Do Refs Decide Who Wins The Game?

Imagine this: A hockey player lining up a perfect shot towards the net. He has a clear path and is almost guaranteed a goal. The next thing you know, he is slammed from behind and needs to be helped off the ice. Because of the hit, he doesn’t return that night and misses a few games. No penalty is called on his attacker.

A little extreme maybe, but we have all seen those penalties that should have been called but weren’t or penalties that were called that were obviously a reach. Even the best teams have been brought down by a multitude of random calls.

So the question becomes, do referees have more of an impact on the outcome of games than we realize? In a perfect world, refs are there to make sure rules are followed and nothing extreme breaks out. But even the best referees in their respective sports can show bias every once in a while. 

When I see weird penalty totals such as (for example) the Blackhawks game on Sunday against the Sharks, where the Blackhawks earned five penalties compared to the Sharks zero penalty game, it makes me wonder a little bit. Did the team deserve all those penalties while the other one played a completely clean game?

To be honest, I didn’t watch the above mentioned game so I can’t comment too deeply on it, but I have to wonder if the Blackhawks (who are indeed a physical team) did so much wrong to garner those penalties while the Sharks did nothing. The Blackhawks did overcome the rash of penalties to win the game 2-1, just in case you were wondering.

Even if a lot of penalties are justified, when there is a definite difference in penalty numbers, be it 5-0 or 6-2, you have to wonder if just a bit of ref bias is showing. Back in the old days, there were multiple cases of a ref being paid off (in more than one sport) to help a team win a game. But does this still exist in some capacity, even if it isn’t for money these days?

Stepping away from penalties for a second, does this bias also include fights? There are some fights that refs seem to take forever to break up while other ones they are on like a greyhound that’s found a rabbit. Certain players or teams seem to get more leniency on having longer fights than others (and seem to get fewer penalties for these infractions).

So what do you think? Do refs control the game more than just to enforce rules? Are some games still fixed in some degree even if the ruling body of the sport in question and fans won’t admit it? Can some successes be credited more to the referees of a game than to the team that won it?