The Athletic Should the NHL Follow NBA and NFL's Lead and Allow Referees to Explain Calls to Media?

[Phil]

Quote

In the NBA, a pool reporter was able to ask referee and crew chief Tony Brothers about LeBron James’ disputed three-point play on a potential game-tying shot.

 

Meanwhile, NFL referee Brad Allen answered three questions from a pool reporter after the Detroit Lions had a two-point conversion negated because of an illegal touching penalty against the Dallas Cowboys.

 

Hockey fans are likely sitting back and watching this type of transparency and accountability from game officials with some degree of envy. After all, NHL protocols do not allow for referees to be made available to the media following games. As it currently stands, reporters can send an email request to the league office for a comment on a disputed or controversial call.

 

The referees on the ice, however, are strictly off-limits.

 

Quote

So after watching the other leagues put their referees in the direct line of questioning, it’s worth pondering if it’s time for the NHL to do the same.

 

The initial response might be a resounding yes.

 

During the NHL/NHLPA player tour last September in Las Vegas, Edmonton Oilers superstar Leon Draisaitl was on board with the idea of making referees available to the media following controversial rulings on the ice.

 

“It’d be a great idea,” Draisaitl said. “There’s no ref out there that’s trying to purposely make the wrong decisions.”

 

https://theathletic.com/5175357/2024/01/04/nhl-referees-controversy-nba-nfl/

[Valriera]

Yes

[jsm7302]

This really shouldn't be groundbreaking.

 

This is what I saw, this is why I called it, I'm not perfect and sometimes I may get it wrong but I need to go by the evidence I have at the time. Thank you.

[Ozzy]

Oh DEFINITELY!  I would LOVE to hear some explainations of the shit calls!

Edited January 4 by Ozzy

[LindG1000]

Sure, why not? Just don't expect it to fix anything. Many calls are clear-cut and obvious, but those get called, because they're clear-cut and obvious. Those are never the calls that we all care about as fans or the media, and no media member is going to ask about the super obvious high-sticking call in the 2nd period.

 

Where we care is when the calls could go either way, or when we get to the point of needing "conclusive, irrefutable evidence" and start treating goals like we're on fucking CSI. Call me crazy, but I doubt that citing the rules or basic humanity calls off the wolves much here.

[Ozzy]

4 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Sure, why not? Just don't expect it to fix anything. Many calls are clear-cut and obvious, but those get called, because they're clear-cut and obvious. Those are never the calls that we all care about as fans or the media, and no media member is going to ask about the super obvious high-sticking call in the 2nd period.

 

Where we care is when the calls could go either way, or when we get to the point of needing "conclusive, irrefutable evidence" and start treating goals like we're on fucking CSI. Call me crazy, but I doubt that citing the rules or basic humanity calls off the wolves much here.

 

You're right G Man...some of the calls will still suck, but I'd really like to hear them take ownership of a bad call.  I bet some of the answers will be entertaining as hell! 

[Long live the King]

How you you miss that call???

 

Well, no one saw it. 

[phillyb]

Jesus fucking christ, yes. 

[Phil]

Call me crazy, but I don't care at all about hearing from referees post-game. They're going to give you the most generic stock answers no matter what. I just don't see the value here at all other than eating up valuable TV time that could be dedicated to more interesting post-game analysis or commentary.

 

"Why did you make the call you made?"

"I call the game as I see it. From my perspective, from my angle, X led to Y and that's why I blew the whistle."

 

Maybe I'm not understanding whatever the NBA and NFL are doing that's so ground-breaking, but I don't see anything of value here.

[siddious]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

Call me crazy, but I don't care at all about hearing from referees post-game. They're going to give you the most generic stock answers no matter what. I just don't see the value here at all other than eating up valuable TV time that could be dedicated to more interesting post-game analysis or commentary.

 

"Why did you make the call you made?"

"I call the game as I see it. From my perspective, from my angle, X led to Y and that's why I blew the whistle."

 

Maybe I'm not understanding whatever the NBA and NFL are doing that's so ground-breaking, but I don't see anything of value here.

Yepp. Whatever the ref equivalents are of:

 

-gotta dump it in and cycle

-we have to be better in our own end

 

[Morphinity 2.0]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

Call me crazy, but I don't care at all about hearing from referees post-game. They're going to give you the most generic stock answers no matter what. I just don't see the value here at all other than eating up valuable TV time that could be dedicated to more interesting post-game analysis or commentary.

 

"Why did you make the call you made?"

"I call the game as I see it. From my perspective, from my angle, X led to Y and that's why I blew the whistle."

 

Maybe I'm not understanding whatever the NBA and NFL are doing that's so ground-breaking, but I don't see anything of value here.

Yep, and if you look at what happened in the NFL this past weekend, the NFL basically doubled down, backed their refs, and said the Lions fucked up.

[Phil]

Sure, and that'll be the same case here. Even if you have some "controversial" call, the ref will say this is what I saw, and the league will back them and say we stand with our refs. It's one big snooze.

[Pete]

31 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Yep, and if you look at what happened in the NFL this past weekend, the NFL basically doubled down, backed their refs, and said the Lions fucked up.

 

30 minutes ago, Phil said:

Sure, and that'll be the same case here. Even if you have some "controversial" call, the ref will say this is what I saw, and the league will back them and say we stand with our refs. It's one big snooze.

I don't know, I think you are being reductive here. Nobody wants their performance called into question publicly via the press. Nobody wants to stare at the cameras and answer those questions.

