Referee Camp in Europe

[Marc]

The international federation (LIHG) was created before the NHL. So how could they use the hypothetic NHL original set of rules you mention.

By the way, LIHG was created on purpose to unify the rules for international games, 'cos some Swiss teams were using bandy-inspired rules. The other reason was to develop ice hockey and have it prevailing on bandy.

Why can't you admit there are different cultures ? It's what enabled ice hockey to have games with the mosty beautiful contrast in styles during its history !

The rules are the same, but the interpretation differs from a referee to another, and obviously from a country to another.

Football has clear, long-standing unified rules, but still English referees don't whistle what all other referees in the world do (and they're the inventors of the game too...). But they still know they have to follow international rules in international competitions (sorry... M. Meier tells me all of them don't... Well, they should at least).

Why should "your" (North American) rules prevail on European rules ?

Do you think NHL refs strictly "follow the rule-book" when forgetting penalties during third period, tolerating fights, and letting so many players injured ?

[robinson]

They should follow "our" rules since we came up with tham first and invented the game thats why.It 's a simple concept,why don't you accept that?Hmmm...Hey, if you want to watch a hockey game where hard physical play and checking is strongly curtailed go right ahead but i'll pass.I can't see many Canadians wanting to watch that,in fact i know not many Canadians would want to watch it.You're one of the few exceptions to the rule but that's your perogative,i suspect you are in the wrong part of the world to watch the type of hockey you want to watch though.I hope you have kick ass sattelite

[Marc]

- I'm sorry, I'm not Canadian
- "You" invented the rules but it doesn't mean you have property on them since you use different sets of rules even within North America. So you haven't any "prescriber" the world could follow.

Ice hockey is a global game, and it's not thanks to Canadians who remained closed and didn't try to develop it much elsewhere (as an organization, some Canadian pioneers did much to develop it) because they considered it's "their" game
Football is a (more) global game, and it's not thanks to British people who remained closed and didn't try to develop it much elsewhere because they considered it's "their" game.
I think the comparison stands.

PS : is robinson the username of Don Cherry ?

[robinson]

Your argument is really weak,don cherry comparisons or not.Like you said we did invent the game so yes we do have "property"over the rules since it was already developed how the game was supposed to be played.If different coutries do not like physical play and getting hit it would seem that their best recourse would be to develop a new game or choose a different sport to play,(since you continue to bring up football that would seem to be a good choice since little contact seems to be allowed in that) this way you can play a sport where you don't have to worry about going into a corner and having someone lay the body on you if that is not your thing.you seem to think my distaste for the new set of "rules" that euros ahve added to the game is an indictment of the people of those countries but i am in no way applying that.What i am saying is that i expect the other countries to respect the long established acceptable boundaries of the sport,not make up new ones as they see fit since they don't particuarly care for a certain aspect of the game.I assume since you are not Canadian the you are probably from Europe.You may play coy on this one but i think if the World Cup was played in North America next year and was controlled by North America(as the iihf is controlled by european countries) and they decide that you could now play the ball with your hands(since we decide we like the game better that way)then you and all the rest of Europe and the world would be screaming bloody murder and consider it next to blasphemy.That's true is'nt it?If you say no then i know you are lying.What's the difference?as a Canadian i don't presume how to tell you guys how to play football,don't tell Canadians how they are supposed to play hockey o.k?It has already been decided how hockey is supposed to be played so just have some respect for that is all i ask,we should'nt get penalties for checking for God's sake!!It's in the damn rule book,why can't you see that?What on earth is Don Cherry about that?nothing of course.As for Canadians not being open with the game you must not have any idea of hockey's history.In practically every country Canadians played a major or most major role in bringing and developing the game in those parts of the world and are still doing it today as a matter of fact,that argument is ludicrous.We may have some minor differences on rules in north america like red line in or no red line in but there are no changes on the essentials like body checking.Nhl,ncaa,major junior,checking is allowed.No competitive league would dare take out checking any more than they would take out offsides. It's time for everyone from everywhere to respect the long established traditions of the game,to do anything else is a dishonor to this great game.Don't turn it into some crock of an argument of supposed intolerance on my part.thanks

[Marc]

Football rules are decided by the sport world governing body, not by a single country or continent.
Ice hockey rules should be decided the same. The problem is that North America business-oriented so-called "wild leagues" don't want to recognize any international federation, which make any unified development hard for this sport.

I said there was no Canadian organization which tried to develop the sport world-wide. I said there were Canadian "pioneers" who loved their sport and wanted to share their passion. People such as George Meagher, Charles Heartley, Raoul le Mat (who was American to be precise) or Mike Buckna. (don't question my knowledge of hockey history, please)

Indeed ice hockey developed in most countries thanks to those Canadian individuals... with one exception.
This exception, of course, is Russia, as Anatoli Tarasov ("the original is always better than the copy" as he said) wanted to develop an own style of playing.
At the beginning he doubted everything (why play with three forwards and two D-men ? They do it for a long time, but it's not mandatory. Let's prove it's the better solution first...) to create his own system.
He invented new tactics, new style of play... but he didn't change the rules ! He used the translated Canadian rules.

There is a different philosophy in Canadian hockey and Russian hockey. The former derived from rugby and the latter from football - through bandy).
But the Russians didn't change the rules ! They had their own sport (Russian hockey, or "hockey with the ball") but they decided they would play Canadian hockey to match up with the best of the world instead of playing a confined sport.
They adapted. As all "bandy-heritage" nations adapted to Canadian hockey. They choosed that (and they had long established traditions too - hockey with the ball was played in Europe before the mythic Halifax or Kingston games which were not really hockey games either).

You can't blame them for not adapting. They did it.

The rules are one subject, the style of play is another. The rules make sure ice hockey is a physical game, but they don't say you're obliged to use physical intimidation. You can use other tools if you want - skating, technique.
That's when it comes to culture and philosophy. There are different approaches to the game, but there isn't any sacrilege to the games or disrespect to the rules.

Body-checking IS allowed in any ice hockey country. No one ever suggested to abolish it. There are battles for the puck in the corners in every ice hockey country. Referees can have different views on what is an illegal or dangerous check, but they don't alter the rules.

What's the most shameful blasphemy to tradition ? An allegedly more severe European refereeing, or organized fighting as it exists in some garage leagues (QMSHL for example)) ? Where is it written that teams must have fighters who have to punch each other after five seconds of play because it sells more tickets as the public knows beforehand that it will happen ? What is the biggest insult to the traditions of hockey ?

Europeans never wanted to dishonor the traditions of the game. The only thing they tried to do is to make it a global, multi-cultural game. Is this a lack of respect ?

I wonder what the opinion of other Canadians is about this topic.

[robinson]

I can see what you are saying on your post and your argument is well made here i think.My problem would'nt so much be with things like fighting(which i can understand as seeming a little out of place in an athletic event that is not boxing) But as you said,physical play is part of hockey and no-where have any european body done away with this in any rule book.It is simply interpretation as you say and that is not a good thing when penalties are assessed for something that is legal,that is what is a disgrace to the honor of the respected traditions of the game.figthing is technically illegal and they get penalties for it or ejection from the game.But checking is not so that is where interpretation becomes a bastardization of the game and should be put a stop to in international play.I'm not saying it's just Canada that suffers from this at all.the finns playa very agrressive game and will throw hard checks just about everywhere and i like it!!It it's a legal check it's a legal check,theres no interpretation.the problem comes when the Euro refs call blatantly obvious legal checks as penalties.The worst offender being totally clean open ice body checks that are totally within the rules but we are constantly in the sin bin because they don't play hockey that way(yet it is legal in any hockey rule book) This is the problem.how many times have i seen finn players in the penalty box looking at each other with this look on their face that says "what am i doing in here?it was a clean check?"And no-one suffers from this as much as Canada(and to a lesser extent the U.S. there is no problem with calling a penalty on a check where the guy leaves his feet and smokes the guy in the head with his elbow,thats intent to seriously injure and should be penalized.But thats most often not the case.Watch any international game reffed by euro refs and you will see that even clean open ice body checks are whistled 90 to 95 % of the time and this is a disgrace to the history and accepted traditions of the game and should be done away with. For two reasons this practice of false interpretation should be done away with. 1-It's a long accepted and developed aspect of the game of hockey and most importantly 2- It's legal!! thats all there is to it.show me a rule book that says that is illegal and i will take back everything i have said but you won't.As you say,clean bodtchecking is legal(Canada or Europe) so what is it being called for?That is the frustration.There has been a thread on these boards by Body-Czech that says international hockey rules should be standardized and i agree.No more should Canada(or anyone else for that matter) enter tournaments and be unjustly penalized for doing something that is legal.I'd be interested in hearing what other Canadians say also.I really think my argument is quite solid.Let's get the game being played in all international tournaments the way it should be played.

[Graham]

I disagree that checking isn't down to interpretation. A good example is the Scott Stevens check on Paul Kariya in the 2003 Stanley Cup finals. Was the check late? The referee didn't think so, so no penalty. A significant number of people watching that game felt it was, and that a penalty should have been called. The problem is that the definition of late is down to the referee.

Likewise, the checking from behind rule:

"A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, is unable to protect himself and contact is made on the back part of the body. However, if a player intentionally turns his body to create contact, this would not be classified as check from behind."

There is interpretation in that rule, too. When is it a check, and when is it simply a coming together of bodies? Did the player intentionally turn to create contact, or was it simply coincidence? Your asking the referee to make that decision, because it's not black and white in the rulebook.

The charging rule is defined as taking more than 2 steps or strides to contact an opposing player? But how far away is the last stride allowed to be? That's down to interpretation of the official.

I guess all I'm saying is that all through the rulebook there is the phrase "in the opinion of the referee" and other terms that require interpretation. Therefore, it is not true to say that checking is not down to interpretation.

And I'll also disagree that Canada and the USA are the teams that hurt the most. It is only the past 2 or 3 years that we've seen a significant increase in the number of North America based players in their World Championship squad. Historically, the core of these teams have been playing for Swiss or German teams where they are playing under a more European regime.

I would actually say that the countries that suffer the most through this are countries like Great Britain. It's only in the past couple of seasons, that we've started signing European imports. As a result, our game was always very North American in style. And since our national team generally comes entirely from the UK leagues (I can only think of 8 in the past decade that haven't, and 3 of those were from North American leagues anyway), the only exposure our players get to the European style is in the Worlds. And we don't have the same talent as Canada or the US to adjust to the new style within 5 games. Discipline has cost us promotion on more than one occasion.

Graham.

[robinson]

No, thats wrong.Canada has been using professional players based in the nhl in the world championships for at least 30 years now and it is a well known fact in Canada that we are routinely penalized for our style of play not for infractions and we are sick of it. There is a big difference between the example given of the scott stevens hit and the totally legal variety that one sees Canada and the States get thrown into the sin bin for on a regular basis in the world championships due to no more than the fact they do not like our style of play and this is a disgrace to the game. Any serious fan(let alone supposedly well trained referees) can see the difference between the scott stvens hit and the mostly totally legal variety given out at the worlds(scott stevens type hits are pretty rare at the worlds since everyone knows that you will be automatically tossed) If you watch the worlds you know this goes on. There is nothing interpretive about thoses hits,they are legal!! As for Great Britain suffering from this more than Canada i really could'nt comment on that since i have never watched a game of hockey in which Great Britain has been involved in in my life.We really don't get tournaments like Deutschland cup or other international tournaments that Great Britain may be involved in so i really can't say.We pretty much only get the highest calibre tournaments where the best hockey playing countries in the world compete so (and i don't want to offend you)Great Britain of course is not involved.I have never seen Great Britain in the world championships so i can't comment.When their hockey program improves to the level where they start to make the olympics and world championships,world junior championships and world cup then i'll be able to see what you are talking about in that respect but that has'nt happened yet so i don't know.But i do know on the international stage of the hockey playing "big boys" no one suffers from this hypocrisy more than Canada. I just want the game to be called properly that's all.no-one should be ham strung for something that is legal.Regards

[robinson]

oh,also wanted to point out that Great Britain may have been involved in the worlds several times over the past recent histiry but i can't remember them being there.Unless Canada is playing them we would'nt be getting those games on t.v of course.Not many people in Canada want to watch Great Britain versus Poland or whomever else happens to make the world championships out of the "b" pool for that current year.That was not an insult,just telling it like it is why i have never seen Great Britain play in hockey before.

[Graham]

I didn't say that Canada had never used NHL players, but the NHL contingent in the North American teams has picked up noticeably over the past decade, admittedly more so with the USA than Canada which has always had a reasonably high proportion. But, even with a 50% European based team, the USA still made the same complaints about referees not liking their style. And yet it never stopped them coming over here to play in Finland or Switzerland...

Great Britain doesn't play any tournaments outside of the World Championships, with the exception of a one year journey in the EIHC. Team Canada get more exposure to European refs than GB do by competing in the Olympics and World Cup.

Oh, and we last played in Pool A in 1994. Canada beat us 8-2 after an appalling piece of administration saw the team fly out on the night of the British finals straight into their first game. Obviously the BIHA thought we were so good we didn't need any preparation...

You say that those checks are legal? As I said in my last mail, they are legal under one interpretation and illegal under another. If you look at what the referee has called, you will see that he was entitled to do so under the rule book. You may believe that he shouldn't have, and I've seen many called that I don't think should have, but the rulebook does give him the right to make that call.

Graham.

[robinson]

Some interesting info there Graham.I still don't agree that they are using referee discretion,i mean they are certainly allowed to use referee discretion but i think if fans are being honest they will say the "discretion" they are using is a biased discretion not based on the legal codified rules of what is written as acceptable and what is not,the discretion is being based on hockey culture and that is what is wrong.
when discretion is used in instances where there is question about the legality of a hit then that is proper and totally honourable under the existing rules but when a player is sent to the box or ejected when it is patently clear that the check was clean(as many are easily seen by knowledgeable observers of the game) simply because the hit player is hurt and decides to stay down on the ice for a few minutes then this is the area where discretion crosses the line of objectivity and becomes culturally biased and nothing else.This is not discretion in the honourable sense of the hockey rule book at all.This is dishonouably penalizing a team for no other reason than cultural bias and it is not right and should be done away with.The game deserves this.As in all games,the better teams impose their style of play on the defeated team.Physical play is part of the game of hockey and is legally written down as such,there should be no argument.If the team is the broad street bullies of the 70's then yes,that is not correct hockey.But if it is just a physical Canadian team using skilled physical tactics (clean hits,muscleing opposing players off the puck with intensity,aggressive forechecking) this should not be penalized because it is not the type of game the euro refs agree with or grew up with.They are paid to know the acceptable boundaries of the sport but don't show it so many times.If a european team can outskate,outskill,and out finesse a Canadian team then hats off to them and so be it,no North American ref will penalize them for that.They have imposed their particular game on our team and have achieved victory with it,who can do anything but admire that?But when a Canadian team is able to impose it's game on a European team the same respect should be given back,the game should not be taken away from them because of culture hockey differences if the physical play is legal which in far too many cases it is.We will not only see hockey at it's tactical and cultural best we will also do honor to the tradititons of the game.Fair is fair,it also makes good sense for the fans and the game. It's well past time to bring about these changes in the international game to the international refs who are not calling a spade a spade.What they are calling is "that is a spade in your country but not in mine and so i am sending you to the penalty box for it"If it was illegal i would say fine but far,far too many times it isn't.It's sad

[doogster]

Good heavens! There is so much here, I can't even read it all.

One suggestion is PLEASE DON'T TYPE IN ONE LARGE PARAGRAPH. Doing that makes it extremely hard for someone to read and follow a thread. Most people scan text on computer screens and never read the whole thing, impossible to do that when it's one large paragraph.

For the record, a majority of the IIHF's programs are modeled after things done in Canada and the United States.

[doogster]

And I have a real problem with people who speak about hockey rules and what officials do and don't do when they have no clue.

[robinson]

First of all doogster i'll make my texts any damn way i want to do it as you're not the boss around here.If you have to have every damn sentence broken down for you into paragraghs to read the English language then i would suggest it is you who has a problem with reading and could stand to go past grade 5 so you won't have that problem.As for not knowing the rules and what is fair game i 've been watching hockey since before you were probably a lump in your old mans left pocket. If you are the all-knowing swami of hockey knowledge why don't you give me some and show it to me instead of simple mouthing off.There you go

[robinson]

Oh!! Dennis Lennox the second no less!! As in sir dennis lennox,or his majesty dennis lennox.I knew there had to be some tip off on where your self described expert analysis comes from(which we never got,just a lot of mouth)
Heres a new paragraph for you.Is that up to your standards your majesty? I hope so.It would seem to take a lot to please you.Editior in cheif of referee.com is it!!Thats quite something.Maybe next time you can give us some of that well earned expertise instead of simply commenting on grammar preferences and saying no-one has a clue yet you say not one word to give anyone the impression that you truly are as impressive as you make yourself out to be.At least you could've done that.Instead you only say something is too long to read,poor guy,you would think you had a date with the Queen for tea and crumpets. Oh man!!