Referees: A Treatise for WCHA Fans

David Hume: Author of THE seminal work in Philosophy called "A Treatise of Human Nature"

Preface:

They is nary a sporting competition amongst humans that doesn't require intervention and/or adjudication by a third disinterested party.  In my experience, I have found that disinterested is truly a word which can be rarely applied in that regard. At some level, whether it be conscious or unconscious referees and judges have preferences that sometimes manifest themselves and play a factor in the contesting and occasionally the outcome of a sporting contest.

A scientific study showed that judges in the Olympics showed a preference for athletes in red uniforms.  Another study showed that referees in the professional soccer games added substantially more time for home teams when the home team was behind.

Administrators of sporting leagues and rule makers have long understood this.  A good set of rules tries to eliminate the subjective judgment of humans.  But such a thing is difficult to achieve.  I can think of only one sporting contest that comes close to doing so; racing.  Whether it is a foot race, downhill skiing, swimming, bicycling or some sort of mechanized contest the clock rules the day and judges/referees are almost never required.  Such is not the case though for our beloved hockey.  There is so much adjudication required that currently four officials patrol the ice in an attempt to keep the contest fair.

Assertions:

1.  I submit that the number of officials in use can actually increase the possibility of subjective adjudication and decrease basic fairness.

2.  I submit that geographic diversity and/or location decreases fairness in making calls.

3.  I submit that referees are influenced by personal relationships which causes a decrease in basic fairness.

4.  I submit that the discussion of refereeing performance is an ongoing and valid topic for discussion and that summary dismissal of same is akin to the cliched Ostrich with it's head buried in the sand.

I'm not a scientist and have no data-set, so unfortunately I'm going to have to make my case here with only anecdotal evidence.  And frankly, besides the two study's I linked above there isn't much available on the subject that isn't anecdotal.  Be that as it may, I think I have a strong case or I wouldn't be writing this freaking long treatise.

Assertion #1:

Part of the allure of being a policeman is that when a situation arises which needs policing the policeman is in charge.  It's a control thing.  We all like to exert control whenever or wherever we are able in our lives.  Referees are the ice-policemen.  What they say goes.  Psychologists and Sociologists have a clear and long history of defining a wide-range of actions of which people assigned control of other people will engage.  The most famous perhaps being this Stanford study.  Yet the issue of control is more complex when that control is shared equally.

For the case of this discussion, who's in control?  Referee "A" or referee "B"?  By rule neither is.  Yet isn't it human nature for a dominant personality to override a submissive one?  As a person who seeks contol wouldn't referee "A" when confronted with witnessing crappy judgement by referee "B" be inclined to "even it up"?  It is already a widely held belief by many fans (and statistics tend to confirm) that WCHA referees have always attempted to "even it up".  Two referees increases this practice.  If such a tendency exists in only one of the two referees then he is likely to exert that control.

It's human nature.

Assertion #2:

Imagine yourself as a referee.  It's not the greatest paying gig in the world.  The last quote I had regarding pay was that WCHA referees make $200 per game.  If one referees 8 games a month then one's max salary is $1600 before taxes.  What would a treatise be without some math eh?

The WCHA has two geographic divisions (of a sort).  Minnesota, St. Cloud, Mankato, North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth are all located within a close driving radius.  Wisconsin is only slightly further on average.  Those six schools comprise what I'd call the core geographic area of the WCHA.  Houghton, Denver, Colorado Springs and Anchorage are the outlying geographic cities.

Much to our surprise referees actually have families and friends.  I know it's hard to believe.  Many if not all, also probably have day jobs which require their presence during the typical M-F workweek.  So how much are you going to like getting assigned Anchrorage as your weekend gig on the Tuesday before?  Man that would suck.  If I lived in Bemidji, then everytime I got the Anchorage "draw" I'd be bummed.  A weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) removed from family and friends on short notice?  Suckage.

Do you think referee "A" is really going to be in the best mood when he hits the ice for the Friday night game?  Most likely, the poor bugger just wants to get it over with and get back home.  Being stuck in Houghton instead of back home in Edina?  Huffing and puffing at 6,000ft in Colorado Springs instead of relaxing in the recliner after the short drive from St. Cloud back to your house in Wayzata?

Okay ... so maybe referees typically don't live in old-money Edina or new-money Wayzata.  My point remains.

Assertion #3:

In the WCHA referees are assigned various locales throughout the season.  It appears that the league office attempts to spread the assignments out equitably so as to ensure one referee or another does not end up spending too much time in one city or another.  It is generally a good policy that I tend to believe is effective.

However, due to the geographic clustering of a majority of WCHA schools a problem exists which is unanticipated and for which no solution has been attempted.  Referees and fans interact regularly.  Some referees and some fans are close friends.  It wouldn't perhaps be good form for me to detail specific instances of which I'm aware.  If a serious demand were made that I had to reveal specifics, I certainly could do so.

