|
NHL Case Book or NHL Rule Book? |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Last Saturday in Dallas, there was a ruling made that was a first for me in four-plus decades of playing, officiating and overseeing this sport. A slashing-the-stick penalty was called, and the offending player was escorted to the penalty box. However, there was a missed whistle for offside at the attacking blueline. As a result, the penalty was retroactively canceled out and only the offside stood.
I understand the rationale that was applied: If the offside had been whistled, play would have stopped and the stick slash by the defending player would not have occurred. Here's the problem, though: There is nothing in the NHL Rule Book that says an offside cancels out the enforcement of a subsequent "hockey play" penalty. As a matter of fact, infractions after a whistle still apply, whether it's roughing or high sticking or slashing (doesn't matter if it's a slash to the body or chopping a stick from someone's hands).
From a Rule Book perspective, this situation is somewhat like the laws pertaining to a bank robbery. If you rob a bank and then shoot a guard while in the act of fleeing, these are two separate offenses. Likewise, if one infraction comes before a whistle and a second follows it, two separate calls should be made.
To "cancel out" an already called penalty due to a missed whistle on an offside moments earlier is something I've never seen before. There is some "literary license" afforded to officials to apply common sense to a ruling if the Rule Book provides murky guidance, but this particular situation stretched those limits pretty far. I've seen players removed from the penalty box after an official misidentified the sweater number of an offending player, but never an indisputable penalty itself canceled out because of a retroactive offside stoppage.
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. This just seemed to be an unusual amount of leeway to make a ruling that clearly fell outside the Rule Book. Officials are trained to adhere to the principle that a penalty is a penalty, no matter whether it's between or after the whistle.
If there actually is some sort of directive about infractions after a missed offside whistle, how far does this extend outside the Rule Book? I would think that a situation where a subsequent penalty shot might be called (such as a defenseman covering a loose puck in the crease with his hand) might justifiably be overruled by a retroactive offside at the blueline. Other situations? I don't think so.
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.
In the particular instance of the call in Dallas last week, though, I have no idea how or why that degree of creativity was employed and whether it is something we could see again this season. Guess we'll all find out together.
************
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.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»