Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22
Each and every year since I started writing for HockeyBuzz in Oct. 2013, I have received the most reader questions and blog topic requests about goaltender interference controversies. Each and every year, the dozens of nuances of Rule 69 and the leaps of logic and even self-contradictions at time within the NHL's Rule Book instructions rear their heads during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
At the same time, the NHL coaches its referees to stay deep in the corners rather than to skate the optimal position to best see what happens around the net. There's a "make a call and fix it in replay if need be" mentality that has increasingly (and detrimentally) taken hold. As a result, we have a lot of officials who have fallen into bad habits.
I see it too often, and it makes me cringe. Coaches, players and broadcasters lament "I don't even know what goaltender interference IS anymore." We can just keep shrugging our shoulders in public and gnashing our teeth in private but I've also had pro-level officials themselves tell me in private that we need to rethink goalie interference plays because the endless headaches caused by all the gray areas of incidental contact and their related considerations make such plays an officiating nightmare:
* Was the contact just in or just outside the blue paint? * Was the attacker pushed in by a defender? If so, was reasonable effort to avoid contact possible? Was there a prompt effort to vacate the crease? * Did the goalie initiate incidental contact? If so, was it in the act of trying to establish position to make a save (the instruction here is "no goal") or was he initiating contact in the hope of drawing a call (potential penalty on the goalie, good goal if scored)? * Where was the puck when the incidental contact took place? Did the goalie have a reasonable chance to reset and attempt a save?
While some of these considerations fall within the spirit of the Rule Book, others get so bogged down in minutia that too many perfectly good goals end up getting taken away. When in doubt, I always heard the words of John McCauley.
"Paul, why does this rule exist?" he said to me many times. "If you understand why the rule exists in the first place, you'll know when it applies."
Unfortunately, as the Rule Book as gotten thicker and thicker, we've added more and more contradictions and illogical additions in the name of "clarification." Plain and simple, goaltender interference rules exist to ensure that goaltenders have a fair opportunity to make a save and that attackers have a fair opportunity to set up legal screens. If pushed into the goalie by a defender, the attacker has to make a legitimate effort to avoid or minimize contact and then to vacate the blue paint as soon as possible. Within those parameters, use your judgment.
Too often, instead of applying these "spirit of the rule" standards that our best teaching officials -- the McCauleys and John Ashleys and Frank Udvaris and, yes, Bill Stewarts -- advocated, we end endlessly quibbling over the tiny details such as the most glancing of contact just inside/ just outside the blue paint. It was a bit easier when I was reffing (and before that, playing) because the crease area was smaller then now. The same principles applied, though.
Actually, within the Rule Book, there is already a remedy for dispensing with this sort of stuff without having to get into the instructions for what to do if the incidental contact is just inside or just outside the blue paint.
Rule 69.2 states the following: In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more significant considering to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of contact.
I like this portion of the Rule because it cuts right to the heart what we should and shouldn't be overturning. What do we need to do to get a much higher percentage of these judgment call rulings correct in the first place and also correct on replay if challenged/ reviewed?
1) Re-teach our officials to get in optimal position for plays around the net.
2) Use the spirit of the Rule for goalie interference as our primary standard.
3) Apply the ancillary considerations as secondary evidence to support a good-goal or no-goal ruling, rather than the other way around.
But, hey, what do I know?
************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born person to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the only American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.