The first time I took an NHL Rule test, I failed it. John McCauley gave me some sage advice.
"When you think about the rules, use common sense," John said. "Ask yourself, 'Why does this rule exist? How does the spirit of this rule serve the game?'"
Viewing the Rule Book in that manner made the game must simpler to adjudicate rather than getting bogged down in minutia (although officials should know the Rule Book thoroughly, and there is no excuse for misapplying a rule). We wear black and white striped sweaters for a reason: goal/no goal, penalty/play on, onside/offside, etc. The spirit of the Rule Book in simpler times was to allow the game's on-ice arbiters to judge.
Those days are gone. Today's game, from the National Hockey League on down, is over-legislated, over-coached and increasingly devoid of spontaneity. When a goal is scored, it isn't really on the board until we wait to see if there's a coaches' challenge for offside or goaltender interference or if the "Situation Room" in Toronto is reviewing to look for a borderline high-stick, a distinct kicking motion, etc. If so, a replay delay ensues. Even then, the ultimate ruling from Toronto or via on-ice iPad review may or may not be the right call. This is especially true for splitting-hairs offside challenges and incidental contact plays.
You want to know what has happened in more and more conversations among officials at ice level? There is a discussion over "Should we make a call or should we just let Toronto decide?" The fact is that the Officials will make the call and must when Toronto decides to pass on the really tough ones that they have to decide.....
Patton said, "They pay me to command, I am going to command." I reffed like that...with that conviction to decide, split second, hair breath instances on tough plays.... I can sleep at night because I was my own man. I had the willingness to stand up and be decisive. I think the refs are still willing to do that but then who would eat all that Chinese Food they serve in The War Room in Toronto?
I find this dismaying, but I also understand it. Refs are no longer told to go to the net for the best possible look but, instead, are expected to stay out of the way, make a call (or else hold play up with no call) and then turn it over to replay. Sadly, while the NFL has largely mastered video replay, hockey is still trying to balance rules legislation and technology -- and has a long way to go to do so effectively. Now we have too many folks who've never invested a single hour of their lives in learning to officiate wielding too much decision-making power. If the NHL's Management's aim is to increase flow and have less whistles, delays and to correct "Wrong Calls" by video with "Right calls"....Psssst...it's not working. Elvis and The Electricity has left the building.
Additionally, I have blogged several times about the flaws in the coaches' challenge system and the unintended consequences it has brought. The NHL has dug its heels in on the issue, to the point that traditional rules are being reconsidered solely to try hammer square pegs into round holes.
Case in point: the National Hockey League today is weighing a potential rule change on offside plays that will make the plane of the blue line extend upward so that an attacking player's skate need not be touching the blueline -- but, rather, at least hovering above it -- to be considered onside if a good-goal ruling is challenged for a potential offside.
If this rule tweak passes, there are rumors that the camp is split with Hockey Ops leaning on way, officiating leaning another and Gary sitting, hovering in the middle, waiting to see where the whistle will fall...... Undoubtedly, we are in for some interesting replay debates should the rule about the actual position of aerial skates relative to the blueline and the position of the puck. We'll be in for some rather unique contortions from skaters trying to jump to get/stay onside. Debates are inevitable in trying to freeze frame on those little rink side Nintendo DS's whether a situation with both aerial/ batted puck and an aerial skate has gone offside. Strategically, defenders will no just have defend the blue line itself, they'll have to come up with an aerial defense a la the disputes over crossing the 38th parallel. Who owns the "AIR RIGHTS?"
In other words, adding more parameters and potential permutations to what is/isn't offside is NOT going to alleviate the existing problems with the replay system as pertains to challenges for offside. It will simply complicate things even further.
For the good of the game, I wish the decision makers at these gathering to propose new rules and then the Board that approves rule changes would PLEASE just step back and weigh all of the potential outcomes -- both the intended purpose as well as the possible side effects -- that happens each and every time we make the Rule Book even more complicated and get further and further away from the initial, common sense spirit of the rule.
Gentlemen, please, have some more shrimp cocktail. Enjoy another martini (just don't drive). But, whatever you do, please step away from trying to "fix" flawed procedures by tinkering with the Rule Book.
You want replay for offside? Fine. A replay preventing a latter-day version of a blatant missed offside such as the one Leon Stickle mistake in Game Six of the 1980 Stanley Cup Final is understandable. Trying to retroactively split hairs on very-tough-to-determine offside/onside plays, especially when the actual goal is scored considerably later in the offensive zone possession is NOT common sense procedure nor would making the surrounding rules more complicated than before aid in the process of trying to get the call right.
There is no deliberate intent to obfuscate the game any further but this is the inevitable side effect of the rules and procedures being legislated without a single current or former on-ice official having a voice at the table. Put in more poetic terms, Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to perceive that what used to be understood as offside is now onside.
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, he is the director of officiating for the ECAC.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»