The Athletic Hockey Show - Former NHL referee Dave Jackson on how to fix officiating, Johnny Gaudreau, Auston Matthews and Chris Kreider lead the pack of US hockey players having outstanding seasons and what to do with the NHL's bonus or loser point

Episode Date: April 13, 2022

Dave Jackson who was a referee in the NHL for 28 years before joining ESPN as an analyst joins the Wednesday roundtable with CBC's Rob Pizzo and Sara Civian and Jesse Granger from the Athletic. Dave discusses how he got his start in the NHL, why he chose to be a referee, inconsistent officiating and if he thinks referees should be made available to media after games.With Chris Kreider reaching the 50 goal mark and Johnny Gaudreau passing over the 100 point plateau on Tuesday evening and Auston Matthews doing what he has done all season long, the roundtable debates their top 4 all-time US born players, we discuss if we need the loser point anymore, if a play-in system would work for the NHL playoffs, we stick tap the NHL debuts for the 2021 1st and 2nd overall picks Owen Power and Matty Beniers and Ryan Hartman flipping off Evander Kane in the Wild's win over Edmonton on Tuesday. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What's going on, everybody? Welcome to another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show, the Wednesday Roundtable Edition. I am Rob Piesel from CBC Sports, joined as always by Jesse Granger, who is at his home in Vegas? How are you, Jesse? I'm doing great. How are you, Rob? I'm doing good. And Sarah Sivian, who is at home in Raleigh?

How are you, Sarah? I'm fabulous. How are you? You already answered that. I know. I just wanted to see just what kind of mood you guys were in, and you're both just like, you know, I always, and not envy, I was going to say envy, Jesse. always want to applaud Jesse for doing this because we usually record this Wednesday mornings

on the East Coast. You get up pretty early for this, Jesse. How many cups of coffee do you have before you do this? This is my second cup of coffee today. In the athletic mug. I like that. Yes. Oh, yeah. I love these. Yeah, we just got these. I wash it every day so I can just drink coffee out of this month. Yes. Oh, Sarah's got hers too. Yes. Yeah, yeah. These these shows are heavily coffee fuel. I don't have one. Maybe one can make its way to my house, Jeff, the producer. Just thought I threw that in there to get some free swag. We got a lot to talk about, guys, and we're going to get to it.

But I do want to let people know we're going to be talking to Dave Jackson, who is a former NHL referee. He is now the analyst for the NHL and ESPN. And we've talked about referees all year, guys. So I'm really excited for this interview because we've got a lot of questions that we've asked each other. We've got a lot of questions that people have asked us on Twitter and vice versa. It hasn't been a fun year for referees in the NHL.

And he wanted to get out. Sarah, he kind of wanted to get in on this conversation, didn't he? Yeah, yeah. We had that question a few weeks ago. That was kind of,

if you could change one rule, what would it be? And then a lot of people responded to things kind of about officiating and how they handle certain calls. And there's a lot of assumptions made that I think we all make, right? That refs try to even the game and X,

Y, and Z. And those things might be. true in some circumstances, but Dave kind of messaged me and said, I kind of, I'd love to talk about these things because I think some people just genuinely have never talked to an official. They don't understand how it actually works because officials aren't allowed to have Twitter accounts when they're active. They're not allowed to really talk to the media. So he brings a real.

Now he's an ESPN rules analyst. So he's been trying to kind of bridge that gap. And he wanted to talk to us too. And I'm looking forward to it because, and I find this with players too. And I understand why. I'll preface it with that. But former officials and former players always seem to be a little more open to giving their true opinions, right?

I mean, you two both deal with players who a lot of times are going to give you the get the pucks in deep 110 percent good bunch of guys in the room quotes. Whereas when they don't really have, say, a playoff assignment to lose, we're probably going to get a really, you know, interesting opinion there. So I can't wait to do that. But we got a lot of stuff to get to before we get to Dave Jackson. A couple of big milestones last night, both by U.S. foreign players.

Chris Kreider from Oxford Mass, 50th goal of the season, seventh player to have his 50th goal of the season at age 30 or older. And Johnny Goodro, this one may be not as surprising from Salem, New Jersey. I'm saying that because this whole point is of U.S. born players. Two assists eclipses the one. 100 point mark, the first player to do that in the Calgary Flames jersey since Theo Fleury. Like I said, guys, I think the Guadro one is less surprising, isn't it? Jesse, we'll start with you.

Yeah, for sure, just because Gujarro's been a star in this league for a while now, and Chris Kreider has been a good player, but someone that you would like really never imagine scoring 50 goals has just come out of complete out of thin air. It reminds me of, like, I don't want to give Gerard Gallant too much credit, but it reminds me of Vegas, man. His offense is so free-flowing. There's not much structure to it. He kind of lets the players be creative. And I think that's part of the reason you see players that maybe weren't, like, offensive-minded as, or quite as offensive as they have become under Gerard Galant.

It's really fun to watch. But Goodrow is, I mean, the guy is what he is. He's awesome. Sarah? Yeah. I love to see an older head kind of get this much success right now. I don't think anyone saw it coming. And I mean, it just adds to the crazy kind of run the Rangers have been on.

I love it. Yeah, I mean, to think that he hadn't had anything near that in the first chunk of his career, then he's over 30s. He gets 50 goals. And then you got Goudreau, 11th different U.S.-born player to hit 100 points. So you're putting yourself in some pretty elite company. It got me thinking, guys, seeing as you were both American-born podcasters and writers, not players. Mount Rushmore of American-born players.

Who's on yours? If you got four names and you can divide it up, whatever position you like, four names that you would chisel onto that, you know, that monument. Who would it be? Who wants to go first? I'll let you guys go first. Why don't we do it together? We can each name one and go back and forth. I'm going Austin Matthews first.

