A good referee in hockey should have similar principles to good referees/umpires in any sport. They should be impartial, well-versed in the rules of the game, and have an understanding of when a no-call is the "better" call if the rules do not effectively capture it. I think the impartial and well-versed components go without saying, although we regularly see referees in professional sports impacted by who the home team is, and not every referee has the wherewithal to make very obscure rules calls. I think the best example of a preferred no-call is obvious in soccer, when a referee can grant advantage and play-on with the option of carding a player later on if their offense is egregious, so as to avoid interrupting the natural flow of the game that may actually lead to a scoring opportunity.

To be clear, no 'storyline' or 'big vs small market' should ever play a role in a referee's decisions. It is common knowledge that, ultimately, sports are entertainment and intended to be money-makers for the owners of each franchise and those in high positions. But from an objective perspective it's absurd for a game to be decided by the size of a market. I mean, they already get by far the most media time of any other team, why should they also be rewarded for sub-par play in a big market?