Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Before I delve into last night's coach's challenge in Game One of the Stanley Cup Final, I want to preface this by stating on the record that I personally like Gary Bettman and Bill Daly as people. I think both are bright men and both treated me fairly on an individual level.
With that said, Bettman's annual "state of the game" address before the Stanley Cup playoffs is often as cringe-worthy as any other type of transparent political spin-doctoring. Yesterday, in defending the clearly-not-working coach's challenge system, the commissioner contradicted himself.
First he said, "it's working exactly as we hoped it would."
I suppose this could be true. That is, if the intent was to use inadequate ice-level technology, cause additional delays, end up having to split hairs in such a way that it goes against the spirit (although not necessarily the exact letter) of the Rule Book, cause controversies where none would have previously existed. Oh, and also sometimes create opportunities for coaches to use the replay delay as a de facto extended time out rather than as a legitimate questioning of the accuracy of a call.
If that's the outcome the NHL intended then, congrats Colie and company. It's working just as you planned it with your renowned deep-thinking foresight.
The reality, of course, is that the coach's challenge system is a classic case of a half-baked idea by Hockey Ops and the Board of Governors being enacted into a procedure and ending up with unintended consequences that blow up in your face. Then Gary has to stand there and, with a straight face, defend it to save face.
This is how it should work: The on-ice officials and the review staff in Toronto -- I will discuss staffing later -- should be the ones to trigger the review. The NHL directive that the sole purpose of a goal review is to come to the correct call, regardless of the initial call on the ice is good in its intent but faulty in how it is set up and executed.
Secondly, hockey timeouts are not the same as football timeouts. For one thing, there's only one timeout in hockey. For another, the reason for their use can differ.
It was a flat-out bad idea from the start to force NHL coaches to save a timeout to gamble on a challenge. Anyone this side of Stevie Wonder could have seen that it was guaranteed to have negative and unintended outcomes.
There were bound to be situations where a legitimately needed timeout was not used because it was being saved just in case a challenge was needed later in the game. If the timeout WAS used for in-game purposes then even legitimate grounds for a goal challenge for goaltender interference or an offside instantly became irrelevant because the challenge was no longer available. That is silly.
On the flip side, there was bound to be abuse of the system with coaches knowing their challenge would be overturned and essentially turning it into an extended timeout to try to stall the other team's momentum and/or rest top players for longer than the typical 30-second timeout.
All along, if there was going to be a coach's challenge, the logical mechanism screamed for simply using the same system as challenging the curve and/or width stick. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the team gets a delay-of-game bench minor. That's a much better deterrent to frivolous challenges than charging a timeout where the coach gets rewarded with a longer delay than a standard timeout.
However, as Gary was talking, he contradicted himself. He let it slip that the challenge system had one intended purpose but ended up with quite another result.
“What was intended with the coach’s challenge was to address the glaring instance where an official didn’t see something that took place,… the commisioner said.
Precisely. No one wants a situation such as the one in Game Six of the 1980 Stanley Cup Final when linesman Leon Stickle did not see a clear-cut offside that directly led to a first period New York Islanders goal. The game eventually went to OT, where the Islanders won the Stanley Cup. Thirty two years later, the Philadelphia Flyers (the same team that came out on the short end of the 1980 series) started a successful comeback in Game One of a playoff series against the Pittsburgh Penguins on a similarly missed offside.
Without question, this sort of situation where a blatantly off-side play directly leads to a goal should be subject to a review to ensure a correct call. The problem, however, is the coach's challenge can be back-timed to whatever point the puck first entered the offensive zone even if it had zero to do with an eventual goal. If the play is offside by the letter of the law, which includes one skate being over the blueline and a second skate that would be onside if in contact with the ice being a fraction of an inch off the ice and the player not bringing the puck into the zone with control of the puck at the time it completely crosses the blueline, then the rest of the play MUST be wiped out.
As for the technology piece, I know that Gary would say the feedback from on-ice officials has been that the iPad like equipment they've been given is sufficient in all instances to see what they need to see on even the most hair-splitting of reviews. Well, that's what their employees feel compelled to say when their bosses have asked. They know it's a loaded question where there is pretty much only one expected answer. If able to give purely anonymous feedback, there would be a variety of dissenting views about what does and doesn't work.
I know because I've heard it privately. The system we use in the ECAC, where an official has access to sit down and see a big-screen replay is the one that the NHL officials I've spoken to would also prefer as a means to best ensure a correct call. But they try to make due with what they've been given.
