Paul Stewart: Every Official's Worst Nightmare

If the officials had called the rulebook and more penalties every time the Preds would run, bump hit or slash Murray during and after the play, then maybe Pollock could have had more time in that the Preds would be more weary about crashing the net every time the puck was in the vicinity

as it stands, Murray was being hit so much, He was trigger happy on his whistle when he thought Murray had the puck, couldn't wait an extra split second thus Murray would probably have been bowled over again (no penalty of course)

I feel bad for preds fans, but then I remember the "music city miracle" and I don't feel bad anymore

If the officials had called the rulebook and more penalties every time the Preds would run, bump hit or slash Murray during and after the play, then maybe Pollock could have had more time in that the Preds would be more weary about crashing the net every time the puck was in the vicinity

as it stands, Murray was being hit so much, He was trigger happy on his whistle when he thought Murray had the puck, couldn't wait an extra split second thus Murray would probably have been bowled over again (no penalty of course)
- TheGame316

"When a girl wears a skirt like that she's just asking to be raped."

I was a tough play but sometimes they just seem to quick. there are times i the past where I have seen plays blown dead 1 second after they sight of the puck. I think if you want to error, would would rather be 1 second late not early. But of course why does it seem like the better teams seem to get the break. Talk about music city miracle. How about the Flyers scoring a goal in the playoffs against the Sabre's that went through the side of the net! Bleacher report (from 2012) have the 5 most conversational goal in the NHL playoffs and 3 of them were against the Sabre's. I will always stand on my comments that better teams get the breaks. It might not be intentional but it happens.

I feel for Kevin Pollock. Its a lonely road an official walks when a mistake they make--however understandable--could potentially have influenced the outcome of a game. No one wants to win under a cloud of an officials mistake. And that call will eat at him--as it would any official with an ounce of pride--all summer long. To get where he is, he'd have to be mentally strong, so I expect he will get past this. Hopefully the powers in the NHL wont hold ONE call against him the rest of his career.

Paul, why couldnt the NHL use some sort of headset that the referees wear to communicate with each other? In soccer at the highest levels, the linesman and referees have head sets to communicate with each other on offside plays, quick in and out of bounds, etc... If the NHL used such technologies, possibly a play such as last night could be avoided with the 2nd ref or linesman communicating to Pollock that the puck was not frozen before he blows the whistle....

Talk about music city miracle. How about the Flyers scoring a goal in the playoffs against the Sabre's that went through the side of the net!

Gosh, I remember that back in 2000... it was John LeClair, and he had a rocket of a slapshot, and I think he actually blew a hole in the side of the net. Of course, of course, it should not have counted... but I will say this about that "goal" and the play last night where Nashville lost out on a goal... both of those plays happened early in the 2nd period... and yes, any blatantly missed call irrevocably changes the momentum, etc. of the game... but the victimized team had almost two full periods after the incident to respond... it's their chance to show the world what they're really made of, their championship mettle, if you will. Bad breaks, sometimes very bad breaks, happen to everyone... so the challenge to all teams is to play well enough before the fact, and to step up after the fact, so that the inevitable bad break doesn't kill you. Obviously easier said than done.

Stewie

I was watching the game last night and we had a loooong discussion about that call.

I said it to them, "get to the net" and "positioning sells calls" because Paul Stewart was in my head saying it......

Love your blogs, keep em up.

Can an official negate an early blown whistle and say "play on"? This was briefly mentioned during the broadcast last night but I cant find anything concrete in the rule book.

Can an official negate an early blown whistle and say "play on"? This was briefly mentioned during the broadcast last night but I cant find anything concrete in the rule book.
- mochoson

I have never heard of such a thing being allowable and don't even know how it would work. Players know that the whistle stops the play. Injuries could result in a "play on" after a whistle.

This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).
- Paul Stewart

Paul, this seems to contradict the "intent to blow the whistle" rule to me.

This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).

There was a Flyers game 2-3 years ago (vs. San Jose?) where the Sharks actually got awarded a goal on a play where the ref blew the whistle before the puck entered the net, but the Flyers' goalie didn't have it totally frozen, and then the puck squirted free and over the line as the goalie fell over trying to control the puck. From that play, I was under the impression that this rule (I'll call it "continuation" for lack of a better term) was applicable specifically because the Sharks didn't make a play on the puck after their original shot / after the whistle actually blew. On the play last night, the play required Sissons to tap the puck in after the whistle had blown... so would the Continuation rule have still applied?

Totally thought of this blog when replay showed him making the call from the corner... What a royal (frank) up!

Paul, nice post. I have little issue with the missed goal call. However, would it be acceptable if the linesman, who in reality had the better view, could overturn the call? Just a thought.

However, my concern is the lack of penalty calls in the playoffs. This is a disturbing truth that makes the officials look horrible. I am not positive (have no proof) that they are being told to ease up on calls, but it seems like you have to near murder someone to get called for a penalty. And, everyone is always so hyped on Crosby as the best player of our time, to where he usually during the regular season only gets a penalty 1 in 6 times he commits them to being called only 1 in 25 times during the playoffs. If thats the best player in hockey right now we are in trouble.

Still trying to figure out what PK Subban did to warrant the offsetting 2 miute penalty at the end of the period in game 5. I didn't notice a penalty in the rulebook for being a ragdoll while someone is bouncing your head off the ice with their stick while they are sitting on you. Just saying.

The blown call was horrible, but it was a mistake and it's part of the human element of the game. I grew up outside of buffalo and still remember "in the crease" very vividly.

The thing that makes it worse is when the refs do not put the play behind them and let their mistake color the rest of the game by calling "makeup calls."