You're already, see, I struggled with putting Austin Matthews on. It's one of those things where I'm like, he's going to be there, but is he there yet? So Sarah's got Austin Matthews. Do you have Austin on yours, Jesse? No, I, on my fourth spot, my like final head on the mountain, I was debating between Austin Matthews and Chris Chelios. And I chose Chris Chelios. To me, that was a tough one. I don't know if this is part nostalgia, me growing up, like I, like I grew up being a huge,

Aves fan, so like those Aves and Red Wings teams are ingrained in my mind. But it obviously Chelyos had a bunch of success in Chicago too. So for me, Austin Matthews was the just didn't quite make it, the fifth name on my list. How? He's breaking all these records. Yeah, it's tough. Objectively. When Austin Matthews' career is over, I think he's going to be above Chris Chelios.

Yeah, that's obviously a different conversation. Yeah, I think Austin Matthews might finish his career if he can. continues it on any sort of trajectory that he's doing right now as the greatest American hockey player to ever live. For sure. Yes. That's not going with that. Okay.

But if you, if he retired tomorrow, is he on Mount Rushmore? No. And that's what always stops me from putting them on that early. He was my honorable mention. It's funny that you had cellios, Jesse, so like on that cusp. I had chelio. That was the first name of Roteau. Wow.

Yeah. I just think he's, and not to say he's, I think he's the best American. player ever. I just think he's such a shoe in. He just did it for so long at such an elite level. So I also have cellios. Sarah, who's number two on your list? Yeah, I do love all the stories of Chellios too. I do think he's a legend. I'd say that. And I guess Patrick Cain, I mean, I know that's another active player, but he's at the twilight of his career and he's kind of put America on the map for hockey. I have Patrick Cain number one on my list. Patrick Cain was my top guy. That was my, that was like you said, Chelyos, like when you said,

um, U.S. born Mount Rushmore, without even having to look anything up, the first name I wrote down was Patrick Kane. Yeah. That's a hat trick for us. And I don't know how you can't have Patrick Kane on this list. Almost a no-brainer. And he, and he did like, I feel like he did more in the international play than maybe the other. Maybe that's just my recency bias. But I feel like when I think of like team USA, when you're not just thinking of, okay, guys who were born in America who had good NHL careers. When you think of Team USA hockey, like Patrick Kane has been awesome for Team USA. In fairness, a lot of the guys who were considered some of the greatest American board players ever didn't have those opportunities. Right. I mean, really, the only thing,

maybe World Championships and like Canada Cups every four years, but they really didn't have those opportunities to do it. Number three, Sarah. This is where we realize there hasn't been that any good of American players. Pat LaFontaine, what do we think about that? He's also on my list. He's on my list. He has, he, I saw a stat. He's the most points per game player in a U.S. born player in NHL history. So I feel like he's got to be on there. That will do it. So we all have Kane. We all have Lafontein. Two of us have Chellios and your final one, Sarah. Brian Leach. I like Brian Leach. I don't know if he's like, I feel like, I feel like this is where the conversation really opens here. What are other options? I think Brian Leach comes

to my mind. So I actually haven't even said the guy who was second on my list right behind Patrick Kane. And that's Mike Madano. And this again might be, again, I have a, like, romanticism of that era, just because that was like when I fell in love with hockey was those abs, Red Wings, Dallas, like those were the three powerhouses in the West. And I just loved watching Mike Madano. His, his he had that like loose jersey that would like flutter as he skated. I don't know. There's something about Mike Medano's game that I just really love. I didn't even barely finish writing cellios when I wrote down Madano.

I just look like he's just, you're right. And I think you love that era, not only because it's when you fell in love at hockey, but that was really early 90s was when the Americans started putting their hands up and saying, we can play this game too. Yeah. You know, for so long it was looked upon as, you know, a vast majority of the league were Canadians. And then you started seeing the Roanix and you started seeing the Kachucks and you started seeing these players, you know, Phil Housley and, you know, all these players that in that era who kind of were like, hey, look, we know how to do this too and do it well and do it at an elite level.

I'm glad nobody put Brett Hall on this list, by the way, because I don't want to, I don't, well, yeah, he's played for the United States of America. That's who he represented. But the reason he did that is because he wasn't invited to Team Canada's camp. so he decided to go to the Americans camp. But he wasn't American board. So I'm glad nobody. Doesn't count for me. Doesn't count.

Yeah. Even though while he was on all those American teams, yeah, you know, the World Cups and everything else. So yeah, not a bad list, guys. I mean, the cellios one, and I really struggle with Matthews, like I said, I think a few years from now, he's on this list. I don't struggle with him at all.

I think he has to be on. I think you're crazy if you're not putting him on it. I must say it makes me physically ill to not include a goalie in this conversation, but there just aren't any. It would be Jonathan Quick. To me, like, it's Ryan Miller or Jonathan Quick. And like I've had this argument before. To me, Jonathan Quick is by far the best American goalie to ever live. But he's probably the, he's probably the, he's probably the 10th best American player. And like I, like, as much as I love goalies, I couldn't skip all those guys just to get a goalie in there. It is strange that, Like, I think Connor Hellebuck, if he continues on his career trajectory, he can be up there. But if there's a position that America has not, like, been as good at, it's definitely a net. Yeah. I would really get some strong consideration for Tom Barrasso.

I know he played on some really good teams, but I would put him right up there. But it just got me thinking because, you know, we're starting to see this become not even a topic anymore, obviously, because it's just, you know, Chris Kreider and Johnny Gujarro. So congratulations to them on those. Those milestones, something else we saw yesterday, less than a week after Michigan reached a Frozen 4, the top two picks in the 2021 draft, Owen Power, Maddie Baneers, made their debuts. It's the 13th time the top two picks in a draft have made their debut on the same day, but it's the first time ever it wasn't in October.

