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.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
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:
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.
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:
- 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.
- Does it smell like Dogsh!t? - I've smelled something like this before. It smells like Tim Donahey.
- 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.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why Games are Managed
It's Saturday morning, and I have a choice between writing this post or watching this crap. So I'm writing.
My last post explored the concept of Game Management by NHL referees. Basically, the theory is that the referees try to make games more palatable to fans by calling penalties according to certain formulas (or patterns). There was no groundbreaking revelations in that post - intelligent hockey fans have made those deductions for themselves and have probably detected more formulas than was listed.
This post is to be more conspiratorial. Let's discuss "Why". Why does the NHL want their games managed?
Well, the first reason is easy enough to determine. The NHL argues that exciting hockey is generated by games that are close. Like casual hockey fans, the NHL would like the score of the game with 5 minutes remaining to be withing one goal. In their opinion, which has been expressed in interviews, fans enjoy games more when the score is close. Which is correct, of course. The NHL, however, will take steps to ensure that games remain close in order toincrease attendance which increases their revenue make it more exciting for the fans. So, the first reason is that they believe "close games make money". I can write a 1000-word post on how wrong this is, but will leave that for another day. (Quickly: referees are contributing to the game's outcome - BAD).
The other reason we'll explore is more of an theory, because no actual physical evidence exists. No newspaper would touch this. Gambling. I am not accusing any active referee was involved in a points-shaving scheme, but I'm raising the question. If an NBA referee could do it, what would stop an NHL referee? We've already proven that NHL referees have a direct impact on the outcome or score of games and have identified the formulas that they use to do so. What stops a referee from betting on a game and then calling the game's penalties to influence the score? How easy would it be for a referee to call the game to keep the score close to help his bet? Or worse, how easy is it for organized crime to be involved?
The next post will look at what can be done. Because something needs to be done.
My last post explored the concept of Game Management by NHL referees. Basically, the theory is that the referees try to make games more palatable to fans by calling penalties according to certain formulas (or patterns). There was no groundbreaking revelations in that post - intelligent hockey fans have made those deductions for themselves and have probably detected more formulas than was listed.
This post is to be more conspiratorial. Let's discuss "Why". Why does the NHL want their games managed?
Well, the first reason is easy enough to determine. The NHL argues that exciting hockey is generated by games that are close. Like casual hockey fans, the NHL would like the score of the game with 5 minutes remaining to be withing one goal. In their opinion, which has been expressed in interviews, fans enjoy games more when the score is close. Which is correct, of course. The NHL, however, will take steps to ensure that games remain close in order to
The other reason we'll explore is more of an theory, because no actual physical evidence exists. No newspaper would touch this. Gambling. I am not accusing any active referee was involved in a points-shaving scheme, but I'm raising the question. If an NBA referee could do it, what would stop an NHL referee? We've already proven that NHL referees have a direct impact on the outcome or score of games and have identified the formulas that they use to do so. What stops a referee from betting on a game and then calling the game's penalties to influence the score? How easy would it be for a referee to call the game to keep the score close to help his bet? Or worse, how easy is it for organized crime to be involved?
The next post will look at what can be done. Because something needs to be done.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Game Management in the NHL
The NHL uses, for various reasons, what I like to call "Game Management". There - it's been said. And it is on the Internet so it must be true, right?
Actually, it is true. And we all know it. But what is it? What is "Game Management"?
It is the NHL's practice of controlling the outcome of games by controlling aspects of each game. Before we look at "why", lets look at "how" the NHL manages games in this post.
How the NHL Manages their Games
The NHL manages their games by using their officials to influence hockey games through penalty calls or non-calls. If we watch an NHL game with a copy of the NHL Rulebook in our hands, you will notice that a significant amount of the gameplay rules are not called as they appear in writing. When reviewing the rulebook, referees are granted discretion in determining the severity of a penalty (Major vs Minor) but not in calling the penalty. The word "Any" is used to describe the criteria for calling a penalty, as in Any Action... or ...any player.... Check out the rulebook for more instances, but the fact remains that referees are not provided the right to discretion when calling penalties, if we look at the rulebook. If a referee sees a penalty they should be calling the penalty. But they don't.
