Paul Stewart: Intent to Blow Whistle: When Does the Rule Apply?

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the explanation. I understand better why the rule exists, however I submit that, as long as players are instructed to "play to the whistle", no explanation in the world will make a player (or a fan) feel better about a goal lost to "intent to blow". In my opinion, the rule should be used in the edge conditions such as a broken whistle as you experienced. Otherwise, does it really take a professional referee so long to blow a whistle to stop play, that the rule needs to be enacted as it was Saturday?

-Steve

If your whistle breaks and you're waving your arms around and shouting, there's a chance at least one player alters his play as a result. That's a great reason to have this rule. If a puck is covered and you decide to blow the whistle and someone digs the puck out, that's another great reason to have this rule. But if a puck is actually loose and you've made no signal to announce you think the play is dead....well....I guess some officials might think they're more important than the game. But they shouldn't be.

I get the "intent to blow the whistle" argument. I don't like it in certain instances, but I surely understand it.

I think the bigger problem is quick whistles due to referees being routinely out of position. How can they make accurate observations of action around the net when they are standing 40 feet away in the corner? I remember the days of the referee being behind the net and able to track the puck in scrambles around the crease. Fewer quick whistles then, and more scoring off of loose pucks in tight around the crease. A referee observing from the corner can't possibly be able to track the puck properly in those situations, and it's evidenced in those quick whistles when the puck is obviously not frozen or controlled by the goaltender.

So, Did Kasper stop playing? Roy? Courtnall?

Since, by good fortune the whistle did not make a sound, you should have left yourself OUT of the game and ruled it the good goal it should have been

But bigger than the game and all.....

Very Kerry Fraser move of you

Hate the intent rule. Maybe we should change offsides and icing too. The player didn't intend to go offsides or ice the puck. You blow the whistle or you don't, it's as simple as that. If you're too slow with it, you're too slow to ref in the NHL.

Hate the intent rule. Maybe we should change offsides and icing too. The player didn't intend to go offsides or ice the puck. You blow the whistle or you don't, it's as simple as that. If you're too slow with it, you're too slow to ref in the NHL.
- fls13

That won't change anything. 6 one way half a dozen the other. At least this way the official can explain himself which seems a rarity.

So, Did Kasper stop playing? Roy? Courtnall?

Since, by good fortune the whistle did not make a sound, you should have left yourself OUT of the game and ruled it the good goal it should have been

But bigger than the game and all.....

Very Kerry Fraser move of you
- RoloTahmasee

I agree. If the goalie covers the puck but the ref loses his whistle, the players should have free reign to hack away at the goalie covering the puck until the period buzzer sounds.

Makes sense.

I agree. If the goalie covers the puck but the ref loses his whistle, the players should have free reign to hack away at the goalie covering the puck until the period buzzer sounds.

Makes sense.
- jmatchett383

I think this is like the goal line sensor convo. I just wish there were a better way, but since there isn't we shouldn't change it. No system is without flaws. That's just gonna be part of the game and it's the same for every team.

I think this is like the goal line sensor convo. I just wish there were a better way, but since there isn't we shouldn't change it. No system is without flaws. That's just gonna be part of the game and it's the same for every team.
- Zac_O

You really believe that? It is the "get out of jail" card for the ref to use when he has a grudge against a team/player. Nobody can question him on the call. Think about it.

You really believe that? It is the "get out of jail" card for the ref to use when he has a grudge against a team/player. Nobody can question him on the call. Think about it.
- powerenforcer

Ok, what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a good enough alternative.

Ok, what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a good enough alternative.
- Zac_O

What alternative? If the puck crosses the line before the whistle is blown, it is a goal. Very simple to detect. Force the refs to either act quicker, or take time to watch entire play.

What alternative? If the puck crosses the line before the whistle is blown, it is a goal. Very simple to detect. Force the refs to either act quicker, or take time to watch entire play.

Ok - but to use your argument, if a ref had it in for a player or team (however likely that would be), he could always call a phantom penalty or inadvertent goalie interference to wipe out a goal, and no one would be the wiser.

Ok - but to use your argument, if a ref had it in for a player or team (however likely that would be), he could always call a phantom penalty or inadvertent goalie interference to wipe out a goal, and no one would be the wiser.
- copelal

They already call phantom penalties to even the game.

What alternative? If the puck crosses the line before the whistle is blown, it is a goal. Very simple to detect. Force the refs to either act quicker, or take time to watch entire play.
- powerenforcer

So no reviews then? What you're proposing doesn't allow for review either. Doesn't matter if the play was off sides and refs missed it? Or if the goalie is being held without the ref seeing?

So no reviews then? What you're proposing doesn't allow for review either. Doesn't matter if the play was off sides and refs missed it? Or if the goalie is being held without the ref seeing?
- Zac_O

I never said no reviews. Where did you get that from? I'm saying there should be no "intent to blow the whistle" rule. How many times have we seen a review where the puck crosses the line before the whistle blows, but the ref still waves it off because of intent rule? That has to go away. That is what I said.

I never said no reviews. Where did you get that from? I'm saying there should be no "intent to blow the whistle" rule. How many times have we seen a review where the puck crosses the line before the whistle blows, but the ref still waves it off because of intent rule? That has to go away. That is what I said.
- powerenforcer

You said if the puck goes in before the whistle is blown then it's a goal. That'd also ignore if there were goalie interference or offdides an official didn't see. Just so the puck goes in and whistle wasn't blown. So it'd be ok to bump a goalie as long as its quick enough for the refs to not call it before the puck goes in.