Kind of interesting, right? I mean, and we see it's something that never used to happen. And if you were drafted first and second overall, your goal was to be on that team come opening day. We don't really see this very often, do we? No, it's becoming a trend of teams kind of burning the first year of the ELC. It feels like it's been a recent trend. It's interesting. And it's cool that those kids, like, they played on the same team.

Tonight, I'm actually going to be, the Golden Knights are on the road and I'm not there. So I'm actually going to be at the brand new AHL arena here in Vegas watching the third teammate on that Michigan team, Brendan Brousson, who was the Golden Knights first round pick, he also will be making his pro debut, although in the AHL, but that class and that Michigan team was so stacked. Yeah, and I think players kind of have more agency and what they do now,

and that can explain some of the burning of the ELC. Like, if you don't burn it, all right, they're not going to sign with you, then they're going to go somewhere else and college hockey. Yeah, it was interesting. I was watching last night because I love seeing first games. I love seeing the rookie lap. even though we all know what's coming.

I love seeing it. No one power didn't look out of place to me at all. In fact, he broke up that two-on-one. I know it was your down-o-making-the-pass, but any time you could stop Austin Matthews, who is on Sarah's Mount Rushmore, he's scoring a goal. He looked right, and Ben-eer's picking up an assist.

It's just so April 12th, and we've got the top two picks finally kind of making. And I always think it's interesting because hockey's a physical sport, and when players delay certain things, and I get it with the ELC, I understand it. But you've got to figure that players are scared playing wherever else they're playing

the risk of getting hurt when you've got so much, so much on the line. You can't forget, you can't forget Bobby Briggs to Butte either. They lost like 15 to 1. So welcome to the show, kid. Yeah, absolutely.

All right, a couple more topics before we head to break and speak to Dave Jackson on the other side. One deals with the regular season, one deals with the playoffs. And they've kind of been at the forefront as of late. Down Goes Brown wrote a great piece. I don't know if you guys saw it debating the loser point or the bonus point.

And basically it breaks down like this. I don't know too many people who like that extra point. I know Down Goes Brown has been just ripping it for years. I don't like it either. But he broke it down as to where that point goes. Is it a bonus point or is it a loser point? If you think it's a loser point, it's because the winner of a hockey game has always received two points. And then the loser is now getting this bonus point.

If you think it is a bonus point, it's because there used to be ties where each team would get a point and now go out and get that extra point. So two questions. One, have you ever liked a three point game and two, are you bonus point or loser point? Jesse, you'll start with you. I think of it as a loser point, but that may just be because that's how my, Like, I first thought of it and my brain is just kind of trained that way. Regardless of what you call it, I think it artificially, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a mirage. It's a mirage. The standings are a mirage. And we were actually talking about this with Pete DeBoer last

week. And he kind of said something similar. Like, he's like, I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but it definitely keeps bad teams in the race longer. And he said, like, for those bad teams, that's a horrible spot to be. And it's a horrible spot to be for the players, the coaches, the fans, everyone, if you're not in it. But to me, that's what it does. It simulates a, a, a, like, I don't know, it just, it makes the NHL feel like it's closer when it actually isn't. These teams are not close. And it makes, uh, playoff, like, it makes it tough to make up playoff points down the stretch. Yeah, it's needlessly confusing and complicated. And it's like, it's vestigial, whether it's a bonus or a loser point. We don't.

society has progressed past the need for this. We don't need it anymore. How about you win or you lose? I just think it definitely complicates things. And it's not. Coaches don't really like it either. Of course I like it when it benefits them, but I've talked to Rodbreddenmore about it a lot.

And he calls it like a party point and stuff like that. I guess we can call it the party point. It's just like that. Sorry, I just got to look up vestigial. Okay. That was a good word. That's why you're a writer and I am not, Sarah. I've hated it from day one.

I don't think you should be rewarded in any way, shape, or form for a loss. But you're right. It's that illusion of, and I get, think of it as a business from a business standpoint, guys. You want teams to be able to say, hey, we're still, we don't have that little E beside our name on the standings. Come see our games. I get it. But it made more sense to me when there wasn't the shootout. Yeah.

Because it's like, well, you're each going to get a point. Now go out and get that extra point. The second they implemented the shootout, it should have been gone. And if you really want to keep that bonus point, make it like soccer, give three points to a winner. And that's it. Because I'm with you too, Sarah. It just gets confusing and trying to figure out who's in and who's out. Even this morning, I'm looking at the standings and I'm seeing teams in the Eastern Conference who are technically not out.

Stop it. We know the eight teams that are going to make it in, but I guess they're mathematically still in, right? As my dad would say, everyone gets a trophy these days. They don't want to be an extra trophy. I feel like part of it is, I think it actually works against itself, like what it's supposed to do because it's supposed to make parity and it's supposed to keep these teams in it closer. But like the whole reason you want to keep teams in the playoff run is so that in the last

couple weeks, they feel like, hey, if we win a bunch of games here, we can like, climb these standings real quick and make it in. But the loser point, what it actually does is it makes it damn near impossible to catch teams that are above. Like the Golden Knights right now are like Edmonton. They're like six points behind Edmonton with nine games to play. Like you'd think like, okay, that's definitely doable. Six point, I mean, you get two points a win, but it actually isn't.

It's almost impossible to do. So to me, the loser point is making those like those shocking runs to make the The playoffs pretty much impossible. So you're keeping these teams in it. You're making them feel like they're in it, but they're actually not. It's just an illusion. And we can't forget the very essence of why so many people hate it. You can't make some hockey games worth two points and other games worth three points.

It's just not fair. So it just, and it comes up every year right around this time. So I thought that was a great piece. I had to the athletic to read that there. And the other question I wanted to ask you guys was about the play in tournament that we're seeing, of course, now in the NBA. Do you like more teams in the playoffs with some form of a play in tournament? Do you want to see it in the NHL? I'm going to spoil a little bit of something here. Sarah is shaking her head emphatically no. Half the fucking league already makes the NHL playoffs.

I don't, we don't, it's already useless. We don't need more of this. I don't know why we have to have this debate every year. We should debate that there's less teams that make it. What do you think? I don't know. Part of me is I totally agree with Sarah and that the more teams you let you let in, the more you dilute the regular season. And it's already 82 games. And it's like, you're trying to make those games more important, not less important. But the other part of me is like, I really like the playoffs. And that play in tournament looks fun. And it and if it's going to generate more revenue for those teams and we're already having problems with like the salary cap not going up like it should. I don't know. I think there are reasons for it. But at the same time,

I think it boils down to you're already letting in half the teams. Like I agree with Sarah's point. Yeah, like, why do you like the playoffs? Because it's a rare thing that only certain people that have worked hard and are that skilled get to experience. And in case you have no idea what we're talking about, you may just be a hockey fan and not a basketball fan. Basically, the one through six seeds in each conference are in,

and then the seven through 10 play a little mini tournament. There's a double elimination or a double win to get, yourself in. And I've always been in favor of experimenting certain things when it comes to even with the playoffs. I remember, and I know you're probably going to roll your eyes because everyone does when I say this. Years ago, someone saying they should do the playoffs like this. You've got the one, the top eight teams, let's say the Eastern Conference. And the number one seed says, okay, we would like to play Team X. Then the number two team says, we would like to play. They get to choose which team they play. And I remember,

loving it, thinking the drama, you know what I mean? You could create where maybe a number one seed chooses a number five seed because, hey, we've had a lot of success against them. And I like experimentation. We have a lot of teams in the playoffs. And the three of us love hockey, but guys, come June, are you not kind of like, I want to be outside right now and just like enjoying, you know, at least for us where it's really cold, enjoying the few months of summer that we have.

16s a lot. And Pierre LeBron always advocates for making the preseason shorter so we can end the playoffs earlier. And we should do that even without more teams getting in. But if they did, then, yeah, we've got to cut the preseason and have. I think another part of this is in basketball, I feel like a one-game playoff is a little more representative because there are so many events in a basketball game.

Like in basketball, in order for a team to get lucky and win a basketball game, how many lucky bounces do you have to have in that game? We're talking dozens. Whereas in hockey, a one game playoff between these two teams, they played 82 games to get here. And you're going to decide their entire season on one game playoff where a skate bounces off an endboard, off a guy's ass, off the goalie's face, and into the net.

And it's like, and now they can pack, like, park the bus and play defense. And now this team's going to win. I think basketball, a one game play. is not as brutal for those teams, whereas hockey, it would have to be at least three games, maybe more, because I just, I don't like the idea of in like baseball, I don't watch baseball, but I know they do one game playoffs. I do not like the idea of a team's fate after an 82 game season being decided on one game in a sport with as much variance as hockey. Yeah, I'm with you. I'm with you. And, you know, it's interesting too because I don't

want to say it's too confusing because it's really not, but really how it works is you've got the seven and the eight team facing each other. The winner of that game gets the seventh seed, but the loser is still not eliminated. They play the winner of the 910 game for that number eight seed. And suddenly, you're right, like it's a bounce here, a bounce there, a goalie, a little bit injured. Something happens and suddenly 82 games. I'm also in favor of doing anything you can to make the 82 game season more important. I don't know. Like even, you know, the row, you know, regulation over time was, I think there's, there should

be after 82 games, so much data we could use for the playoffs that we sometimes don't. Right. So you could give teams buys like the NFL does. And that makes the regular season way more important because you want to be a high seed. In hockey, the high seeds aren't, they don't get that much favoritism because home ice doesn't mean as much when you look at it statistically. So the, the, the. One thing, and I'll give him credit, Ken Bulky, he covers the Golden Knights out here.

He came up with this idea yesterday at practice when we were talking about it. What if the higher seed you were, the more home games you got in the first round of the playoffs? What if the number one seed we played all seven games at home? And the number two seed gets six games at home. Oh. And the number three seed, and it goes down to where, and then the four or five game is just basically even like you would expect four three. I love the creativity of it. I don't know if I'd sign off on it, but I agree that, like, even, even the President's trophy winners.

What do the President's trophy winners get other than always throughout the playoffs? A curse. Yeah. But, I mean, you finished first in an 82 game season, you should get something huge, in my opinion. And they just don't. You're right. It's a curse. It's home ice, but you're right about home ice.

I just don't think we put the 82 game season into enough, with enough importance. Do you look at the Eastern Conference right now? We know the eight teams. They're kind of jockeying for a position, but we know the eight teams. So they're kind of in cruise control right now. I mean, this has been for two months. It makes sense. But if you qualify for the playoffs first, you don't have to play the rest of the regular season.

That would not make sense. But that's certainly, I don't do math, but my brain thought about that. Or how about if you finish first overall, you start with a two games and nothing series lead or something. You know what I mean? Like, let's give them something. Anyways. So another thing that's been talked about because everyone's, you know, and I, basketballs, you know, they're loving it.

I think it's their fourth year now doing it. So obviously people are starting to say, hey, what about hockey? A couple of minutes left in this segment, guys, rapid fire. Vegas, Vancouver last night, Canucks win 5'4 in overtime. Two pretty desperate teams on the outside looking in. Jesse, your thoughts on that and obviously Mark Stone's return. Yeah, Mark Stone, he didn't look great, but that's to be expected with how much of a layoff he had. The Golden Knights did not play a good game, and they are, I mean, we're talking eight games left.