If you've ever watched a NHL Hockey game, you have examples of obvious penalties that were not called. You've seen, and probably yelled about, that missed hooking call. Or that tripping penalty that didn't get called. Sure, hockey is a fast game and the referees have a tough job, but there is something else, a certain "je ne sais quoi".
Actually, je sais quoi. The referees manage hockey games. Maybe not every game, but most. How? They are deciding which penalties to call at what times. They have penalty formulas to manage games. These formulas are the the patterns used by the referees during games to call penalties. Here are three formula's I've been able to identify:
1.The "Keep it Fair" formula. The referees will call the game to ensure that both teams will end up with the same number of penalties. This formula has not been used as much since the lockout, but you'll still see it from time to time.
2. The "Home Team". The penalties are called with an eye to keeping the hometown fans happy with the opposing teams (aka The Heel) getting the bulk of called penalties regardless of the actual infractions that occur on the ice.
3. The "Keep it Close" formula. This is the most common formula, and has been used since ...well, ever. Here is how it works:
a. Call the penalties pretty even through the first half of the game until a lead is built. The new twist to this is that the 5-on-3 situations have to bee even as well.
b. Start calling penalties against the leading team, but don't make it too obvious. They may even throw in another 5-on-3 as well.
c. With between eight to fourteen minutes left, call a penalty against the trailing team.
d. In fact, if a lot of penalties are being called against the leading team the referee can call another penalty against the trailing team - for appearances, y'know?
This post's contention, which has been logically laid out above, is that NHL referees actively attempt to influence the score and even outcome of NHL games.
Why?
Actually, it is true. And we all know it. But what is it? What is "Game Management"?
It is the NHL's practice of controlling the outcome of games by controlling aspects of each game. Before we look at "why", lets look at "how" the NHL manages games in this post.
How the NHL Manages their Games
The NHL manages their games by using their officials to influence hockey games through penalty calls or non-calls. If we watch an NHL game with a copy of the NHL Rulebook in our hands, you will notice that a significant amount of the gameplay rules are not called as they appear in writing. When reviewing the rulebook, referees are granted discretion in determining the severity of a penalty (Major vs Minor) but not in calling the penalty. The word "Any" is used to describe the criteria for calling a penalty, as in Any Action... or ...any player.... Check out the rulebook for more instances, but the fact remains that referees are not provided the right to discretion when calling penalties, if we look at the rulebook. If a referee sees a penalty they should be calling the penalty. But they don't.
If you've ever watched a NHL Hockey game, you have examples of obvious penalties that were not called. You've seen, and probably yelled about, that missed hooking call. Or that tripping penalty that didn't get called. Sure, hockey is a fast game and the referees have a tough job, but there is something else, a certain "je ne sais quoi".
Actually, je sais quoi. The referees manage hockey games. Maybe not every game, but most. How? They are deciding which penalties to call at what times. They have penalty formulas to manage games. These formulas are the the patterns used by the referees during games to call penalties. Here are three formula's I've been able to identify:
1.The "Keep it Fair" formula. The referees will call the game to ensure that both teams will end up with the same number of penalties. This formula has not been used as much since the lockout, but you'll still see it from time to time.
2. The "Home Team". The penalties are called with an eye to keeping the hometown fans happy with the opposing teams (aka The Heel) getting the bulk of called penalties regardless of the actual infractions that occur on the ice.
3. The "Keep it Close" formula. This is the most common formula, and has been used since ...well, ever. Here is how it works:
a. Call the penalties pretty even through the first half of the game until a lead is built. The new twist to this is that the 5-on-3 situations have to bee even as well.
b. Start calling penalties against the leading team, but don't make it too obvious. They may even throw in another 5-on-3 as well.
c. With between eight to fourteen minutes left, call a penalty against the trailing team.
d. In fact, if a lot of penalties are being called against the leading team the referee can call another penalty against the trailing team - for appearances, y'know?
This post's contention, which has been logically laid out above, is that NHL referees actively attempt to influence the score and even outcome of NHL games.
Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
