A close friend of mine who is very active in youth hockey suggested a referee evailuation form be completed by both coaches at the end of each game. ( Which I understand is now being considered by at least one league). Now before you go up that road, yes, some coaches who lack common sense will try to blame the referee for the 10-0 loss. This is obvious and should be considered when the league officials evailuate the forms. What will be closely looked at is when 10 coaches from 10 different teams all report the same referee screwed up. I think common sence would indicate this ref has a problem.
Like anything, nothing is fool proof but this method will establish accountability and should enhance the overall quality of the game.

As with blowouts, coaches who have players that are unruly (probably because of the coach) will have lots of penalties and blame the ref. I think they could easily try different refs with coaches to also see if the ref or the coach is the problem.

Sounds like we need a database to track all these evaluations that we can do some querys on the feedback on both ref and coaches reviewing the refs.

Its called "The Arbiter," and there are others.
www.thearbiter.net

A bunch of groups already use it. It allows coaches to evaluate the officials performace after each game.
It costs about $5 per official - depending on how large a group.

You should propose that your assignors use it and the officials performance is monitored by the RIC and CIC of the respective league

I've seen good and bad officiating over the years my son has played but good or bad if a ref is consistent I can live with it. What is most frustrating is the ref that calls 2 similar hits in completely different ways.

Hit #1, clean and effective and the kid that got hit gets up and returns to play. Result of the hit is play continues.

Hit #2, clean and effective but the kid that got hit is slow to get up or injured. Result of the hit is a penalty.

Why the disparity? A ref should call the hit if it was dirty, not make is call based on the aftermath.

I see the larger players in the league getting called over and over for clean hits because the kid that was hit is slow to get up.

It's frustrating to watch.

If both hits are called the same way the players get an understanding of what is and what is not acceptable and can play accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy:
I've seen good and bad officiating over the years my son has played but good or bad if a ref is consistent I can live with it. What is most frustrating is the ref that calls 2 similar hits in completely different ways.

Hit #1, clean and effective and the kid that got hit gets up and returns to play. Result of the hit is play continues.

Hit #2, clean and effective but the kid that got hit is slow to get up or injured. Result of the hit is a penalty.

Why the disparity? A ref should call the hit if it was dirty, not make is call based on the aftermath.

I see the larger players in the league getting called over and over for clean hits because the kid that was hit is slow to get up.

It's frustrating to watch.

If both hits are called the same way the players get an understanding of what is and what is not acceptable and can play accordingly.

Good observation, familyguy. Although I would add the sound of the hit as well. In my experience referees in this area nearly always call the aftermath, and are 50/50 on calls as the hit is happening. I've seen Berkle get nailed on that a lot - refs call him for boarding or a charge when he stopped striding 10 feet from the boards and hit the kid from the front. Again, most of the games I see are La Salle and I've seen Berkle head to the box a lot with this - I'm sure other kids get nailed on it too.

oldschool, you are fairly correct in that the majority of the suspensions have come through personal conduct issues rather than on ice performance issues but there have been a few exceptions. With that said, if an organization is having problems with the performance of their officials they should probably take a look at their assignor rather than the officials on the ice. As an official, if I were offered an opportunity to work the NHL I would take it regardless of the fact that I am not skilled enough to take the game.

The assignors make money just like the guys on the ice do. There are many who give assignments on a first come first serve basis (perhaps the worst way to assign games), have a group that they use exclusively barring an emergency or who just plug in anyone they get and care little, if at all about matching an official to an assignment. The first line of defense regarding issues with officials is the assignor.

ZamHugger is completely correct regarding the Arbiter. It is a very nice system and there are others out there like it. Both of the local ACHA officiating organizations use it along with a few other local leagues. The system has an evaluation section. MAHOA (ACHA D2 and D3) pushes heavily for their officials to do pier reviews. They keep the evaluations as anonymous as possible, though admittedly, in some cases you can determine who it was provided the evaluation. The tool provides the assignor perhaps the fairest opportunity to get a fair evaluation of an official. If used properly by both the officials doing the evaluations and the assignors it could go a long way in solving most of the problems everyone is talking about here.

quote:

Originally posted by Luber25:
MAHOA (ACHA D2 and D3) pushes heavily for their officials to do pier reviews.

Are those reviews performed on a yacht?

All I know is that tall kid with the sideburns needs to learn how to ref.

quote:

Originally posted by DickyDunn:

quote:

Originally posted by Luber25:
MAHOA (ACHA D2 and D3) pushes heavily for their officials to do pier reviews.

Are those reviews performed on a yacht?

All I know is that tall kid with the sideburns needs to learn how to ref.

DickyDunn, Yo Yo Yo. Just remember to put that arm up immediately. Never, and I mean never, assess the entire situation before putting that arm up. Same for you, Luber25. I run a clean game here. No hooking. no high sticking! Nice!!