|
Pace Creates Goals, Goals Shouldn't Hurt Pace |
|
|
|
|
|
Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Today's NHL players are faster than ever before, and are getting younger and younger. That lends itself to good pace, and good pace leads to goals. However, I think we've over-legislated the game to where, paradoxically, a goal being scored can squash the pace due to long delays and the engines being shut down.
When that happens, there is less and less enjoyment of the pace of play, which in Hockey especially, people have watched for decades, enjoying that sustained action. Now when a goal is scored in OT or even in regular time, there is too often a pause with a sudden loss of electricity in the building while some technician rewinds the tape to find some last straw that those who were scored upon can grasp to overturn the play.
We have too much of a "just make a call and we'll fix it replay if need be" mentality that has taken hold in the game, and that includes among some officials. Calls should be made as if there is no fallback on technology. Get in position, bear down and judge the play.
That's one side of the coin. The other is the over-legislation leads to unintended outcomes. The infamous incidental skate-in-the-crease standard was already a goner for the next season but wasn't eliminated soon enough for Brett Hull's completely irrelevant-to-the-play skate preceding the puck into the crease being spotted after the Dallas Stars were lifting the Stanley Cup.
Under the letter rules of the time, the goal by protocol should have been reviewed and disallowed. The spirit of the crease violation rule was NOT to overturn such goals, but there'd already been so many wiped out after interminable reviews that it was a reasonable expectation that this one should have been, too.
What have we learned since that time? Not enough. We still over-legislate, just for different things, but with equally unintended consequences. Then rules are further changed in an effort to correct the issues that popped up with the previous changes. It's cyclical.
The adoption of the delay of game penalty for a failed coach's challenge for offside was a positive step toward greatly reducing interminable delays for mostly fraction-of-an-inch disputes over skate positions and a sliver of white enveloping the puck. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing fewer delays over incidental contact plays that get endlessly reviewed for goaltender inteference (was it just outside the blue paint and, therefore a good goal under Rule 69, or a hair inside the blue paint, and therefore no goal under Rule 69?)
It is true that basis of any game has to be the accepted rules that are the guidelines of the sport. But there is also a spirit The problem becomes when plays/items crop up so that those who are now in charge, write rules to correct the occasional odd instance.
While intellectually logical, adding rules to fix the seldom seen problem makes no sense in the practical application for the Officials nor for the the viewers who watch the sports. All that I have seen from these added rules is coaches, players, officials and especially fans becoming more and more legalistic and confused.
Part of the aspect of sport especially hockey, is the humanity, the friction, the bang, bang of the play. There's nothing quite like it -- or there was nothing quite like it -- now the MVP or the first star of the game often should go to the rewind button on the clicker while we watch a tape to decide who won and who lost.
Is the game better for it? You may say yes, but I'd beg to differ.
*******************
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.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»