First in a series.

I worked the shot clock at the Wachovia Center earlier this season, filling in for the usual shot clock operator, who was out of town.

Although I used to run the clock regularly, I expect that it'll be the last time I'm asked to do it.

Welcome to Game Misconduct, where I'll be calling fouls on some of the representatives of the league and member clubs.

Ironic, then, isn't it, that my final NLL paycheck was for working the penalty box?

There's a term some players use when they aren't getting the calls they want from an official. They call the referee a "cheater," suggesting that not only are his calls wrong, but intentionally wrong.

I can think of no better term to use in describing these "fouls."

So, what's wrong with these referees? Several games have had very controversial finishes this year and considering the amount of complaints about the officiating, there has not been nearly enough discussion about the reasons why.

As a former member of the group, it frustrates me to hear criticism that is often unwarranted. Anyone who listened to the webcasts of NLL games over the past couple of years knows that although I tend to give referees the benefit of doubt as a commentator, I certainly don't hesitate to be critical when it is warranted.

I've worked games as an on-floor official, a shot clock operator, a goal judge, a play by play announcer, a color commentator, a bench reporter, and a writer. This has given me views of the game from many perspectives and a chance to hear the comments of a wide variety of people who are involved in the game.

One thing that became very clear to me is that few people understand how difficult it is to be a referee in this particular league. I don't mean this from a standpoint of knowing how tough it is to call a game but rather knowing what challenges exist because of ridiculously poor leadership from league officials.

(That's a very strong statement, I know. Some may say that's like the pot calling the kettle black, since I've balked at criticism of the referees, but I'm certain most fans will agree with me by the end of this series.)

You won't find much resistance among the NLL's referees to the idea that they should be accountable for their performance.

The problem is that instead of simply being accountable, they are subjected to unreasonable expectations, political manipulation, and a lack of support from the league office.

I can tell you from experience that the training these officials receive is a joke. There is one clinic at the start of each season to go over rule changes from the previous year and have some discussions on situational cases.

One... measly... clinic.

Also, there is usually one local set of preseason scrimmages where the officials can get some work. In the season when I got on the floor for my first game, I requested to participate in an extra set of scrimmages up in Buffalo and offered to pay my own way.

I was pretty nervous about moving up to an on-floor position and the extra practice would have made me a lot more confident. I was told I could not participate and my performance was a direct reflection of the support I received.

We received a limited amount of feedback during the season, but there are not enough games where a supervisor is available to provide it.

Just imagine what NLL games would look like if there were no practices...

Sure boys, just rely on your experience in the field game and the CLA.

The games wouldn't be worth paying a red cent for.

The diversity of officials coming together for these games alone dictates the need for strong training. Canadians talk about the difference in play from Ontario to British Columbia to Alberta -- and that's just between the summer box lacrosse leagues.

Pay no mind to the fact that many NLL referees come from field lacrosse, which has different rules than box lacrosse, as well as a different pace and a different feel for what's legal versus what's borderline versus what's definitely a penalty.

In addition, NLL rules are constantly changing, often drawing inspiration from the other lacrosse leagues. The rules change year to year, and sometimes within the year.

There was a game this year that ended with a player in the penalty box when there should have been a penalty shot, a good example of a rule that has differed from league to league and has also changed in the NLL.

The mistake came in the closing seconds of a late January game between Rochester and Toronto, in which the Knighthawks took a penalty for having too many men on the floor. By rule, the Rock should have been awarded a penalty shot; instead, Chris Schiller wound up in the penalty box, serving the bench minor, and the Knighthawks escaped with a 11-10 victory.

Also, schedules often have officials going long periods of time between games. These long layoffs make it tough to stay sharp, since there are so many reflex calls and it is easy to apply the wrong rule if you aren't trained and "in game shape."

The crease rules are a prime example of that -- they differ so much and require an immediate reaction.

Some leagues allow a pass back into the crease, while others don't.

Some leagues allow a player to reach into the crease, while others don't.

Some leagues mandate a time-serving penalty for all crease interference, while others will award possession or a free clear in certain situations.

Unsettled rules and vague phrasing in the rulebook are a major problem. That caused the need for a "casebook" to be written a few years ago, to clarify certain rules.

The casebook was a mess. Some casebook examples actually conflicted with the rulebook. Some situations were not addressed by either the rulebook or the casebook. Some rules have changed since the last time the casebook was updated, prior to the 2001 season.

How the officiating crew now operates is another issue.

A couple of years ago, all three referees used to be able to call penalties on player fouls. Apparently, the National Lacrosse League's competition committee didn't think it was challenging enough for a three-man crew and decided to reduce the crew by one.

The committee ordered that a new system, in which the three-man crew be replaced by one with two referees and a "technical official," be tested at a predraft combine and that the crew chief submit a report.

The report was not favorable, but it was ignored. The vast majority of the officials were against the change, in which the technical official would only handle faceoffs and substitutions, and would not be allowed to call penalties.

The referees even coined an unflattering nickname for this new position. However, the league's leadership didn't like this dissenting voice and threatened to take action against an official who used this nickname.

Proponents of the new system pointed to consistency in calls because only two people have to be on the same page and not three, especially when a rookie was in the mix.

However, I would point out from experience that the officials who had trouble getting on the same page as two others are the same ones who have trouble with a single partner now.

Getting a rookie on the same page (if he really is out of step) is a training issue and it is foolish to address that with a change in mechanics which reduces floor coverage.

I've seen the difference in this system from the one before. The substitutions aren't any cleaner than before because there is only one man watching both benches. Unless you are a lizard, able to make each eye look in a different direction, you can't watch both benches effectively.

The bigger problem is that there is a lot more happening in the middle of the floor that goes unnoticed. I've seen lots of cheap shots near the technical official go unnoticed because he is looking across at the benches, as he is mandated.

I've even seen players get hurt as a result of a foul but not draw a penalty call, because of this system. Indoor lacrosse is much too fast to limit what officials are to watch. You could blink and miss something.

Trust me, I've been there and done that. You need every set of eyes able to watch whatever needs to be seen.

In the next installment, I'm going to talk about one of the controversial finishes from earlier in the year and begin to discuss some of the politics that are so troubling.