They basically are in when, like, losing your out mode. They almost have to go 8 and 0, maybe 7 and 1 in those last few games. So it's going to be a fun ending to this season, but we'll see if they can pull it off. Cains and Rangers, Sarah, what was your biggest takeaway from this game? Was it Tony DiAngelo's return or Freddie Anderson stick handling dear center ice? Yeah, after the game, someone asked self Jarvis where Freddie learned that stick handling. He said Ian Cole. So the chirps are, yeah, Jarvis said Ian Cole.

So the chirps were real there. That was a fun game. It just goes to show to me the biggest takeaway was how lazy the canes looked once they qualified and they were skating through the first two periods. Then the third period, they're just like, all right, let's score some goals. Bing, bang, boom, win. So that's how it goes this time of the year for teams that qualify. And Jesse, your thoughts as a goalie?

Have you ever tried anything like that? One time we were playing and we didn't have anyone on the bench. Like we didn't have enough players to have anyone on the bench and there was a delayed penalty. so I can't go to the bench to get an extra skater because there's no one there. So I just skated to center ice and had them pass the puck back to me so I could like fire it at the net, hoping for deflection. It did not score. But that's the only time I've done anything close to that.

It was pretty sweet. And you got to give Freddie Anderson not just credit for the slick stick work, but the he knows he can't cross the red line. And you could see like right before he got to the red line, flipped around, passed it back to the D. It was nice. He made it look way smoother than I would expect for a goalie. Yeah, it was hardly Patrick Wawapulton that spin. her grandma and Gretzky and going past center and going, what did I do? It was actually a nice pass and, you know, it was the delayed penalty, like you said.

So you couldn't really do much else. Leon Drysidal said, I wouldn't want to be the team that plays us. Agree or disagree? All right, man. All right, guy. Both of you made the best facial. Like, really? Okay, so we got Sarah's answer.

Jesse, disagree or agree? Yeah, pretty much along the same lines. like, for one, I disagree with him. And for two, like, okay, everyone probably thinks that. Like, I would assume that every team thinks, yeah, nobody wants to play us. But like, I think Jeff wrote it in the pregame thing. Who's playing goal for the Edmonton Oil? Like, which goalie is scaring the opposing team?

Because Mike Smith and Koskinen have been absolute horrible the last couple, like, weeks. And we saw last night Hartman's comments, like, oh, I had a bunch of wild people. defending me, whereas nobody was defending Evander Cain. So maybe their teammates don't support each other. And I would want to mentally tear them down. I would want to play against them. And a good segue, Sarah, because that's the last thing on our rapid fire. Ryan Hartman wanted to fight Evander Cain.

Lionsman got in the way. And as he was going away, he was emphatically telling Evander Cain that he's number one, using a certain finger and they had to blow out his mouth because he was saying puck you. And news is coming in now. He's been fined $4,250, the maximum allowable by the CBA. Seam about right, guys? Can't be flipping people off because we know we're on camera.

Add it to Kane's tab. I thought he was pointing at the scoreboard. That's what I would say. If I had a hearing, I'd be like, oh, just saying. Take, take take the look at the scoreboard. Look up at it. Yeah. Trice.

I don't should have done that before making that comment. Stick around after the break. We're going to talk about everybody's favorite topic refereeing in the NHL with former NFL referee, now rules analyst for the NHL on ESPN, Dave Jackson. So don't go anywhere. Okay, anybody who knows me or listens to this show

with any kind of regularity knows how I feel about NHL referees. I always just wonder why they would choose a profession where if they do it perfectly, no one says a damn thing. If they make one little mistake or make one controversial call. People are all over them.

They're just a glutton for punishment. Maybe our next guest can help shine a little bit of light on that. Former NHL referee and now rules analyst on the NHL on ESPN. Dave Jackson joining us. Thanks so much for doing this, Dave. Thanks for having me. Pleasure to be here. Well, let's start with how I introduced you.

Why the hell would you want to be a referee when that is what happens pretty much on a daily basis? Well, you know, I wouldn't do my first. choice. It would be to be a player, I guess. I think every kid in Canada, I'm from Montreal, grows up wanting to be a player. And I started refereeing when I was about 14. I was playing hockey. I still hadn't given the dream up. But when I got to about 16, 17, the dream kind of gave on me. And I just continued to referee. And I realized that about 18 or 19 that doing junior hockey, I had a chance of making it and staying in the game. And honestly, I know it's a cliche, but if you find something you love doing. You never really have to work a day in your life. And I fooled them for 32

years. So good with the bad. You know, Dave, we talked about this a couple weeks ago. People have been disagreeing with referees since the first face-off in history. But this year just feels a little bit different. It's been a rough year for NHL officials. And I know I'm sure you know a lot of them. Has it been tough as a former official kind of watching some of the Not just necessarily the criticism, but the, you know, people analyzing every single move that referees do and being so kind of with their critiques with them. So, I mean, it is. And it's funny because for me, I've never been on social media. The officials are not supposed to have Twitter, Facebook accounts.

And now I can see why. Because if I had had Twitter when I was on the ice, it would have been soul crushing. So now that I'm a pseudo-media person, I have a Twitter account. And I read the accounts of what goes on and how everybody weighs in, everybody has an opinion. And it really is soul crushing. It's some criticisms justified. I mean, criticisms always justify, whether it be a player, coach, or a referee. But other criticisms just seem to be a pile on of people that have no idea what's going.

And I guess what bothers me the most is not the criticism of the call. We can all agree a call gets missed or maybe a call is made. It shouldn't be made. What bothers me is the opinions of people saying what the referee's motivation is for missing that call. You know, he doesn't want that team to win. He's holding a grudge. The league tells him not to make these calls and nothing could be further from the truth. And that bothers me the most is a missed call is a missed call, whether it was lack of focus, lack of preparation, whatever it may be.

