Ice Shavings

By Bob Herpen
The Phanatic Magazine

It’s the dog days of summer, and the focus in the sports world has settled on the possible ties between professional officials and the gambling community.

No professional sport is immune to the vagaries of the Vegas line, as long as the fabled city has connections to the multi-billion-dollar industry, and as long as athletes with gargantuan contracts turn down the dark road of enticement which stems from an over-arching sense of entitlement. Hockey, which is still on the uphill climb to national recognition, is no exception.

With the question of how deep the Tim Donaghy situation runs in the NBA, and the resulting whispers of could-it-happen-here with baseball and football, it’s natural to explore the situation in the least-known and least-understood of the Big Four - the NHL.

In 2007, there are only the win-loss options remaining, plus an overtime session and the shootout, which both increase the likelihood of a one-goal outcome and become the set-up for a potential for an alteration in game results.

With 30 teams in the league competing for only 16 playoff berths, there has been a sharp increase in the number of games whose outcome was within two goals or less in regulation, as well as an increase in overtime and shootout-decided games. Plus, with a pair of referees and two linesmen on ice, the likelihood of one referee overruling another or simply making every call to the exclusion of the other has become an unfortunate side effect.

Since hockey lines are rarely set above 10 goals and also usually set within two parameters like thus: over-under 5.5, or Boston + 1.5/Montreal - 1.5 for margin of victory, there is plenty of room for manipulation. Note: half-goal lines are obsolete along with the removal of ties.

However, unlike players, whose actions directly impact the game and the score, the only way in which a referee or linesman could influence the outcome of a game these days is with penalties and the times in which they are whistled.

Most questionable goal calls are immediately referred to the arena’s replay official or to the league office in Toronto. Even if the ref took his cue from his own eyes or the goal judge or in collaboration with his senior or junior counterpart, any doubt is removed when either head coach requests that a review be made by the man in the booth. That leaves on-ice infractions, which can be subject to a certain body of knowledge to which all NHL personnel are privy.

An officiating crew, going into any game, knows which team can score, which will look to play rough to establish itself, and which will have troubles on the power play and penalty kill. It’s easy to find, because the NHL releases updated stats broken down in dozens of ways prior to each contest. If the outcome of a game is to be altered, only one official needs to check the information and have it in mind at the appropriate time.

For instance, suppose Stephen Walkom (Philadelphia’s “favorite” referee) teams up for a late-season Flyers-Devils game in New Jersey with a rookie counterpart. The Flyers and Devils are competing for a division title and the home team is up 4-3, with four minutes remaining. Either man or both knows the Devils are scoring at a 40 percent clip in third-period/overtime power-plays and let’s say Walkom was approached by a family type to ensure a Devils’ win by two because they took the over on a 7.5 total-goals line or because they took the Flyers to lose by more than a goal and a half.

Without needing to consult his partner, Walkom has free rein to make the call and can tip the scales by turning even the slightest infraction by the Flyers into a goal-scoring situation for the Devils by calling one or more penalties. And if the Devils do end up with the 5-3 win, money is made and maybe Walkom gets targeted again.

The scenario has been touched upon for years when fans believe an official makes calls deliberately detrimental to their favorite team when trying to play from behind late. However, the likelihood of it all playing out according to plan is in near-miracle category, because it doesn’t take into account the Flyers’ ability to kill off the penalties and become part of the Devils’ 60 percent failure rate, or a prolonged instance of the Devils’ collective cold shooting.

Short of that, the ejection of a team’s top scorer or most dependable defenseman or goaltender after an intent-to-injure penalty might be another plausible scenario to push one team past another for a goal-differential win.

Although the current Tocchet-Gretzky betting scandal hasn’t revealed such, it is relatively easier for a player to be on the take and alter the course of a game. A player can make an intentionally bad pass, miss a wide open-net, intentionally shoot high on a clean breakaway or miss in the shootout.

Jaromir Jagr lost almost a million dollars in online betting in the late 1990’s. Sergei Fedorov and Pavel Bure have kept their contract amounts quiet to avoid the Russian mafia’s potential influence. Patrik Stefan’s empty-net blunder in Edmonton might have been too crazy to be true. Each man endured circumstances where his actions could have been a harbinger for something much deeper.

On the other hand, can anyone really pinpoint an unreasonable or suspicious instance of a referee or linesman unfairly tipping penalties to one side or the other? Of an official wantonly tossing out a top player on one team, or taking a non-league-directed stance on late-game power-plays to favor a side? Of course not. The honor code in the NHL seems to be as yet untouched with the zebras, as maddening as they can be most nights.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, and bad officiating is a result of personal ineptitude and not something larger and more sinister.