NHL Should Not Make Officials Available to the Media

Having the officials talk to the media on a regular basis would change all of that. They would now become part of the game, which may affect their officiating. Because officials have usually been allowed to be removed from the media, throwing them into this situation adds an extra burden to their jobs as they would know that at the end of the game, they will have to talk to the media about what happened on the ice. Officials have a chain of command in the NHL on who they answer for their performance. As much as we may want it to, it will usually not involve the media.

The NHL Has a Mechanism for Media Engagement

The advent of video replay has been both positive and negative for officials. The “situation room” in Toronto will theoretically correct any calls the officials may have missed, and the NHL does release the reasoning behind their decisions via their Public Relations Department. If there is a question about an official, the public relations department handles that communication to the teams and sometimes the media. Like it or not, this is sufficient for ensuring that an official does not become the primary focus of a game. There is little evidence that a referee’s call has been the one and only factor in determining the outcome of a game. In fact, referees prefer that the players determine the outcome of the game, not them (Everyone hates NHL playoff officiating. But here’s why it’s the way it is, The Athletic, April 26, 2023)

To this end, an interview with an official about a call would only yield more angst as the team at the short end of the call, as his explanation will do little to change anyone’s opinion. Let’s use a possible interview scenario from Game 3 of the Lightning-Maple Leafs series when an apparent Brayden Point goal was disallowed by what head coach Jon Cooper thought was a very quick whistle.

Reporter: Thanks for joining us. Why did you blow the whistle in that situation?

Referee: Well, from my vantage point, I thought the goaltender had control of the puck and blew my whistle, as the rules call for in that situation.

Reporter: Thanks for joining us.

Right or wrong, referees’ decisions are based on their judgment, and for the ones that cannot be overturned by video, an interview would only anger those who do not like the explanation. Plus, the vast majority of decisions are usually explained correctly by the rules experts, former officials themselves, that are a part of most national broadcasts. The desire of the media to get further explanations from the source does not override the need to allow the long-standing and correct practice of not allowing the officials to talk publically about their decisions.

Preventing More Referee Backlash

For various reasons, we have issues with how we treat officials. This has had the most effect in youth and local sports, where these officials do not have the benefit of stadium security to prevent issues from happening when someone takes issue with a call. Talking to the media would not help this. Too many people will not like the explanation, which may add to the anger they already carry around.

In thinking about this, I feel that if there were any access to officials, it would have been more appropriate to implement this 30 or so years ago, before technology improved and gave us better-quality pictures and replays. It might have been nice back then to hear what an official on the ice saw that may not have been captured completely in the limited video of the day.

In order for there to be credibility in having NHL officials do their job, we need to respect the idea that officials must be allowed to do their jobs in the most anonymous way possible so that there is not an extra layer of outside bias that may eventually influence their decision-making.

Having regular access to the media has the potential to erode that credibility.