Last night (March 2004) I was refereeing an Atom AA hockey
game in Toronto. It was my first Atom game in nearly a year and I
was having a great time. The players were hustling, passing,
shooting and just competing their little hearts out. The parents
were cheering so loud that I could hardly hear my whistle some times.
It was a great atmosphere and a great game! Playoff Hockey!!
The series was 5 points to 3 points in a 6 point series. The team
with 5 points lost the game fair and square and the result of the game
will now tie the series at 5 points per team meaning that the winner of
the next game will advance to the next round. Sounds like a great
series doesn't it?
Sure enough, as I was handing out the game sheets to the coaches, the
winning coach said "great job" as usual, and then I went over to
the losing coach. This coach didn't complain about any calls made in
the game but I would have rather that he did that instead of what came
next.
The following conversation took place between the coach and myself:
Coach: "Can you make a note on the back of the game sheet that the
other team (winners) did not have a trainer on the bench and that the
coach came on the ice to tend to one of his injured players."
Ref: "Okay, why?"
Coach: "There is a rule that stipulates that a trainer must be on the
bench or the trainer of the opposite team must tend to injured players on
both teams. Since the team did not have a trainer I can put the game
under protest which will give us the win."
Ref: "How many goals did the trainer score?"
Coach: "What, you aren't understanding me. The trainer wasn't
on the bench."
Ref: "I understand you, I just want to know how many goals the
trainer would have scored if he was at the game?"
Coach: "What does that have to do with anything?"
Ref: "Why would you protest a fairly played game by the players ON
THE ICE and try to win a game by using a stipulation that the trainer
wasn't on the bench. Do you think that you are in the NHL and that
your players are making millions of dollars? These are 9-year-old
kids playing hockey, let them play it fair and square. Don't use
dirty tactics to ensure that they advance to the next round."
Coach: "I don't like your attitude, I'm just trying to play by the
rules!"
Ref: "You are absolutely right coach, I'm the one with the bad
attitude. I hope you enjoy telling your players that they are going
to advance to the next round even though they lost the game."
At that point I just walked away shaking my head. Why do parents and
coaches have to use stipulations in the rules to ensure that their kids
advance farther into the playoffs even though they didn't deserve to move
on? Why didn't the coach say anything to me during the game?
He must have been keeping his mouth shut just in case the team did lose,
kind of like a safety net.
These are only minor hockey players people, I think its time to let the
kids decide the game on their own and time for the parents and coaches to
just sit back and cheer.
Don't you? |