 

What would be just as good would be to take the numbers off the back of the jerseys and put names back on them. 

 

It's just that the refs seemingly never have to answer to anybody. There have been known horrible officials in the NHL for decades. People should know who those names are and they shouldn't be beyond having the press question their performance the way they question the performance of everyone else related to a game.

 

The players have to answer for their performance.

The coach has to answer for his performance.

 

Why don't the refs have to answer for their performance? 

[Morphinity 2.0]

52 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

I don't know, I think you are being reductive here. Nobody wants their performance called into question publicly via the press. Nobody wants to stare at the cameras and answer those questions.

 

What would be just as good would be to take the numbers off the back of the jerseys and put names back on them. 

 

It's just that the refs seemingly never have to answer to anybody. There have been known horrible officials in the NHL for decades. People should know who those names are and they shouldn't be beyond having the press question their performance the way they question the performance of everyone else related to a game.

 

The players have to answer for their performance.

The coach has to answer for his performance.

 

Why don't the refs have to answer for their performance? 

No, I agree with you. But I think what Phil and I are saying is that it's not going to provide the satisfaction than fans think it will. That goes especially for the NHL where no one answers for anything outside of a few generic quotes. 

[Pete]

37 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

No, I agree with you. But I think what Phil and I are saying is that it's not going to provide the satisfaction than fans think it will. That goes especially for the NHL where no one answers for anything outside of a few generic quotes. 

Yeah, the fans of those teams are always going to be pissed off. But there's a general fan base that doesn't have a rooting interest and might just want to know.

 

It also helps set precedent. The real reason the NHL won't do this is because they will have to drop their farcical claim that every play is a snowflake and needs to be evaluated differently. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

No, I agree with you. But I think what Phil and I are saying is that it's not going to provide the satisfaction than fans think it will. That goes especially for the NHL where no one answers for anything outside of a few generic quotes. 

 

Exactly. I'm actually totally for holding refs accountable, but that can't come from anywhere but the league. Having refs exposed to the media will result in the same "accountability" that players and coaches provide, which borders on none most always.

 

"Coach, why did you do X tonight?"
"Next question."

"Player A, how do you feel about Y happening?"
"We need to work harder."

You're just not going to get any wave-making/hard-hitting answers from this kind of thing, which is what fans are expecting and are gonna be left holding the bag waiting for.

[Phil]

47 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yeah, the fans of those teams are always going to be pissed off. But there's a general fan base that doesn't have a rooting interest and might just want to know.

 

It also helps set precedent. The real reason the NHL won't do this is because they will have to drop their farcical claim that every play is a snowflake and needs to be evaluated differently. 

 

Yup, which is arguably why they back the refs so fervently. Which is another reason I just don't think this is a worthwhile venture for anyone.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, which is arguably why they back the refs so fervently. Which is another reason I just don't think this is a worthwhile venture for anyone.

By the argument you made in the post above, there's no point in asking the players or coaches to answer questions either. What are you going to do with the answer? Nothing.

 

Unfortunately that's just not the way the world works.

[Karan]

Yes. Even if it helps by improving the accuracy of calls by 5%, it'll be a positive. Some officials, especially some of the newer/younger ones, if they know they're going to be publicly questioned on the basis of their calls, might take that extra split second to put more thought into a decision rather than just going with their gut cause they know they're untouchable.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

By the argument you made in the post above, there's no point in asking the players or coaches to answer questions either. What are you going to do with the answer? Nothing.

 

Unfortunately that's just not the way the world works.

 

I mean, there mostly isn't. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't expect much.

[Pete]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, there mostly isn't. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't expect much.

The expectation is accountability, not change. 

[LindG1000]

11 hours ago, Karan said:

Yes. Even if it helps by improving the accuracy of calls by 5%, it'll be a positive. Some officials, especially some of the newer/younger ones, if they know they're going to be publicly questioned on the basis of their calls, might take that extra split second to put more thought into a decision rather than just going with their gut cause they know they're untouchable.

Wouldn't the most logical outcome of this accountability be fewer calls, though? I'd guess that if their decisions were suddenly subject to media accountability, they'd simply make fewer decisions. So we'll get fewer calls, fewer PPs, more 5v5 play - all things that are generally bad for the league.

 

Not to mention that, again, this will make absolutely nobody happy. The fans don't want accountability; they want accuracy, and that doesn't come from making the refs answer questions. It comes from clarifying the gray rules in the rulebook. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

Wouldn't the most logical outcome of this accountability be fewer calls, though? I'd guess that if their decisions were suddenly subject to media accountability, they'd simply make fewer decisions. So we'll get fewer calls, fewer PPs, more 5v5 play - all things that are generally bad for the league.

This might be the most flawed logic regarding this topic that I've ever read. The refs will still get called out for the calls they missed. They still will need to go in front of a camera and explain how a high stick that happened three feet in front of them didn't get called.

 

There's no way this will lead to less calls.

 

Quote

Not to mention that, again, this will make absolutely nobody happy. The fans don't want accountability; they want accuracy, and that doesn't come from making the refs answer questions. It comes from clarifying the gray rules in the rulebook. 

Completely disagree. Fans do want accountability, they do want to know what the fuck a ref was thinking when they made a call.

 

Besides, you don't get accuracy through this process. You don't get accuracy by having a ref explain their calls to the media. However, it could lead to a discussion over things like video review which will lead to more accuracy.

 

Put it this way, I have yet to read a compelling argument on why not to do it. 

 

The title of the thread is should the NHL do it, not "what will happen"  if the NHL does it.