Call the game as you see it, if you screw up, put it behind you and continue to try and get the call right. Don't call one team to the letter of the law and let the other play right over the edge.

Always a good read and a good perspective. These guys are the best at what they do, he performs the way he was trained. If theres error in that, hopefully this issue escalates that. If there is room for improvement, it should be recognized, implemented and moved forward. IMO its 7 games, played for 60 minutes..plenty of opportunity to get it done. Losing games 6-0 doesn't help the cause.

This whole situation is on the league. If you have the get out of jail free loophole of the "intention to blow the whistle" then why isn't the directive to refs that they should never blow the whistle unless they are 100% sure that the goalie has it. Because if the goalie doesn't have it, play should go on. If the goalie does have it, and it is knocked lose by a player before the whistle goes, then the ref simply blows the whistle after the puck goes in and makes the correct call during video review.

If the response is that we need to protect goalies, I call BS. Show me stats on goalies that have been injured because of a few gabs at their pads from players standing a couple feet away. What protects goalies is roughing/blatant goalie interference penalties and suspensions that prevent players running a goalie at speed.

There is no excuse by the league for having rules that can go from this extreme to the mad scramble-no whistles that happened in both the Ottawa and Nashville series for 5-10 seconds where I am sure the ref lost sight of the puck around the goalie at least once or twice.

Between a more cut/dry policy, facilitating officials communication (like the headset suggestion posted above) tracking the position of pucks with with chips (how have they not figured this out yet), a third or even forth official in the stands with more camera angles (maybe one just overhead on the goal/goalie) etc, this should be fixed. Comes down to league not wanting to spend money or just being lazy/incompetent.

Paul, I was at the game last night. Everyone around me was going berserk and I was explaining that it wasn't a reviewable call like offsides or interference. And then said we were screwed by a lazy ref who didn't get into the dirty areas. (I may have been a little more heated in my opinion at the time)

Early in the third during a goal mouth scramble O'Hallaran was standing on top of the net looking in and then blew the whistle when Murray finally freezes the puck. The people around me are confused as to why the whistle took so long and were about to start screaming from the expected interference call. Players are jawing him. Either for being so late on the whistle, commenting on the poor quality of their facewash, or on the parentage of the player sitting on them. O'halaran signals no goal, the linesman signals the face off dot, folks are confused. During the replay I point out, "See the ref, he's there, right on top of it. O'Hallaran goes to the right places. Love him or hate him, he's got good position. That's how to do it. No way to complain about that call." When I looked, he was in the same spot much of the rest of the evening.

The response, "Well {Expletive}, wish he'd been on the other side 2nd period." Then the obligatory comments about Milbury's heritage, NBC's coddling of all things Crosby, and the bias of the NHL and its striped lackeys.

By reading your blogs, I learned about what to look for in good officiating. Thanks. Final analysis. Unfortunate, but with a +3 PP differential, you got to score a goal and overcome whatever human error may come your way.

It's a group lead by Stephen Walkom.
And you expect them to be good?
Good luck with that!

There was certainly a lot of ref shuffling this playoffs. Would be interesting to read some perspective from Paul regarding the whole process. Both GM's have to agree to switch refs mid-series, no?

I feel for Kevin Pollock. Its a lonely road an official walks when a mistake they make--however understandable--could potentially have influenced the outcome of a game. No one wants to win under a cloud of an officials mistake. And that call will eat at him--as it would any official with an ounce of pride--all summer long. To get where he is, he'd have to be mentally strong, so I expect he will get past this. Hopefully the powers in the NHL wont hold ONE call against him the rest of his career.

Paul, why couldnt the NHL use some sort of headset that the referees wear to communicate with each other? In soccer at the highest levels, the linesman and referees have head sets to communicate with each other on offside plays, quick in and out of bounds, etc... If the NHL used such technologies, possibly a play such as last night could be avoided with the 2nd ref or linesman communicating to Pollock that the puck was not frozen before he blows the whistle....
- Amanion

I'm not going to say anything about whether or not that goal by the preds changes the end result of the game - it very well may not have mattered, who knows how the pens play down 1-0 instead of tied for the remainder of the game. I didn't see this live, only the replays.

the NHL has two refs on the ice, and the other one would have had a clear view of the play. why does the one official who can clearly see that it should have counted be overruled by the one who makes a mistake and on replay would see he made a mistake?

seems like such a simple solution - let the two talk and then correct the bad call. Let them watch the replay and talk and then get it right.

I'm not going to say anything about whether or not that goal by the preds changes the end result of the game - it very well may not have mattered, who knows how the pens play down 1-0 instead of tied for the remainder of the game. I didn't see this live, only the replays.

the NHL has two refs on the ice, and the other one would have had a clear view of the play. why does the one official who can clearly see that it should have counted be overruled by the one who makes a mistake and on replay would see he made a mistake?

seems like such a simple solution - let the two talk and then correct the bad call. Let them watch the replay and talk and then get it right.
- Isles_since_6

Because once one blows the whistle the pens will stop playing and later the other official can say "well no the puck was out tough poop that you stopped playing when you heard the whistle like you're supposed to. I override that." Also by doing that you're rewarding players for playing past the whistle like checking after the whistle. That's an unintended negative that no one should like.

May I suggest video reviews of obvious blunders by the refs. Many fans will leave the game over a call like that, it was total bush and the nhl can do better. If this had been reviewed it would have been a goal and possibly a game 7. I an offside by a hair can be reviewed why not a blunder like this.

To make a call you can't see but others can is an egregious mistake in a game 6 of the Stanley Cup final, period.