As for last night's subsequent disallowed goal on the offside challenge, by the letter of the law it was offside. Again, once challenged it is the letter of the NHL Rule Book by which officials are told to judge both offside (a consistent if achingly precise standard) and goaltender interference (a mess of inconsistent and sometimes self-contradicting or counterintuitive instructions for a couple dozen different possible scenarios).
By the spirit of the Rule Book, though, last night's would-be goal would not only have counted without coach's challenge but the Penguins (and TV networks) never would have given it a second thought about whether it should have been overturned for a splitting-hairs offside well ahead of the actual goal by P.K. Subban. This is precisely why the coach's challenge system has not had the effects that the NHL expected it would.
I have said this before and will say it again in the instance of last night's ruling. Don't blame the mailman for delivering the mail. NHL officials deliver what their bosses tell them to deliver. I DO NOT mean this in any sort of conspiracy theory sense. Bettman does not care which team wins. Nor does Daly or Hockey Ops and certainly not the officials on the ice (who already have their own team, AKA their officiating brethren).
What I mean is that the people who are being paid to judge and who's job it is to understand both the letter of Rule Book and its spirit get undercut in every possible way. They receive poor coaching that leads to poor positioning being encouraged in order to stay out of the way. Rather than making the right call in the first place, there's a "replay crutch" mentality that is instilled in young officials and foisted upon even the most capable of veterans.
Gary said it himself yesterday.
“We are extremely comfortable with the fact that the officials in a coach’s challenge now have an opportunity to take a second look and see if they’re comfortable with their call," Bettman said.
Well, there's a whole lotta comfort goin' on, as Jerry Lee Lewis might say. Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first or the last) but whatever happened to the mentality of getting the call right in the first place and not needing to seek reassurance? What happened to the human element? Replay should be a secondary mechanism, not the be-all and end-all arbiter of tough calls.
My former boss and mentor, the late John McCauley, was a wise man. Whenever I puzzled over a certain rule and how to apply it real-life context on the ice, he would say, "Stewy, why does this rule exist in the first place?"
The answer usually boiled down to preventing one team from gaining an unfair advantage or putting an opponent at an unfair disadvantage. When that was the PRACTICAL effect of something that happened on the ice in the official's judgment, it is appropriate to blow the whistle. When it did not affect a play, keep play going.
That, folks, is the very essence of good officiating. It's knowing the rules thoroughly but also having the hockey sense to apply the spirit by which they're intended. Unfortunately, there are no more John McCauleys or John Ashleys or Frank Udvaris around to empower officials. Instead, there's been a descent into weak leadership that is afraid to do anything other than rubber-stamp whatever their bosses (none of whom ever officiated a day in their lives) impose on them. They deliver the mail and keep their mouths shut because no one has their backs, including their union and their director of officiating.
Listen, I make the NHL people uncomfortable -- and myself persona non grata -- because I speak the truth about the state of officiating in the league, and where the real fault actually begins. In a bigger sense, I talk about the very real crises in recruitment and subpar coaches, because I witness it firsthand and speak from three generations of family experience, what's going on 45 years of personal experience on the officiating and playing sides of the game, and as someone who no longer has any stake in what the league thinks of me.
Bettman knows, and Daly knows, that I don't buy into the happy horsecrap about how wonderfully officiating is directed and supervised, with happily obedient guys in stripes who are grateful for the reassurance that the NHL Hockey Ops, the "Situation Room" in Toronto (without a single current or former official sitting there), the league's coaches, GMs and owners know the officials' jobs better than the people who actually do those jobs.
The flawed coach's challenge system and the league's stubborn defense of its planning and implentation is a symptom of a much more virulent problem. Next up will likely be a change to have goaltender interference challenges be decided by the Situation Room (for the sake of "consistency") rather than on-the-ice.
Sure, guys. Don't reopen the Rule Book and come up with better-considered standards for Rule 69 (goaltender interference). Don't coach officials to skate to where they'll have the best possible vantage point, but rather just keep telling them to stay out of the way in the corner. Just put it all in the hands of the unseen Chinese takeout-eating squad in the room with the big screens.
That will surely fix the issues with goalie interference. If you don't believe me, just listen to Gary in a couple years. He will dig in the heels of his immaculately polished shoes. Then he will say everything is just fine and dandy with how Hockey Ops personnel (not bad guys or dumb guys, but handcuffed because they are selected based on friendships or nepotism) apply those very logical and consistent goalie interference standards in the Rule Book they've demonstrated to know so very thoroughly when there is a coach's challenge of a would-be goal.
What could go wrong? Apparently, nothing because common sense isn't a common virtue.
*********
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, Stewart serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC.