NCHC details officiating system

The NCHC today released more info on the officiating system it will use. The overriding theme is that it wants a lot of feedback and training for officials. The key points:

1. The NCHC hired former WCHA ref Mike Schmitt and former NHL officials Scott Zelkin and Ron Foyt in supervisor roles. The goal is to have a supervisor at as many games as possible. The NCHC estimates they will cover 75 percent of games. More frequent feedback and teaching for officials is a priority for NCHC director of officials Don Adam.

Each guy is geographically placed (Schmitt in Minot, Zelkin in Chicago, Foyt in the Twin Cities and Adam is in Colorado). I’m guessing The Ralph will see a lot of Schmitt, who was one of the most popular refs in the league before he retired to watch his son, Bryce, play at Minot High School. Bryce will be a sophomore at Lake Superior State next season.

2. The NCHC will have a three-day training camp for officials before the season starts. This will be used to provide training to the officials. There also will be a seminar for linesmen.

3. The NCHC is working with USA Hockey to incorporate a system for developing officials. The league hopes it will help it identify future officials.

“We want to challenge our officials on a regular basis,” NCHC director of hockey operations Joe Novak said. “Their success will be based upon performance and equal opportunities will be available to every official on the staff.”

18 thoughts on “NCHC details officiating system

  1. Excellent news. I love that they are taking a pro-active approach. The feedback system should work out great.

  2. I hope that this new league will lead the way for a much needed rule change

    They ALREADY play a 5 minute overtime to try to get a winner. If their desired result is to get a a same day winner(thus overtime) then at least play it 4 on 4 NOT 5 on 5.

    There is no reason to extend the overtime format to a shootout.

  3. I say, bring on the shoot out! Nothing is worse than a tie. I don’t care how you decide a winner, just have one after 3hrs of hockey.

  4. I would HATE to see a shoot out adopted by the league. It does a great diservice to the players who endeavored so hard for 60 minutes. We aren’t five years old…..we don’t need instant gratification. Sometimes a tie is the fairest result.

    • I also agree and dislike shoot-outs. Yes they are exciting, but its not the game of hockey. Its a gimmic. They dont decide basketball games at the free-throw line, right? Same concept.

      • sorry, your logic is a little bit flawed – they never play a basketball game to a tie, either. They play until someone wins. And, yes, sometimes that IS decided at the free throw line. The difference being basketball has to play five on five with no penalty box. Just sayin’ – not trying to argue.

      • I have to disagree. Sometimes the shootout is the most exciting part and it is an opportunity for a talented player to highlight their ability. I would have like to seen some Jonathan Toews shoot-outs in the Ralph back in the day as they are highlight reels today.

      • They do keep playing in basketball until a winner is determined however. Bring on the shootout. Some people have to drive some big distances to watch games and it’s pretty much a drag to end in a tie, unless UND comes from behind in the final few minutes :) .

    • We aren’t five years old, we don’t need the fair option. Life is not fair..sometimes there is a winner and a loser. We could also hand out participation trophies for everyone at the end of the year to be fair.

  5. The CCHA had shootouts and its worked well while I was a fan in that league. The loosing team is not disgraced for their efforts and still walks away with one point minimum. The shootout is exciting, shows off skills and caliber of goalies under pressure and players who can score.

  6. Shootouts prove nothing; they just save time. A great save in a shootout is skill; scoring is dumb luck. Do you really want a game decided that way? What’s next? Basketball did away with tip-offs and went to an alternating in-bound possesion system. Will hockey eliminate face-offs and alternate giving the puck to each team? Never should have gotten rid of the red line either. The red line promoted passing; now teams simply dump in the puck from mid-ice.

  7. Like it or not, we need the shoot out so our league can be a stepping stone to the NHL.

    It’s the same reason out ice sheet is 200 x 85.

  8. As to shootouts and OT’s:

    Hockey purists will argue to leave the game alone. But, they are a disappearing breed, and leaving it alone will eventually lose fans, especially new, young fans. Something hockey cannot afford to do.

    Key to OTs and shootouts is the point system. Right now college uses the pure 2 point game system with ties. NHL uses 2 point regulation, but 3 point OT/shootout system. IIHF uses the full 3 point system.

    I think going to the full 3 point system is key to advancing the college game for OTs and shootouts. Win in regulation getting a full 3 points will really be exciting, especially towards the end of the season, when a team can gain ground by winning in regulation. Plus, OTs with the “extra” point on the line will be offensive, not defensive as they seem to be now. They will know they are trying to “win” the extra point and cannot “lose” the point already earned. This will also allow for 4 on 4 to be implemented in OT. Very hard to do that when if you lose in OT you get nothing for your night’s effort.

    It is the future of hockey. It is exciting hockey. It is coming eventually. Time to embrace it! I know I will when it arrives. I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>