Bad positioning, bad luck. That's why the call got missed. No other reason. You think it would be beneficial for officials to speak to the media, or do you think that would just make everything worse? I know the media would love it. I think it would be great for ratings, I think. But I don't see it happening. And here's why.

The officials come off the ice. It's not like they made a bad play, like a player. They gave the pocket away. They know what they did. In the official's mind, he made the right call. Now, he might have doubts because of the amount of pushback he's getting on it. But he needs a chance to look at everything. see exactly what happening.

You see the replays. And the reporters have the advantage of seeing all those replays. And another thing is when you bring a player into a press conference, it's usually home team media and they don't hate the player. They just want to know what happened. Whereas I could see some real animosity going on in this, in a press conference to where the reporters, the referee possibly just cost their team a playoff chance, did whatever.

And I see a lot of potential for going south. So I don't think you're going to see that. Maybe what you could see in the future is a spokesman. It could be a league spokesman or have a pool reporter maybe go into the room and talk and come out and share it. But I don't think you're going to see them doing press conferences. It's just, it's a recipe for disaster. When I see a player make a huge mistake and everyone crushes him on Twitter and then you hear that player explain the play and like what he saw and why he made that awful pass, I feel like it humanizes him and then like you said, like fans understand why it happened.

You don't think that that could be the case with referees because I feel like a lot of the time they don't get humanized at all in any way. And I think if we did humanize them a little more, maybe the criticism would be a little more about making, missing a call and not so much he wants this team to win. I absolutely agree. And I think done properly, it would be, it would be great. And I think there'd be less criticism. The problem is you get a player is protected by his PR director. The PR director knows the reporters. There's a certain working relationship.

How far you go? Do you cross the line? The referee would be coming in there with no support. They don't have a PR director at the game to protect them. They don't have a relationship with these reporters. There's a lot of logistic things that you'd really have to perfect it. And I'm not sure. And then you've got guys.

You've got, I mean, you've got a staff of 74 officials. Some of them are, some of them are, you know, college graduates and master's degrees. Some have media experience. Other guys don't. And it would be really tough on some people to possibly come across the way they want to come across, especially after just coming off the ice. So it would be a crapshoot. I think you'd be very successful in a lot of cases, but you have,

potential for some blowups. I've seen you on Twitter a few times, like politely interjecting into conversations among media about clarifying what has gone on and officiating. What do you think the number one thing that we and fans misunderstand that you wish we would get? I wish fans would understand

how hard it is and how fast it is down on the ice level. The only way a fan could even come close to understanding is that they've got a seat right against the glass. Because nine times out of ten, people sitting right against the glass and the whistle goes and they say, what happened? Because it's impossible to see everywhere. The game is so fast and the sight lines,

you're constantly fighting for sight lines. And sometimes you're in the wrong spot and it's no fault of your own. You're on the wrong side of the net. The puck is loose. That's not your fault. Everybody else can see that puck loose except you. So I just think people need to, it'd be great if everybody that coach minor hockey had to referee minor hockey.

If every kid who played minor hockey had to referee minor hockey. Because I think once you've done it, once, just one time. I think you really get a different perspective and a lot more sympathy for how tough the job is. Dave, I want to ask you about two words that, at least I grew up thinking it was just the norm. And now they're being questioned a lot. And those two words are game management. We hear it all the time about referees.

I certainly did not play any high level of hockey, but even at the lowest levels, you knew when a referee was trying to manage a game, was trying to cool down heads, was trying to do a lot different things. And, and I'm seeing a lot of people, again, I feel like we keep going back to Twitter saying things like, just call the rulebook. It's black and white, just call it, which we all know is a level of impossible there. What are your thoughts on game management and how different referees might be able to keep control of a game? I'm not sure why game management has such a bad connotation nowadays. Obviously, people equate game management with a referee is cheating. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

If you read the rule book, if people take time to read the rule book, there's almost no rules in there that don't have the wording in the referee's judgment. And that means the referee is provided with a ton of latitude in how to assess these calls and how to use his judgment. So if you look at a game where the score is out of hand and you have two players trying to get each other, try and fight, and there's, you know, maybe eight minutes to go in the game. They haven't really done anything. but you know that they're going to be a problem for you the rest of the game, well, you want to manage that situation, right? You give them misconduct penalties. They deserve it.

That's a form of game management, but that's not something that's wrong or taboo. That is just smart officiating. That's making everybody in the game safer, and that's protecting those two players, possibly from the lengthy suspension and what could happen later on in the game. So I think a really good official, as you said,

just a minute ago, has a pulse on what's happening in that game, and he has a huge toolbox. You can go two, you can go 10, you can go game misconduct. You can choose to not call something. I mean, I saw a game last night. The score was 9 to 2.

It was a good game. There was a lot of frustration, but the referees did what they had to do. They made sure not to miss any blatant infractions because that'll increase the frustration. But they also didn't possibly call hooks and holds that had no bearing on the play because I would have frustrated the team even more.

