Too Many Men On The Ice?

During the 1998-1999 season the NHL decided to randomly test certain games using a four official system by adding a second referee. Ordinarily, games are played with a single referee in a three official system. The impetus for adding another referee was to determine the effect on deterrence.

With twelve (12) players and four (4) officials on the ice simultaneously, there is a high amount of activity and traffic. One objective of adding the additional ref was to have less infractions go undetected. A second objective was to have less major penalties assessed. Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago writes an interesting paper entitled Testing the Economic Model of Crime: The National Hockey League’s Two-Referee Experiment . Levitt's paper concludes the second ref has little effect on the probability of punishment and the detection of deterrence. In addition, he finds there was no statistical significance with regard to the increase in major penalties assessed.

So why has the NHL and all professional leagues, with the exception of the ECHL, adopted the four official system? Not certain. If fighting were rampant I could see the rationale, however, instigator rules appear to be acting as a deterrent.

Officials are paid in a range between $115,000 (rookies) and $220,000 (after 15+ years) annually. Going to a three official system would allow you to reduce the number of officials from 76 to 57 (approximately 25%). A 25% reduction results in annual cost savings of approximately $3.2 million. This is a good chunk of change for an action which has a negligible effect on the game. Am I missing something?