Paul Stewart: The Money is STILL at the Net

Another great article. You have talked often on positioning and how important it is and crucial to getting the right call.

You haven't discussed the game two playoff game from the Toronto/Boston series with brad Meier and Trevor Hanson. Not sure if you watched the game but I am guessing you heard about it. How can a game get so out of hand from an officals point of view. It was probably one of the worst officiated games I have seen in a long time. How did you see this game?

Another question I would ask is why does the officiating change from the regular season to something different when the playoffs start? How does an official say ok I will let this go and I will let that one go but then all of a sudden make a call. How do you know your keeping things equal for both sides with non calls? Are you not still dictating the outcome of a game by making non calls which favors an agressive team over one who is a non agressive team?

I happened to agree with the Goalie Interference no call on Rask in the Toronto-Boston series. No way he had a shot at saving that puck... is that a consideration?

I know the Toronto fans are seeing a poorly refereed series but, I'm seeing it go both ways. We got a gift with the offsides goal

Stewy - I have a question about St. Louis' first goal of the game on Saturday. If you watch the clip from the right of the goalie (in which you see the ref in the corner) as soon as the puck falls from the crossbar to the ice, the ref is pointing to the goal. Isn't that a sign that the ref called it a goal at that time, and the play technically should have been stopped at that point (much like the intent to blow the play dead)? If the ref had integrity, shouldn't he have called the play a goal on the initial shot, with Winnipeg allowing a challenge (which would have been successful?

Stewy - I have a question about St. Louis' first goal of the game on Saturday. If you watch the clip from the right of the goalie (in which you see the ref in the corner) as soon as the puck falls from the crossbar to the ice, the ref is pointing to the goal. Isn't that a sign that the ref called it a goal at that time, and the play technically should have been stopped at that point (much like the intent to blow the play dead)? If the ref had integrity, shouldn't he have called the play a goal on the initial shot, with Winnipeg allowing a challenge (which would have been successful?
- powerenforcer

No, for a couple reasons. First, the intent to blow rule doesn't say that play has ended when the referee decides to blow the whistle, it says the referee is allowed to decide play had stopped when they decided to blow their whistle, not that they have to. It's written as a judgement call.

Second, and more importantly; referee's don't blow their whistle or end play when a goal is scored. They point to the net, but it's actually the off-ice goal judge who turns on the light ending play. The intent to blow rule is irrelevant because it's not the referee's call, it's the off-ice goal judges, and he hadn't stopped play believing a goal was scored.

No, for a couple reasons. First, the intent to blow rule doesn't say that play has ended when the referee decides to blow the whistle, it says the referee is allowed to decide play had stopped when they decided to blow their whistle, not that they have to. It's written as a judgement call.

Second, and more importantly; referee's don't blow their whistle or end play when a goal is scored. They point to the net, but it's actually the off-ice goal judge who turns on the light ending play. The intent to blow rule is irrelevant because it's not the referee's call, it's the off-ice goal judges, and he hadn't stopped play believing a goal was scored.
- Antilles

Stop, Are you Paul? I would like to hear what he has to say. And besides that, the goal judge does not decide goals.

Stop, Are you Paul? I would like to hear what he has to say. And besides that, the goal judge does not decide goals.
- powerenforcer

"The Goal Judge shall signal, normally by means of red light, a decision as to whether the puck passed between the goal posts and entirely over the goal line." They are the ones who stop play by signalling a goal. It's rule 36.1.

The referee disallows a goal when he "deems the play has been stopped." No where is it suggested he is required to if he made an indication, as you insinuated; it's pretty clear the rule is he is allowed to disallow a goal if in his mind the play had already stopped. It's rule 78.5.xii

Since you have a problem with me answering, here's a webpage where the NHL officially answered your question:
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en...018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf



If you want Stewart to respond, you probably shouldn't ask in a way that insults his former colleagues, insinuating they have no integrity just because you don't understand what it means when a rule is written as a judgement call. Some rules refs are required to call, like high sticking, or over-the-glass delay of game. Some rules they are expected to use their judgement. Using their judgement doesn't mean they have no integrity.