Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22
During the course of every season, the National Hockey League sends out various memorandums to its officials. The memos inform the officials about areas of particular emphasis and instruct the officials on how the league wants such plays called. A case book -- plays from actual games involving tricky or disputed calls -- is assembled as guidance.
Very few hockey fans and few people outside the officiating realm are ever made privy to the existence of the case book and the contents of officiating memorandums. What's important to know, however, is that the case book and the Rule Book are not always compatible.
If you've ever noticed sometimes the way certain plays commonly get called seems to change within a season -- without an actual change to the Rule Book -- and wondered why that's the case, well, it often comes from the on-ice officials' bosses. That's not always the case, of course, but that's often where mid-stream changes of interpretation or a shift of emphasis arise; which can either be constructive/corrective or can wind up being intrusive.
There is some "literary license" afforded to officials to apply common sense to a ruling if the Rule Book provides murky guidance. However, these situations are relatively uncommon.
Nowadays, I am no longer in the loop of what comes up in the NHL's case book, but I curious as to whether there had been some sort of guidance issued on how to call situations that arise after an offside or potential goalie interference. Both last season and this year, there's been an unusual amount of leeway to make rulings that aren't necessarily correct but are almost place-holders of a sort. I ascribe much of this to the "fix it in replay" mentality that takes hold more and more; another reason why I wonder sometimes about the unintended consequences of the ever-increasing use of replay.
The NHL's situation room does put explanations of why plays were reviewed and challenges were made, the criteria applied and the final verdict. However, there are often pieces of puzzle missing as to crucial facet: e.g., "upon review, we determined there was goaltender interference on the play." Yeah, but what nuance of Rule 69 was interpreted as such, and why?
One of the main reasons I never had a problem with talking to the media during my own officiating career -- and why I disagreed with the NHL banning officials from speaking to the media -- is that I always felt that if a situation arose where a public explanation was fairly owed to clarify a call that I made, I felt it was only fair to do so. I could take the heat, if need be. It went with the turf.
The Rule Book is your shield and the case book, properly emphasized, is a teaching tool for being aware of situations that arise on the borderline of the Rule Book and to make the right call as if there's no replay option as Plan B.
************
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.