And there's calls didn't need to be made. They had no bearing on the play. They weren't violent. They weren't scoring chances taken away. And I think good referees understand that. As far as calling the rulebook, the rulebook's there to keep players safe, to keep the game fair,

and to make sure scoring chances are taken away. So I think a good official realizes that and just goes ahead with those tools. something else that's been in the, you know, in the discussion a lot this year has been timing of penalties. Something else that kind of was considered the norm is, you know, last minute of the game, referees are going to put their whistles away. It's overtime. They don't want to decide the game. But calls that people believe are being missed are being called or being missed at the most important times of the game. How much does that come into play? How much does the,

I don't want to be the person who decides this game come into play when it's, you know, game seven, last minute of play or overtime in a referee's mind. Yeah, I don't hear it all the time. And I always heart back to, I mean, from my era, the band rush, and they had that great line where if you, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. And by not deciding, you're allowing the unskilled play to gain advantage, correct? If you look at the playoffs over the last number of years, there's been a ton of overtime games decided on a power play.

and I know from my last, let's say the last 50, when the culture changed in the game in 2005 after the lockout, every training camp I ever went to and every playoff meeting I ever went to, the boss Stephen Walken for most of those years and Mr. Bettman would tell us, you guys know what the standard is. And that's standard to be maintained from the opening face off till the final goal. And if you see a panel late in the game and it meets the standard,

we want you to call it. and we will support you if you call it. And that's all I've ever been told. So it really bugs me when I hear people saying, the league doesn't want this, the league wants the game to be managed, the league doesn't want penalties late in the game, could not be further from the truth.

Some of these penalties that I've seen lately that are the big high profile misses, the fact that their star players involved, I think heightened the surrounding buzz on these calls. If it was two relatively unknown players and two teams that weren't fighting for a playoff spot, they probably wouldn't have got the same media attention. If you look at all the penalties called,

the refs are calling 99% of what needs to be called. These calls get missed and they become a big deal. But I know for a fact that these guys are told, I talk to these guys, I talk to management, they're being told, if you see a penalty late, you call it, we will support you. So I'm not sure why some of these calls get missed. There's a fatigue factor.

there's pressure, there's positioning. All these things come together sometimes for a perfect storm and calls get missed. But as far as a league-wide mandate to not call penalties late, absolutely not true. We love a free will by Rush reference there. I appreciated that one. Can you got to take us through what it takes to become an NHL referee and then officiating the playoffs? I feel like people don't understand how hard it actually is. Yeah, well, in my case, I started refereeing when I was 14.

I went to junior hockey. I started the NHL with the NHL, I was 21, didn't do my first NHL game until I was 25, and then I still spent three more years in the minors. So I did like a seven-year apprenticeship just with the NHL before I was full-time NHL. And that's a little bit shorter today because it's two-referee system. You can bring a guy in a little bit earlier, pair him with a veteran, learn his craft a little bit on the job than they did.

But just to get there, I mean, there's thousands of officials across North America that want to be in the NHL. They just go to these referee schools and go to Combines and they just don't have it. You need the athletic ability. You need to know the game of hockey. You need to be a great skater. And you need to have the personality. You need to not have a need for affirmation from others because you're never going to get it.

You've got to look within. You've got to look in the mirror and say, I did a good job tonight. And that's good enough for me. because if you wait for other people to tell you you did a good job, you're in the wrong job. You really are. Going further in the playoffs, that also bothers me about these people on social media

who say that referees are not accountable. Well, no referees don't get fined the way players do, but playoffs is all bonus money for referees. And only about 40, sorry, 60% of the staff gets playoffs. There's 34 referees. only 20 referees get playoffs. And as I said, that's all bonus money. And compared to a player's salary and their playoff bonuses,

for referees, bonus money in the playoffs is huge. So if you get selected for playoffs based on your body of work the entire season. And if that body of work is not up to stuff, you don't get playoffs. And even when you're in the playoffs, you could be the best referee in the league. you did the finals year before. If you have a problem in the first round and you're not working as well as the other guys, your playoffs are over after round one.

You're not going around two. It's not based on seniority and what you've done in the past. So when people say your referees are not accountable, they're very much accountable. And it affects their pocketbook. I think another thing that people maybe don't understand about referees is the schedule they go through

and like the travel. Can you just take someone through what a couple weeks is like in a referee? travel schedule? Absolutely. So people would ask me, how many games are you contracted for? I'd say,

a contractor for 73 games and usually work about 75. And they would say, oh, so it's not as bad as a player schedule. But they're forgetting players play 41 home games. And they charter after every game. Somebody carries their luggage for them. So it's really not that grinding

compared to being an official. As an official, I was on the road 20 to 22 days a month. we would fly commercial airlines we book our own flights book our own rental cars book our own hotels and we carry our own equipment bags and we find a laundromat every single day to do our wash our own equipment so i don't think people realize the grind these guys are under they go out on an eight game road trip over eight games over 12 days for example a lot of back-to-back nights in there uh you might in eight games you might have you know 26 flights with connections and all that you're tired you're tired. I mean, a back-to-back game for a player, they're on a charter jet, they land in the next city at two in the morning, probably optional skate the next day.

For an official back-to-back-back-to-back game, to go back to hotel, 11, find a place to do their laundry, usually in the hotel, something they eat. They don't get to sleep until two. They're probably up at 435, catch a plane with a connection to the next city. Get in around noon, have lunch, grab two hours of sleep in the afternoon, and they're at the rink again. So when you talk about fatigue, it's all about. but managing your, how you eat, your sleep. It's a grind. Over, over my career, I just got my Marriott statement in the mail. And I think I've spent over 11 full years in a Marriott.

Wow. What kind of perks do you get with that? That's, uh, well, you get, you get lifetime titanium and you get upgraded every now and then. Not bad, not bad. Dave, I got to ask you, you know, as Jesse pointed out earlier, referees are humans. But so are players. And I wonder how difficult it can be at times to be objective.

