Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
The rules related to high-sticking in the NHL Rulebook are some of the more interesting ones in the book. Depending on the situation, different levels of stick elevation are classified as a high stick.
In terms of whether a puck is legally batted into the net on a would-be goal, the standard is the height of the crossbar and it depends on where the stick makes contact with the puck (Rule 60.5). In terms of determining whether there should be a stoppage and a faceoff for an airborne puck being played by a high stick and retained by the offending team, the standard is the height of the shoulders of the player who played the puck (Rule 80.1).
Lastly, in terms of whether a high-sticking penalty is to be called, the standard is the height of the shoulders of the opposing player who is struck by the offending player's stick (Rule 60.1). For purposes of today's blog, Rules 60.1 to 60.4 is the category of "high stick" I will discuss. I will touch on the other types in a future piece.
First of all, the rule refers to normal height where the fouled player's shoulders are when the shoulders aren't being shrugged upwards and when he is upright and not stooped over at the time. That should be a self-explanatory definition, but I have heard hometown announcers -- and coaches -- "cleverly" try to argue the semantics of it.
Secondly, there is one exception to Rule 60.1: it is NOT supposed to be a penalty if a player is in a normal wind-up or the follow through of a shooting motion when he accidentally strikes and opponent above the shoulders. Even if this action ends up inflicting injury on the recipient, it is not a penalty.
Note, however, that this exception does NOT include wild or reckless swings at loose pucks in which an opposing player accidentally gets struck by the stick. That falls in the same larger realm of high sticking penalties where the offending player is responsible for a careless and dangerous use of the stick, even if it was accidental.
Now we get into where some actual judgment ought to be applied by the referee but too frequently there are cookie-cutter rulings made: Should the penalty be a minor (Rule 60.2), a double minor (Rule 60.3), or a five-minute match penalty (Rule 60.4) with an automatic review by the League?
Back in the early 1990s, there was a brief trend toward five-minute penalties and player expulsions whenever blood got drawn by a high stick. Over the last 18 years or so, however, the four-minute penalty has become almost obligatory.
My take: Using the "blood standard" results in some bad calls being made. I've seen very reckless high sticks get only the two-minute minor because there was no blood. Meanwhile, in the same game, there was a four-minute penalty because of a slight trickle of blood from a less egregious high stick (example: the player was trying to lift the opponent's stick off the puck and accidentally crawled up and glancingly nicked the other guy on the chin).
Rule 60.2 says it should be a double-minor when an "injury" results, regardless of whether it is an accidental or careless high stick. I am fine with the wording of it, but not the application.
The referee should use his judgment here. Was there an actual injury?
The cookie-cutter use of Rule 60.2 causes some fouled players to TRY to bleed to get a lengthier power play for their teams. I've seen players dig their fingernails into their own skin and bite their own lip on purpose to produce "blood evidence." I once even saw Claude Lemieux pop a pimple on his face and try to argue that the resulting speck of blood was from getting highsticked.
By the way, there is no truth to the urban legend that Ray Bourque used to carry a fake blood capsule to bite down on in the event he got high sticked. I would not have totally put it past good ole Claude the Fraud and a few other guys to try that extreme of a stunt, however.
Another thought: As both a player and referee, I thought that stickwork was far worse for the game than fighting. There's never been any shortage of crusaders to abolish fighting, yet they are short on suggestions for what to do about players who deliberately use their stick as a weapon.
************
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 at both the Division 1 and Division 3 levels.
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»