Thought this was an interesting topic, so here goes:
I posted this on the other blog, but am interested in Blake's position on this idea... Interesting comment up about a 2-ref system... Perhaps this is something that the UHL should at least try? The only reason I am suggesting this is that there is often a lot of crap that goes on behind the play. I have noticed several times that bad things happen and people boo the ref, but he didn't see it. He can't call what he doesn't see. I think another ref would be an idea to at least try.
I think the 2-ref system works very well in the NHL.
Iceboi
I have always thought hockey was a flawed game because of the one-referee system. There's no way one referee can see even three-fourths of the action on the ice. It's a physical impossibility. Everybody yells at the refs, but there's no way they can be perfect because the system is flawed. They are set up to fail.
One of my favorites is how if a ref calls it tight, they want him to let them play. If he calls it loose and someone gets hurt, it's because the ref didn't call things close enough. They can't win.
Two refs would be great at all levels -- except for the money and there aren't enough refs in the system. If the NHL wants to start putting more money back into a training program like it did in the mid-1990s, OK, but until that happens I don't see any way a two-ref system will go at this level of minor league hockey, even though it would probably help the game. They'd essentially need to triple, not double, the amount of refs in the system, and then they'd have to double the amount of linesmen to fill in some of those holes. I don't think there are enough people out there who like getting yelled at all the time. LOL.
Hope that covers it for you Iceboi. What's everyone else think?