want to give them a penalty, but if they keep acting a certain way they will get one. they seem to incentivize guys to play between whistles and not be stupid during important moments.

 

they aren't always right or perfect. there are definitely tons of blown calls and lots of biases. but I believe that for every ref who hates Burrows or Gallagher, there are a handful who treat them fairly.

 

they are about as good as you can get with humans

 

there is something to be said for not being able to call them out. but when we get a glimpse into the on-ice antics, it's pretty clear they get a ton of abuse already

[Green Building]

8 hours ago, khay said:

I understand what you are saying and I somewhat agree. I'm guessing you were not an NHL ref? In that case, what you did to protect the players makes complete sense, especially if you were refereeing a junior league.

 

But I still think the refs should have 0 effect on the game especially at the pro level. For example, freezing the puck. I think the refs should just let the player be. If his team is winning, then it is a good way to waste few seconds off the clock. If his team is losing, then he's doing that at the risk of costing his team a game. 

 

That is an accurate guess, but I personally don't feel the level has anything to do with it, it's more about respecting the players on the ice. I got more respect from players on both sides of the ice when communicating these certain things during play. You aren't out saying "Hey your winger is on the far boards waiting for a breakaway pass", you are literally trying only to maintain the flow of the game, and do little things like vocally warning someone to watch the hooking/holding, or yelling "heads up" if someone is in a vulnerable spot. Even some of the dumber players on the ice can respect that, let alone the smarter ones. Plus, some players are always trying to get away with a little extra something infractions wise for that edge. If they're going to go right out and trip or hold or whatever then it's a penalty right away, but if it's borderline then then telling them to stop lets them know where the boundary is that game, and it keeps the play flowing at the same time. More on that below.

 

I could go on about freezing the puck, but I have an excerpt from an interview with a former NHL ref that explains it quite perfectly. The question is "why is the play not blown dead anymore when the puck is frozen against the boards?"

 

Quote

i) The game is most exciting and appealing when there are long periods of sustained action;

ii) A Referee's best friend is a moving puck.

The first premise is pretty much a given. Everyone (players, coaches, play-by-play commentators, and fans) really gets into the game when 'flow and go' is the order of business. Game tempo increases and players usually give and receive hits without retaliation as they are forced to keep up with the speed and sustained action. I would often witness the positive benefits and enhanced entertainment value that resulted from continuous play generated through three plus minutes of action without a whistle. It wasn't just by accident as I forced play to continue whenever I could.

Even in tight checking games I found that play generally opened when frequent changes on the fly had to be implemented by the teams. The rapid rotation of playing personnel over the boards forced everyone to remain focused and in the game.

It was also my experience that, as player hostilities intensified, the 'crap' happened after the whistle blew. Scrums and fights can easily become a byproduct of a stoppage in play.  Many times I witnessed a scrum in progress only to be disbanded when no whistle resulted and the players were forced to rejoin the action. 

A player (or players) from the defending team is generally guilty of trying to stop play by freezing the puck. This attempt is frequently done to relieve the pressure, to gain a line change at the end of a long shift, during a penalty kill or if he finds him team in a vulnerable position. We don't allow a player to dump the puck over the boards or fall on or gather the puck into his body to gain a stoppage in play. This action would result in a delay of game penalty. Why then would we allow one player to deliberately attempt to stop play by freezing the puck?

http://www2.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=424245

 

Now people can call that interfering if they like and we can leave it at agree to disagree, but the preceding sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you want a line change you can earn one. The result is a better on ice product in my opinion.

[khay]

21 minutes ago, Green Building said:

That is an accurate guess, but I personally don't feel the level has anything to do with it, it's more about respecting the players on the ice. I got more respect from players on both sides of the ice when communicating these certain things during play. You aren't out saying "Hey your winger is on the far boards waiting for a breakaway pass", you are literally trying only to maintain the flow of the game, and do little things like vocally warning someone to watch the hooking/holding, or yelling "heads up" if someone is in a vulnerable spot. Even some of the dumber players on the ice can respect that, let alone the smarter ones. Plus, some players are always trying to get away with a little extra something infractions wise for that edge. If they're going to go right out and trip or hold or whatever then it's a penalty right away, but if it's borderline then then telling them to stop lets them know where the boundary is that game, and it keeps the play flowing at the same time. More on that below.

 

I could go on about freezing the puck, but I have an excerpt from an interview with a former NHL ref that explains it quite perfectly. The question is "why is the play not blown dead anymore when the puck is frozen against the boards?"

 

 

Now people can call that interfering if they like and we can leave it at agree to disagree, but the preceding sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you want a line change you can earn one. The result is a better on ice product in my opinion.

Thanks for the detailed response. I can certainly respect such well thought out post.

 

Although I agree with most of your post (for example, the freezing of the puck), I was just asking myself if in the NFL, a player is coming from the blindside, would a ref yell at the player being targeted? I know, different sport and all but in both sports, hitting (from blindside) is allowed. I think at the NHL level, the ref's just gotta let the play develop.