Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 

Another Night, Another Goalie Interference Rule Debacle

April 29, 2014, 8:02 AM ET [28 Comments]
Paul Stewart
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • RSSArchiveCONTACT
Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

Last night's Western Conference Quarterfinal game pitting Los Angeles against San Jose featured yet another situation that made crystal clear that the NHL's goaltender interference rules and all of its subsets and permutations need to be re-written in a much clearer way.

Before the Stanley Cup playoffs started, I predicted that Rule 69 (Goaltender Interference) was going to be a trouble spot in the postseason. It didn't take a psychic to successfully make that prediction. It happens every year, especially in the playoffs.

I devoted a previous blog during the first round of the playoffs to an overview of the clumsily written rules pertaining to 10 of the dozens of potential scenarios of goaltender interference around the net. A subsequent blog dealt with a disallowed goal for Tampa Bay in their first-round series with Montreal.

In his 1980 Presidential debate with incumbent Jimmy Carter, candidate Ronald Reagan memorably retorted to his opponent, "There you go again." Well, after yet another situation where Rule 69 came back into focus in the playoffs, here I go again.

First, let's take a look at the video, and then deconstruct it:



This play is a loose puck situation. In going for the puck, which sat slightly past the skates of Shark goaltender Alex Stalock, Kings forward Justin Williams poked his stick into the goalie's pads in trying to jam the puck into the net. He is entitled to do so until the referee loses sight of the puck and blows the whistle.

Referee Chris Lee had the whistle to his mouth and, to his credit, skated directly behind the net to get an optimal look at the play. Just then, the puck was pushed into the net. In the process, Stalock was also pushed backwards by Williams' stick, which helped force the puck over the line.

Now here's the problem that reveals another hole in the NHL Rulebook. Let's look at the directions the NHL gives its officials in Table 18, Sections 4A and 4B under Rule 69. The Rule book spells out two possible rulings in this situation:

A) If the attacker's contact with the goalie is "incidental contact", the goal is allowed, or

B) If it's "other than incidental contact", the goal should be disallowed and a penalty should be called on the attacker.

In this situation, the ruling was one of incidental contact. Fine, but now we get into a debate over the semantics of what would constitute something "other than incidental contact." Certainly if there was bodily force exerted by Williams -- or, alternatively, something like a cross-check in which the attacker is clearly trying to push the goaltender and not poke at the puck until the whistle is blown -- it would be easy to disallow the goal and impose a penalty.

Instead, this play falls into a very gray area in between legal incidental contact and illegal contact in a loose puck situation. There is NO direction in the Rulebook for the officials as to how to classify the contact that was made. The referee, using patience and moving to see the puck loose just beyond Stalock's skates, judged it to be a good goal.

The goal made it a 2-1 game in Los Angeles' favor, and the Kings went on to win the game to force a seventh and deciding game after trailing the series three games to none. Naturally, the Sharks were frustrated. Pinning the blame on the officials was misplaced frustration on a tough judgment call that could have gone either way.

Taking criticism is part of the job for an official. This was a classic damned if you do and damned if you don't call. Let's say the ruling had gone the other way and the goal was disallowed with Williams being penalized. San Jose scores on the power play and goes on to close out the series.

If the same play was ruled the opposite way, would the fans in Los Angeles have been any happier today than the ones in San Jose? More to the point, would the powers-that-be in New York and Toronto have been publicly supportive of its officials had the 50/50 judgment call gone the other way and the team on the unfavorable end got eliminated from the playoffs later that night?

I think you know the answer.

It is the officials' job to judge. Chris Lee hustled, showed some patience and used the best judgment he could to interpret the options he had under the rules. I think the right call was made here.

*********

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.
Join the Discussion: » 28 Comments » Post New Comment
More from Paul Stewart
» The Stew: Kevin Pollack, We Nearly Missed, Thank You Fans
» Officiating: Reasonable Doubt vs Miscarriages of Justice
» My Advice to Matt Rempe
» Greig, Rielly and "The Code"
» Chirping Zebras Podcast