CASST - Separation

The Problem
All NHL Discipline and Refereeing decisions are run by the same person - the NHL's Director of Hockey Operations.  The Director of Hockey Operations reports to, um, I don't know.  Either to Gary Bettman or Bill Daly (who reports to Gary Bettman).

The Business of the NHL is also run by both Gary and Bill.  So, the people who run the business of hockey also run the rules of the NHL games.  Do you see a conflict here?  If you don't, you can stop reading now.  You probably aren't smart or cynical enough to read anything I write.

The Rant
I swear that the NHL is the world's biggest small business. Too much power in too few hands.

The Business of the NHL is run by business people.  The hockey of the NHL is run by business people and (IMHO incompetent) hockey people.  The wrong people are making the wrong decisions.  Or more accurately, they are too close to the decision.  The Commissioner, his VPs, and their Directors are too close to the hockey decisions.  Its like an Electrical Engineer making financial decisions instead of a MBA. This is a symptom of a business that has grown in size without maturing. The NHL's Hockey Operations is the business equivalent of a 16-year old teenage boy with a mustache and a mullet.  How annoying is that?

How to Implement
The Hockey decision-making process of the NHL has to change from an Entrepreneurial mindset to a Professional one. This is one of the most difficult processes for a business to engage in.  It will not be easy and it will mean that heads will roll.  It always does.

Structure has to be put in place, which is basically what the entire CASST system is about.  The NHL is focusing (correctly, they aren't a charity) on making profits.  What they aren't doing is providing governance to their Hockey Operations department.  The current head of that group is Colin Campbell, and the decisions that he makes, which are based on fluctuating and inconsistent criteria, faulty logic, and bad judgment are consistent with the lack of structure in place at the executive level.  Campbell, or his replacement, needs to bring structure to the decision making process and live within that structure. 

The structure should look like this:

1. The Hockey Operations department is a separate organization from the NHL's business organization.
   
2. The Competition Committee reports directly into the Director of Hockey Operations.
3. Change Management is to be completed via processes.
1. All hockey-related requests made to the Director of Hockey Operations by the Commissioner is to be done in writing, and acknowledged in writing.
2. The Director of Hockey Operations has the option to refuse the change
3. If the change is warranted, the Director of Hockey Operations engages the Competition Committee to study the requested change.
4. The Competition Committee then provides a recommendation to the Director of Hockey Operations as to the feasibility of the requested Change.
5. Et cetera.
6. The process works in reverse if the Competition Committee comes up with a Change.
   
4. Of course, the Rulebook has been updated, the Discipline book created and the Quality system is in place, as well.

It is starting to look a little bit like your workplace, isn't it?  It's because you work in a Professional environment.

CASST - Standards

The Problem
Each season, the NHL provides guidance to their referees as to what is a penalty and what is not a penalty when decisions are made at executive levels as to what rule changes or rule interpretation changes are required for the upcoming season.

Why is that a problem?  Well, I'll telly you why its a problem. 


The Rant
While the NHL has improved their sport decision-making (no comment on the business) with the introduction of the Competition Committee, they have a long way to go.  Look at it this way: 

You work for a company, any company.  Your employer publishes policies for their employees to follow - things like Expense Policy, Use of Internet Policy, Hiring Policy, etc.  That is how I see the NHL Rulebook.  They are RULES.  Not Guidelines.  RULES.  These are 'Musts', not 'Maybes'.  They are 'Always', not 'Sometimes'.  Frickin RULES.

Rules are used to keep a group of people (a company, a society, etc) informed of the level of behavior that is expected from them.  Also, they provides the people who are responsible for the enforcement of the rules (police, judges, REFEREES) with clear and defined requirements to judge whether actions  are considered in agreement with the rules or not in agreement AND the penalties associated with them.

How to Implement 
The NHL needs to implement a set of standards to govern several aspects of the Refereeing and Diciplinary systems.  A good first step would be to implement the set of standards that they already have without "interpreting" them.  If a rule needs to be changed, then change it.  Stop this insulting "Interpretation" business.


As for Discipline (which means fines and suspensions), they need to come up with an equivalent.  The NHL has to create a Disciplinary Standards book.  The Disciplinary Standards would provide the basis to define the NHL's Discipline policy, including the criteria for implementing particular punitive measures (when to fine, when to suspend, etc), how to assess the severity of the punitive measure to be taken (how big a fine, how long a suspension, etc), how to deal with unexpected items and how to change the standards.A committee must be formed to review the current procedures, review what other top-tier professional sports league do, what other hockey leagues do, andcreate a new Disciplinary policy.  That policy will then be used to create the Disciplinary Standards by the same committee.   This committee must be sponsored by the NHL Commissioner (Gary Bettman) but operate outside the regular machine of the NHL to ensure that impartiality.

CASST - Accountibility

The Problem

No apparent mechanism exists for NHL referees to be held accountable.  At work, if you do your job poorly, are you held accountable?  I know I sure am.

The Rant

Who do these guys report to?  Why are they so special?  I have to answer to my boss for my screwups, why don't they?

