Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22
One fairly constant fact of life about the National Hockey League is a reactive nature that equally lacks insight, foresight and common sense when it comes to rules, penalty calling standards and matters of discipline. The NHL and other leagues need to get together and get the rules consistent. When they do that, we will know if a penalty is called because of an action or because of the result.
Case in point: high-sticking.
If I raise my stick above the height of my opponents chest and hit him it' a 2, or 4 or a 5, depending largely on the results. If I high-stick an opponent, the referee can call a 2 for a minor penalty. The referee, however is directed to call a 4 if the result is a cut. The referee can also call a 5 and game looking at the stick work and the result.
If I high stick the puck above my shoulders, it's a whistle. If I or my teammate plays the puck, it's a whistle. However, if I high stick the puck with my stick above the crossbar, and the puck goes into the net it's no goal. In other words, the definition of a high-stick changes.
Cross-checking, however, does not have a specific instruction as to whether to make calls based on the action or the result. If it's a cross-check to the head, it's both action-based and results-based. OK, but what about cross-checks to the back, the chest, etc.? There is no guideline on how to judge it.
So what is the standard? To me, judgment by result on cross-checks is also based on whether it was a "hockey play gone bad" or a gratuitous shot with the stick. In the case of the Joe Pavelski injury in the last round of the playoffs, the issue IS NOT the force of the cross-check. It was not forceful. The issue is cause-and-effect. Cody Eakin's gratuitous use of his stick was the root cause of everything else that followed and, ultimately, for Pavelski being injured. The energy for the crosscheck stemmed solely from Eakin's frustration after being beaten on the draw.
So why are the referees from The Las Vegas vs San Jose game going home for the rest of the playoffs? Damned If I know.
Actually, I think I do know why.
As I wrote atop this blog, the NHL is a reactive league. Supplementary discipline is very often results-based as much as it is action based, and is often influenced by the level of controversy and media attention over an incident.
In this case, if the Golden Knights had not allowed four power play goals in a five-minute span, there's no controversy. The coach who didn't call timeout until after the horse was out of the barn isn't griping. The team owner doesn't stop his foot and demand the NHL "make the refs accountable."
The NHL threw its refs under the bus, yet again. One of the two refs who was unceremoniously sent home for the rest of the playoffs is one the league clearly considered one of its best, at least if we take at face value their annual assertion that playoff assignments are solely a meritocracy. Dan O'Halloran had been previously assigned to work in 10 Stanley Cup Final series and this season, was assigned the Stadium Series. Clearly the league must have viewed his body of work favorably (at least until there was a controversy).
OK, let's assume the officiating crew did mess this situation up royally (I'll disagree with you, but that's fine). Answer me this: If you are a coach and if one of your key veteran defensemen commits an awful giveaway that costs you a game, do you remove him from the lineup for a month-plus? If your starting goalie botches a routine save in a playoff OT and you lose the game, does he get benched for the rest of the postseason run?
So what's next? Apparently, there is a push for penalties to be added to the litany of things that can now be challenged by coaches and/or reviewed in Toronto (by a crew that is unseen, unidentified to the public and which includes exactly zero people with actual officiating experience or who have at least had to take and pass a Rule Book exam). Yeah, what could go wrong with THAT?!
We need fewer reviews, not more. Reviewable plays should primarily consist of whether the puck cross the goal line and/or was played in legally. Offside reviews should be limited to clear-cut plays not millimeter differentials. Meanwhile, we need more clearly defined standards on goaltender interference, not the convoluted mess that is Rule 69.
*************
A Class of 2018 inductee to the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, 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.
Visit Paul's official website, YaWannaGo.com.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»