Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Even without wearing a helmet during my refereeing career, I knew the NHL Rulebook pretty thoroughly. I knew the rules because I brought the NHL Rulebook along with me whenever I went to the, um, "reading room."
Too much information? Sorry.
My point is there is no excuse for an official not knowing the rules. It's better to read it where I did than to not know a rule when a situation arises on the ice and for a game to be flushed down along with your career.
In my two decades as an active referee, I had no misapplications of the rules. Well, let me clarify that. There were times when I misinterpreted poorly written rules, which made them edit the wording. I used to aggravate my NHL bosses by challenging the rule writer with a literal interpretation of how he'd written the rule. The guy thought he was Thomas Jefferson in the way he wrote. He was more like Elmer Fudd.
I have said it before and will say it again: The NHL Rulebook to this very day remains a clunky, messy document that sets its officials up for the sort of "inconsistency" that everyone hoots and hollers about. Someone needs to rewrite the thing in a more proactive and coherent way.
A good example of this, which I touched upon yesterday, is Rule 69, which deals with goaltender interference. There are different protocols for many different permutations of how contact can occur, where the attacking player and goaltender are stationed at the time and whether or not the puck enters the net. But key terminology such as what constitutes "incidental contact"are not very well explained.
Time after time, potential goaltender interference plays around the net spark controversy. Now that we have reached the Stanley Cup playoffs, when there is even higher emphasis by teams on crashing the net, it is inevitable that the number of controversial plays around the net -- and the level of attention and debate they spark in the aftermath -- will increase.
In a supervisory and teaching capacity, I tell all my officials, "They will forget a hook or a hold at center ice but they will never forgive or forget a goal when you fail to get to the net.
The game may be "won or lost in the corners" and if you "can't lick 'em in the alley, you'll never beat 'em on the rink." But for referees and goal scorers alike, "the money is at the net."
In yesterday's blog, I presented a series of 10 different possible scenarios of goaltender interference. In some of them, I worded it with some deliberate vagueness in order to give you a sense of how officials sometimes have to interpret things with less-than-clear guidance on key terminology. In others, I gave hints that differentiate the scenario from a more vaguely worded version.
Let's see how you did. What is the correct ruling in each of these situations?
1.
With the goalie inside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.
Correct protocol: No goal. I have heard many a local television announcer holler, "Why was that goal disallowed?! That was incidental contact!" Well, yes, exactly. If the goalie is in his crease, even contact that does not affect the puck going into the net creates a no-goal.
2.
With the goalie just outside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.
Correct protocol: Goal. The goalie being outside the crease turns this otherwise identical scenario into a good goal.
3.
An attacking player has been pushed toward the goalkeeper by a defending player, careening heavily into the goaltender as the puck is about to enter the net.
Correct protocol: No goal, penalty on the attacking player. The wording here is intentionally a bit vague -- the next scenario fills in a key missing piece -- but the onus is still one the attacking player to at least try to avoid the contact if he's pushed by a defender. Simply being pushed by a defender in the vicinity of net does NOT give the attacker license to steamroll the goalie with no effort to avoid the contact. Remember that the next time your local team announcer is hollering about how "he was CLEARLY pushed into the goalie" and ignores a lack of effort by the attacking player to avoid the contact. Was there sufficient opportunity for the attacker try to twist his body? Was there any effort to at least slow himself down? If the answer is no, the attacking team gets penalized.
4.
An attacking player has been pushed into the goalkeeper by a defender, attempting and failing to twist out of the way to avoid contact, and the puck enters the net.
Correct protocol: Goal. The attacker got pushed and the contact with the goalie was inadvertent so the defending team pays the price here with a goal against.
5.
A defending player has been pushed into the goaltender by an attacker, making incidental contact with the goaltender as a goal is about to be scored.
Correct protocol: No goal. Additionally, there may or may not be a penalty on the attacking player depending on the force and severity of his actions in fouling or pushing the defender into the goalie.
6.
There is a loose puck around the net, and an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie in the crease as both are attempting to play a loose puck.
Correct protocol: Good goal. In a loose puck situation, the incidental contact does not create a washout of the goal, even if the goalie is within the crease.
7.
An attacking player, remaining in constant motion skates through the width of crease, does make contact with the goalkeeper but impedes the goalie's freedom of movement to go across and attempt a save.
Correct protocol: No goal. The key hint here is that the goalie's ability to move over in his crease to attempt the save is limited. The lack of contact and continual motion by the attacker is irrelevant.
8.
An attacking player sets up a screen by standing in a stationary position on the crease line. The goalie's vision is impaired and the puck goes into the net.
Correct protocol: Goal. This is just a classic screen, and it's fine if the attacking forward has planted himself right along the crease line so long as he's not inside the crease to impede the goaltender.
9.
With an attacking player inside the crease, the goaltender initiates contact with the opposing player as the goalie tries to get squared for the shot. The attacking player vacates the position immediately and the puck simultaneously enters the net.
Correct protocol: No goal, no penalty. The NHL Rules lean toward protecting goaltenders and the sanctity of the crease. So even though the goalie initiates the contact here as he tries to get set to make the save and the attacker promptly exits the crease, it is considered a no-goal due to interference with the goaltender. If the attacking player did not vacate the crease, it would be no goal and a penalty on the attacker even though it was the goalie that initiated the contact.
10.
A goalie initiates contact with an attacking player to establish position in the crease by forcefully hitting the opponent in the back of his helmet with his blocker. The opposing player vacates the crease immediately at the time a goal is scored.
Correct protocol: No goal, roughing penalty on the goaltender. If the attacking player did not vacate the crease, it would be no goal with offsetting penalties. Again, this is a scenario where fans and announcers squawk about "why is it no goal if the goalie was attacking the other team's player?" It's because the rule, in its spirit, is designed to discourage attacking players from preventing the goalie from doing his job. That doesn't a goalie free reign to rough/slash/etc the attacker (hence, a penalty on the goalie).
These are just 10 of what are literally dozens of different possible permutations of the goaltender interference rules. The NHL Rule Book added an addendum table to explain how protocols should be applied in different scenarios but there is still a lot of subjectivity and split-second interpretation involved.
Still think it's so easy to be an official?
Speaking of that subject, my congratulations go out to the officials who were selected to work round one of the Stanley Cup playoffs. I will be rooting hard for you guys to shine under the exciting -- but trying -- atmosphere.
Alphabetically listed, the referees the NHL assigned to the first round are Francis Charron, Paul Devorski, Gord Dwyer, Eric Furlatt, Dave Jackson, Mark Joannette, Steve Kozari, Chris Lee, Wes McCauley, Brad Meier, Dean Morton, Dan O'Halloran, Dan O'Rourke, Chris Rooney, Tim Peel, Kevin Pollock, Francois St.-Laurent, Justin St.Pierre, Kelly Sutherland, and Brad Watson. The linesmen are Derek Amell, Steve Barton, David Brisebois, Lonnie Cameron, Scott Cherry, Michel Cormier, Greg Devorski, Scott Driscoll, Darren Gibbs, Shane Heyer, Brad Kovachik, Matt MacPherson, Steve Miller, Brian Murphy, Jonny Murray, Derek Nansen, Brian Pancich, Pierre Racicot, Jay Sharrers and Mark Shewchyk.
Wear the stripes with pride, guys, and make the right calls!
*********
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart is an officiating and league discipline consultant for the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and serves as director of hockey officiating for the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC).
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Stewart is currently working with a co-author on an autobiography.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»