Paul Stewart: Rule Enforcement: The Squeaky Wheel Effect

I think it would help if the memos to the officials on what to emphasize were made public, just like the rulebook is.

People are always going to female dog, but it could end most of the confusion on why some rules aren't necessarily getting the attention they used to. Or why some are getting much more attention.

The rule book is a lot like laws on the books. Many were written many years ago. Many no longer make sense or are no longer applicable. Some contradict others. And there are way too many.

The PGA & The R&A are in the process of modernizing and simplifying the rules of golf. The new rule book goes into effect January 1, 2019. Input came from officials, pros, amateurs & the general public, and the process took a few years.

Why not do the same, and modernize and simplify the NHL rule book? For example, when the rule book was written, There was not netting at the ends of the rink. So take that into account in the new book. Maybe the netting is in play? Maybe not? But at least consider and discuss it.

BTW, the sensible thing to do when the speed limit is 55 mph but traffic normally moves at 70-75? Set the limit at 75, and ticket anyone at 76.

The rule book is a lot like laws on the books. Many were written many years ago. Many no longer make sense or are no longer applicable. Some contradict others. And there are way too many.

The PGA & The R&A are in the process of modernizing and simplifying the rules of golf. The new rule book goes into effect January 1, 2019. Input came from officials, pros, amateurs & the general public, and the process took a few years.

Why not do the same, and modernize and simplify the NHL rule book? For example, when the rule book was written, There was not netting at the ends of the rink. So take that into account in the new book. Maybe the netting is in play? Maybe not? But at least consider and discuss it.

BTW, the sensible thing to do when the speed limit is 55 mph but traffic normally moves at 70-75? Set the limit at 75, and ticket anyone at 76.
- scottak

That's not sensible at all given what we know about human nature.

The PGA & The R&A are in the process of modernizing and simplifying the rules of golf. The new rule book goes into effect January 1, 2019. Input came from officials, pros, amateurs & the general public, and the process took a few years.
- scottak

One thing to keep in mind is that the speed of hockey is 1000x greater than that of golf. In fact, it is the fastest team sport (at least that I have seen) while golf is probably the slowest of all sports. This makes hockey much much more difficult to officiate. There are many times where a ref calls a penalty and at the time I question it but then after seeing the replay I think "how did he see that?". Likewise, there are times when a ref misses something that is obvious from the TV angle. I think that with the faster the game, the more imperfect the officiating is.

Penalties like hooking and interference and even crosschecking, roughing, goaltender interference, and tripping (it could have been an unintentional fall or a dive) are always going to be subject to the referee's discretion. There is no way around that, unless we revert to "old time hockey" and let the players "self-officiate" the game. I don't think that will happen, though.

However, I would like to see the NHL lead the effort in using technology to reduce human error in some other areas, due largely to the speed of the game. For example, by using a gyroscopic sensor in the puck it could be determined where it is at all times and its angle (and speed). This could help determine when it crosses the goal line (when the goalie is covering it and hiding it from the refs and cameras). If the replay included the ref's whistle that would virtually eliminate human error from this situation. Likewise, it could be used to determine when it crosses the blue line, so the linesmen can focus more on the players and less on the puck (perhaps a bright light could light up and the linesman could use this instead of looking at the puck). I have lost track of how many times linesmen missed offsides calls the past few seasons.

The rule book is a lot like laws on the books. Many were written many years ago. Many no longer make sense or are no longer applicable. Some contradict others. And there are way too many.

The PGA & The R&A are in the process of modernizing and simplifying the rules of golf. The new rule book goes into effect January 1, 2019. Input came from officials, pros, amateurs & the general public, and the process took a few years.

Why not do the same, and modernize and simplify the NHL rule book? For example, when the rule book was written, There was not netting at the ends of the rink. So take that into account in the new book. Maybe the netting is in play? Maybe not? But at least consider and discuss it.

BTW, the sensible thing to do when the speed limit is 55 mph but traffic normally moves at 70-75? Set the limit at 75, and ticket anyone at 76.
- scottak

This is not how human nature works.

One thing to keep in mind is that the speed of hockey is 1000x greater than that of golf. In fact, it is the fastest team sport (at least that I have seen) while golf is probably the slowest of all sports. This makes hockey much much more difficult to officiate. There are many times where a ref calls a penalty and at the time I question it but then after seeing the replay I think "how did he see that?". Likewise, there are times when a ref misses something that is obvious from the TV angle. I think that with the faster the game, the more imperfect the officiating is.

Penalties like hooking and interference and even crosschecking, roughing, goaltender interference, and tripping (it could have been an unintentional fall or a dive) are always going to be subject to the referee's discretion. There is no way around that, unless we revert to "old time hockey" and let the players "self-officiate" the game. I don't think that will happen, though.

However, I would like to see the NHL lead the effort in using technology to reduce human error in some other areas, due largely to the speed of the game. For example, by using a gyroscopic sensor in the puck it could be determined where it is at all times and its angle (and speed). This could help determine when it crosses the goal line (when the goalie is covering it and hiding it from the refs and cameras). If the replay included the ref's whistle that would virtually eliminate human error from this situation. Likewise, it could be used to determine when it crosses the blue line, so the linesmen can focus more on the players and less on the puck (perhaps a bright light could light up and the linesman could use this instead of looking at the puck). I have lost track of how many times linesmen missed offsides calls the past few seasons.
- PghPens668771

Ah, the good old "Just put a sensor in it!" argument.

I just want to say this...
After watching the World Cup I am hopeful that hockey players continue to play like men.
Being called a 'soccer player' should be an insult worth fighting over.

It's almost unwatchable when the greatest players in the world roll around like they've been shot. It' embarrassing and thank the hockey gods that North Americans look down on it.

We need more Gregory Campbels and less Mike Robeiros.

This is what I always say. You can’t expect players to give all they have and worry and minor stick infractions during the playoffs. I have no problem letting it go if it doesn’t negatively impact the team in which had the advantage. I also am allllll for letting players like Ryan Reaves force players like Tom Wilson to fight EVERYTIME they take an opportunistic cheap shot at a smaller insuspecting player, but I’m the Neanderthal right?