So instead, I'll describe a semi-fictional anecdote to make my point.  Fans of team "A", team "B" and team "C" often travel amongst the various close venues that comprise the center of the WCHA geographically.  They have done so for years.  Over that time they have come to know referees "A", "B", "C" and "D" in social settings during typical post game events ... i.e ... they have beers with the refs after the games.

This is an unacceptable situation and should be quashed immediately by the WCHA league office. I'm not trying to be the guy that says referees aren't people and shouldn't be allowed to socialize after their work is done.  They should be ... it's just that they shouldn't be allowed to associate with these traveling and other fans.  It is a disgrace and a black eye on the league.  Don't think for a minute that my semi-fictional anecdote isn't fact based.

It happens much more frequently than the average college hockey fan might think.  Fans typically love to engage in activities that make them feel closer to the game.  Having a referee as a drinking buddy is something that such fans cannot keep to themselves. These off-ice relationships cast a serious question as to objectivity on the ice.  Just an appearance of impropriety can in and of itself cast a negative light.

The semi-fictional description above does happen.  There are other "relationships" that exist between referees and fans that could also raise suspicion.  I'll not bother to make up semi-fictional examples for them but let's just say they are of a romantic nature.  Yep ... referees get horny and there ARE accommodating fans.

Assertion #4:

There are myriad aspects that make up the entirety of a hockey game.  The home teams performance, the oppositions performance, decisions of the coaches and environment are all considered valid for discussion in any post-game analysis.  Some examples:

"The ice was soft and favored Team "A" because they can't skate."
"The home team is supremely talented and could not be beaten tonight."
"The opposition team reached down and found more desire to win."
"Coach "A" shouldn't have used Player "B" in that situation."
"Coach "B" doesn't enforce disclipline on his team and they play like a bunch of hacks because of it."

These aspects of the sport (and others) are all regularly used and examined when analyzing the results of a hockey game.  They are all readily accepted topics by analysts and their readers/listeners.  However, virtually any mention of the quality of the officiating results in the initiator of such discussion as being labeled a "whiner".  This is utter garbage.

Refereeing is just as valid an aspect of the game as any other.  Assertions that such a thing is "whining" is a denial of the fact that decisions referees make are integral to the contest.  Without the decisions referees are there to make, the contest would be a free for all nightmarish mess.  Every sport needs adjudication to be what it is.  Therefore, it logically follows that discussions of the referees performance are entirely and completely valid.  Attempts to suppress such conversation by applying the "whiner" label are ipso facto antithetical to communication and the analysis of the contest.  Persons attempting to label another in such a manner should be ignored, shunned and dismissed summarily.

Solutions:

I'm never just about raising issues and walking away.  Criticism is nothing without some sort of constructive attempt to suggest solutions.  You may or may not accept my above assertions and anecdotal evidence as proof of a problem.  If you agree with any part of what I've said then perhaps you'll find these suggested solutions acceptable.  If you don't then ... you know where the comments section is ... right?

#1.  Return to the single referee system with two assistants.  That system ensures only one person is in charge.  Enable the assistants to call infractions through the use of a radio headset.  This ensures that the referee can exert his own judgement as well.  Too many cooks spoil the broth.


#2.  Assign referees to games prior to the season.  This will ensure that no hard feelings about getting the "draw" to a less desirable geographic WCHA rink are in play.  If one knows he's heading to Hougton in January or Anchorage in February before the season then he has ample time to adjust to that undesirable assignment.


#3.  Have every WCHA referee sign a pledge of non-association with fans of any team.  If a referee doesn't like doing so then he treasures those friendships more than his job.  Other referees can easily be found that would sign the pledge.


#4.  Fans accused of "whining" during post game discussions should use the following statement as a retort to those ridiculous comments; "Refereeing is a integral aspect of the game, your attempt to dismiss the discussion of that integral aspect of our beloved sport displays your shallow understanding of the sport.  You are in violation of Dunlop's Law which states that such dismissive attitudes are akin to Godwin's Law."

Summary:

I don't like referees, I believe that is the "proper" attitude for a sports fan.  Yet I acknowledge their humanity; my animus is not personally based but instead a reflection of the fan/sport dynamic which I call "fandom".  I believe like every other human referees are susceptible to bias, mood and flaws in judgment.  I don't believe that every problem with refereeing is addressed by this treatise.  But, it is a start of a kind and I believe needed to be said.

These issues are indeed products of my perceptions as a WCHA fan and specifically the University of Alaska Anchorage hockey team.  As with any subject there are variable levels of these problems across the spectrum of referees.  I encourage the fans of the WCHA to actively lobby WCHA Supervisor of Officials Greg Sheppard and WCHA Commissioner Bruce McLeod whether their views are similar or dissimilar to what I've posted here.  Their contact information can be found at this webpage.

Postscript:

If you actually read all that then you deserve some visual stimulation as a reward.  Here it is.  Click on it for the full sized version.  Get an eyeful now because I'm running out of these.

Not David Hume: Didn't write anything important.  Doesn't need to.