When listening to Gary Bettman's show on satelitte radio, his politically correct answer to all refereeing problems is the same - "I look to see if the referee is in the correct position.  If he is, he usually makes the right call".  What the heck is that?  The NHL referee is judge and jury during a game, but we cannot confirm if this judge and jury have their judgements reviewed at any time to ensure they meet the criteria put forth by the NHL.  I know that when I watch a game, I see many penalties that go uncalled.

How to Implement

Building off the ISO 9000 idea from the previous post, each referee would have the same number of blind quality audits performed during a season.  Information from the audit, including "What worked well", deficiencies, corrective actions, etc would be tracked.

This information would be compiled to create a reference list of each referee's performance.  The referees would be ranked against several categories, including:
1. Consistency
2. Compliance with standards (see next post)
3. Ability to handle pressure
4. Game Communication Management
5. Etc

A scoring system would be used to determine who would be ranked as the NHL premier Referees, good refs, poor refs, etc.

This ranking would then be used to assign playoff work, layoffs or outright firings.

CASST - Consistency

The Problem
Each referee calls the game in his own way.  Each referee is granted, by the NHL, to interpret each rule withing specific guidelines, including when in the game the infraction occurs.

The Rant
Strict adherence to whatever standards are in place on an ongoing basis is a MUST.  This will require a tremendous amount of oversight.  No longer can the NHL change "Interpretations" of rules that are already in the rulebook.  If the rulebook requires clarification, clarify it.  If not, the referees must make the calls.  Hooking in the first period is the same penalty as hooking in the third period.  A referee who "Interprets" leaves his imprint on the game.  Make every call and let the players decide who wins.

How to Implement
Quality Assurance.  Plain and simple.  Have the NHL Refereeing system implement ISO 9000-type standards.  Why not?  ISO audits are used to judge the consistency of a product.  Isn't the refereeing of the most prestigious Hockey league worth implementing a system to make sure it is done the same way every game?

People earning minimum wage at a call-centre (call-center for my American friends) have their work audited to ensure they match the company's standards.  Have you ever heard "This call may be monitored for quality assurance"?  Surely, the "best referees in the world" can pass the same test that many of us are subjected to by our employer.

This includes written instructions that the referees must follow, escalation procedures, quality audits, notification of deficiencies, and corrective actions.

CASST

I've covered the issues surrounding the Refereeing in the NHL in my recent and not-so recent posts.  While I take great pleasure in complaining, that isn't the reason I started this blog.  This blog was created to present my solution to the Issues I see in the NHL.

So, what is my solution to the NHL Refereeing issues?  The answer boils down to Consistency, Accountability, Standards, Separation and Transparency.   The CAAST system.

I wanted to look into each of these points in this blog post, but the post became way to large way too quickly.  So what I'll do is post a series of articles that look into each, starting with Consistency.

More of the same.

Don't be shocked at this.  What did you expect?  Credibility? Accountability?  Don't be a fool.

I missed this one

I know it has been a while since I blogged, and I aplogize.  I promised a post about corrupt refereeing, and then fell through - sorry about that.

But I have to admit that I missed another of the reasons that NHL referees manage games  - Pettiness.  See
here and here.  I should have seen it before.

Do you believe Alex Burrows?  Do you believe that a professional referee would stake his reputation on revenge calls?  Do you believe that referees are emotional people who are largely unsupervised and who have say in the output of a hockey game?

I would answer "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes" to those questions.  The reason I would answer "Yes" to all those questions is simple - I have too much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to not believe it.  Alex Burrows is just adding some hearsay evidence to the pile.  Pile of what?  Basically, it passes the Cheech and Chong "Dogsh!t" test (unofficial transcript here), which goes like this:

1. Does it feel like Dogsh!t? - His statements feel right.  They match what this blog has been stating - the referees aren't as professional as they want us to believe.
   
2. Does it smell like Dogsh!t? - I've smelled something like this before.  It smells like Tim Donahey.
   
3. Does it taste like Dogsh!t? - I've watched too many games and come from the game with a bad taste in my mouth.  Now I know what that taste was.  (and NO, it wasn't something that you stuck in there, you perv.)  It was a game that was artificially influenced by referees.
   

The problem is that the NHL is stepping in the pile of Dogsh!t by ignoring the it.  They appoint former referees and players to handle the disciplinary duties of the NHL, which only servers to maintain the status quo.  The former players and referees are so used to the smell of the Dogsh!t that they don't notice it anymore, are too ignorant to look down to see it and are too squeamish to taste it.  They're actually the dogs who "made" the Dogsh!t.

This won't change until somebody in the upper reaches of NHL Managaement sees the Diciplinary and Refereeing systems for what they are - a big steaming pile of Dogsh!T.

* I couldn't find an audio link to the Cheech and Chong Dogsh!t skit, but maybe you can if you Google it.
** I didn't really mean for the Dogsh!t metaphor to take over the post, but it had a life of its own and kept working the more I used it.