Faultless Officials

Imagine for a moment that a sports official has been caught breaking the rules. How should the league handle the incident?

I have usually been a little harsh on officials. Neutrality is impossible, and I would much rather feel that wins are deserved than the losses. Even compensating for my bias, the officiating in the NHL seems to have gone too far downhill.

Let me start with an incident regarding a referee with a grudge. In one game, Alexandre Burrows embellished. Stéphane Auger fell for it. A couple months later, Auger was involved in another game with Burrows. Auger engaged in a conversation with Burrows. This was against the rules. After numerous questionable penalties against Burrows, he told the media that Auger told him that he was going to get even. This was never proven, but Auger admitted that he talked about how the last game made him look bad. Holding a grudge that long is definitely unethical. That’s two definite mistakes on Auger’s part. Since there wasn’t enough evidence of Auger making bad calls on purpose, the league insisted that he had done nothing wrong.

How about Mike Murphy? I remember the Canucks having a goal disallowed under his watch. Years ago, the league decided to allow goals to be deflected in with the skate as long as it wasn’t kicked in. They insisted that for a goal to be disallowed off of the skate, it had to be deflected in with a “distinct kicking motion.” When asked about the decision to rule that it was kicked in, he specifically stated that it was not a distinct kicking motion. In other words, he defended the ruling by directly contradicting the rule book. Murphy mentioned a DVD addendum, which added to the confusion. Some media sources defended Murphy by assuming that the addendum changed the rules. They insisted that the only thing wrong was that the old rule was still on the league’s website. It still is. Do you know why? The addendum wasn’t meant to change the rules. It was meant to clarify how rules were supposed to be called. CBC got a hold of the DVD. There were plays just like the disallowed goal. What did the addendum say? Those goals are supposed to count. Gary Bettman was dragged into the dispute. When asked if the DVD reflected a rule change, Bettman went on a tirade about how Canucks fans are horrible for promoting conspiracy theories. With the media distracted, he never answered the question. I think it’s obvious what happened. Bettman knew that Murphy was wrong. He wouldn’t admit it because that would make the league look bad, so he threw a tantrum in hopes of distracting the media.

Sorry, Mr. Murphy, but I’m not through with you. This is the same guy who was responsible for supplementary discipline when the Canucks were playing against the Bruins for the Stanley Cup. In game three, Aaron Rome hit Nathan Horton late, resulting in a concussion. I went online and seemed to see fans of both teams in agreement. Two game suspension. Murphy gave him four (and the Bruins fans changed their minds and started insisting that he was lucky that the suspension didn’t carry over to the next season). Rome was wrong, but it was hardly the crime of the century. When asked about the unprecedented suspension, Murphy insisted that he was new to supplementary discipline and he had to make up his rules on the spot. He also identified two primary components to his decision, the lateness of the hit and the severity of the injury. Two games later, Johnny Boychuk put his stick between the legs of Mason Raymond, who never touched the puck, and spun him into a vulnerable position. With the puck absolutely nowhere near them and Raymond vulnerable, Boychuk pushed him into the boards. Raymond’s back was broken as a result of the unquestionably dirtiest play of the series. The play also more clearly fit both of the criteria that Murphy invented to defend the long suspension to Rome. This time, there was no suspension, and the league had no problems defending him.

I’m sure that my bias is showing, but I should clarify something. For starters, the post-lockout rule changes have cut my hockey watching down to just the Canucks. I’m sure there are a lot of similar examples out there involving other teams. More importantly, I’m not asking to change what happened in the past. It’s over.

The reason that I’m bringing this up is because the league has established that they will defend their officials regardless of the nature of their mistakes and how horribly they are screwing up. Personally, I don’t think that 100% of all officials that the NHL will see through the end of time will be honorable. It only takes one bad person to ruin things for everyone. If the league refuses to hold officials accountable for their mistakes, do you know what will happen? Eventually, someone will make a conscious decision to influence the outcomes of games. What does this mean? If things don’t change, there will be a scandal involving the league’s officials. It’s only a matter of time.