When you've got a chronic diver, when you've got somebody who's been in your ear the entire game chirping at you, if you've got just a genuine asshole, you know what I mean? How difficult it is to say, you know, he is just player X on the Boston Bruins as opposed to, I don't know, Brad Marchand or somebody. You know what I mean? Like how difficult is it to really put yourself out of that framework of looking at the player, you know, when making a call like that? It's not as tough as the average hockey fan would think it is because as I spoke to you earlier,

every call we make is scrutinized by our bosses. Every wrong call we make goes in that little, you know, that little book for the end of the season when it comes to the playoff time. So for you to hold a grudge and pick on a player, you're cutting your nose off to spot your face because it's not going to help your body of work. But I know for me, I mean, I had lots of battles with players. And you say things sometimes, you try and treat disrespect with respect. And you have the tools at your disposal.

You don't have to swear back at a player. You can simply assess an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. And I assessed a number of those to coaches and players. And what I always tried to do, next time I'd see that player, next game or if it was an unsports like conduct, maybe next period. getting around in the ice and I would make the I would go out the player and I would be the guy to go hey are we okay because I'm good and sometimes they'd look at you as sort of surprised what do you mean you're good we just we just wanted each other I go yeah but that's in the past I go you know

my wife says worse things to me and I get over that and that would that would sort of lighting things up and and they'd laugh and then then we'd be good and we truly would be good and I tried to approach every game as a clean slate because if you hang on to that baggage, it's not going to help you in the long run. People aren't there to see the referees. They're there to see the players. So you can't let it. You just can't let it infect your game. We've seen a lot of advancements in officiating, Dave. You know, one referee system goes through two referee system. We hear people making suggestions all the time. One suggestion we've heard on this show is an off-ice official who's there to look at a monitor.

and signal down to the referees, hey, you miss this, hey, you got to call this. Is there, what are your thoughts on that? Or is there something else that you would like to see happen in the game of officiating? I like it the way it is.

I think bringing in the second referee was the best thing ever happened to the game. I mean, we all watched talk. My first NHL game was 1990. We all know what the game was back then. There was rampant, I mean, Mario Lemieux in today's game, he might have 200 goals.

he scored him and gretsky i mean can imagine if they weren't hooked and held the way they were back in the day if you didn't go down it wasn't a hooking penalty back in the day so we we changed the game we changed the rules you brought a second referee on the ice we have better angles we call it a lot tighter than we used to because we're able to we don't have to guess we're in better position now with two referees i don't as i alluded to earlier i don't think people understand how important a sight line is down on the ice. And that's why sometimes when people say, well, there's two reps on the ice, how did that hook get missed? And the simple answer is, one guy is deferring to his partner who's five feet away. And if his partner's looking at it, the guy who's deep does not really

have a right to say, my judgment's better than my partner's judgment, he's five feet from it. I'd be guessing from 100 feet away. So to put a guy in the press box, unless you're willing to stop the game and let the guy in the press box watch four or five different replays, and we don't want four, four and a half hour games. So I think we've got it pretty good the way it is. You call a major penalty, you can now go review it and rescind it to two.

You call a double minor for high sticking that wasn't. It was the puck or his own teammate. You can rescind that penalty. You call a goal or interference, disallow a goal. You can challenge that and rescind it. So I really think it's in a good place. When people,

when people that don't have a vested interest, in their team winning the game, and they just watch it as a casual observer, the refereeing is really not that bad. It's pretty damn good. Well, we appreciate you coming on and clearing some of that up because I think Jesse hit the nail right on the head. A lot of people don't look at referees as human beings and all the things that go into it. They just love to either criticize or, you know, kind of be happy when it goes in their direction. So, Dave, thanks so much for coming on.

We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me, guys. Had a blast. Thanks so much. Hey, take care of guys. Dave Jackson, former NHL referee and now rules analyst for the NHL on ESPN. After the break, we'll find out what Jesse and Sarah working on. Don't go anywhere.

Big thanks again to Dave Jackson for coming on the show. Guys, wraps up another one. But before we go, as always, what are you working on? Sarah, we'll start with you. Something's about to be published either later today or tomorrow with Joe Smith, just kind of how the hockey culture has changed and allowed for, more fashionistas. And we got a few lightning guys to comments on that. And they were awesome. I can't think lightning enough. It was a really fun story kind of delving into what their fashion

choices say about them. Jesse? Nice. I love the feature stories. I don't have much featurey going on right now. The Golden Knights are playing for their lives. So it is a every game is a playoff game at this point. So I'm just kind of strictly game coverage covering this team. Obviously Mark Stone coming back all of the salary cap implications. But yeah, the Golden Knights are in playoff mode a couple weeks before the playoffs begin. So it feel weird for you? You've never been in this position. Very weird.

I'm used to being in Sarah's position. For four years, this team has, honestly, I have hated covering the last two weeks of the regular season because the games are so meaningless. And even the players are like, all right, like, let's just not get injured. Let's get to the playoffs. Let's get at the start. This is the first time in franchise history. They have had to win games down the stretch.

it's kind of fun for me. Oh, it's so fun. You have no idea if you're going to be covering playoff hockey or not. But I do know we are going to be back next week, so we'll see you guys next week. But before we go, I want to let you guys know about some other great hockey coverage on the athletic hockey show. Jack Roselvic of the Columbus Blue Jackets

is Craig Custis and Sean Gentilly's guest this week on the athletic hockey show, USA. We've got Mike Gensel, Arizona Coyote's Pro Scout, and of course, Jake's dad, joining Mike Russo on straight from the source. Do us a favor. Give us a follow on your favorite podcast platform and leave a rating and review. And you can subscribe to the Athletic Audio Plus on Apple Podcasts to get all of your bonus content from our entire network.

Custis and Gentilly provide bonus content this week. You start with a 30-day free trial. Then it's just 99 cents a month after that. Right now, you get an annual subscription to The Athletic for just a dollar a month for six months when you visit theathletic. com slash hockey show. The athletic hockey show returns Thursday with Ian Mendez and down goes brown. For Sarah and Jesse, I'm Rob. We'll talk to you next week.