Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
One of the big stories to emerge from the NHL general managers' meeting is a recommendation to implement a "coach's challenge" (ala the NFL) under certain circumstances. Specifically, it would be in cases of potential goaltender interference on would-be scoring plays and delay-of-game penalties for shooting the puck out of play in the defensive zone.
Under the proposal, teams must have an available timeout (each team gets one timeout per game) for the coach to issue a challenge and have the play decided by video review in the Chinese Buffet and TV Lounge... um, sorry, the Situation Room.... in Toronto. If the call on the ice is upheld, the team loses its lone timeout and cannot challenge a call for the rest of the game.
Before the rule changes would be implemented, the proposal needs to be approved first by the competition committee and then by the NHL’s Board of Governors.
I have
explained in detail in the past why I am not a fan of the NHL's current video review system, which excludes the on-ice officials from the review and decision and does not involve a single person with actual on-ice officiating experience making the rulings on whether to uphold or overturn on-ice calls.
If we implement a full-fledged coach's challenge, we are opening a can of worms. First, of all, from a practical standpoint, there is a significant problem with the vagueness of how the goaltender interference rules are written into the NHL Rule Book.
When should a goaltender interference penalty be called? When should a would-be goal be disallowed? How does one define "incidental contact" between an attacking player and a goaltender? Basically, this is the hockey equivalent of determining whether
the soup is too salty or just right. In other words, it's a personal judgment call for whomever makes the final decision.
There are literally dozens of potentially troublesome scenarios that can arise around physical contact with a goaltender. As presently written, the NHL Rule Book does a poor job at presenting guidance for the on-ice officials to make the correct judgments on goaltender interference (Rule 69).
During the first round of the 2014 playoffs, I devoted a blog to an
overview of the clumsily written rules pertaining to 10 of the dozens of potential scenarios of goaltender interference around the net. A subsequent blog dealt with
a disallowed goal for Tampa Bay in their first-round series with Montreal.
Creating a coach's challenge for Toronto to review the play is NOT going to result in more correct calls being made. It's simply going to shift the final responsibility for a judgment call away from the crew on the ice. It should also be noted that are some situations where incidental contact with a goaltender need not negate a goal, such as loose puck situations, and others where a similar level of contact results in a no-goal ruling being the correct call.
A prime example: during last season's Western Conference Quarterfinals between Los Angeles and San Jose, there was a controversial game pitting Los Angeles against San Jose featured yet another situation that made crystal clear that the NHL's goaltender interference rules and all of its subsets and permutations need to be re-written in a much clearer way.
This play is a loose puck situation. In going for the puck, which sat slightly past the skates of Shark goaltender Alex Stalock, Kings forward Justin Williams poked his stick into the goalie's pads in trying to jam the puck into the net. He is entitled to do so until the referee loses sight of the puck and blows the whistle.
Referee Chris Lee had the whistle to his mouth and, to his credit, skated directly behind the net to get an optimal look at the play. Just then, the puck was pushed into the net. In the process, Stalock was also pushed backwards by Williams' stick, which helped force the puck over the line.
Let's look at the directions the NHL gives its officials in
Table 18, Sections 4A and 4B under Rule 69. The Rule book spells out two possible rulings in this situation:
A) If the attacker's contact with the goalie is "incidental contact", the goal is allowed, or
B) If it's "other than incidental contact", the goal should be disallowed and a penalty should be called on the attacker.
Now we get into a debate over the semantics of what would constitute something "other than incidental contact." Certainly if there was bodily force exerted by an attacker -- or, alternatively, something like a cross-check in which the attacker is clearly trying to push the goaltender and not poke at the puck until the whistle is blown -- it would be easy to disallow the goal and impose a penalty.
Ah, but many would-be goals fall into a gray area in between legal incidental contact and illegal contact in a loose puck situation. There is NO direction in the NHL Rule Book as to how to classify the contact that was made.
In the specific case of the aforementioned play with Williams, the goal made it a 2-1 game in Los Angeles' favor, and the Kings went on to win the game to force a seventh and deciding game after trailing the series three games to none. Naturally, the Sharks were frustrated. Pinning the blame on the officials was misplaced frustration on a tough judgment call that could have gone either way.
Taking criticism is part of the job for an official. This was a classic damned if you do and damned if you don't call. Let's say the ruling had gone the other way and the goal was disallowed with Williams being penalized. San Jose scores on the power play and goes on to close out the series.
If the same play was ruled the opposite way, would the fans in Los Angeles have been any happier today than the ones in San Jose? More to the point, would the powers-that-be in New York and Toronto have been publicly supportive of its officials had the 50/50 judgment call gone the other way and the team on the unfavorable end got eliminated from the playoffs later that night?
Now ask yourself this: Would adding a coach's challenge to the mix of the already convoluted rules for goals and non-goals involving potential goaltender interference result in any more clarity or authoritativeness of judgement simply by shifting the ruling responsibility to the Situation Room?
As for the other rule, I'm not a fan of the chintzy automatic delay-of-game rule that takes away the discretion to separate a deliberate defensive stalling tactic from an accident that can easily happen when the puck takes an inopportune hop as the defense tries to clear off the boards or the glass. Instead of creating a coach's challenge to review whether the puck hit a stick or skimmed the glass, we should re-write the rule itself.
Final thoughts: If the coach's challenge is approved, I suspect it would just be the beginning of a process that will annually expand the parameters of the coach's challenge and increasingly disenfranchise on-ice officials from doing the job we pay them to do. They are there to judge split-second plays and make tough calls when necessary.
If we are going to have a coach's challenge as part of the NHL game, the coach's should have more skin in the game if they are going to use it. Just as an unsuccessful challenge of a
suspected illegal stick brings about a delay-of-game penalty, there should be a more significant consequence for an unsuccessful coach's challenge than losing a timeout that often goes unused in the first place.
Why should one type of unsuccessful challenge bring about a penalty on the team calling for a review but the other brings about a charged timeout? I thought we were trying to have more consistency and continuity, not less.
In the bigger picture, I fear from a philosophical standpoint that this proposal is another step toward
draining the humanity out of hockey. Like it or not, hockey is a game of mistakes. Yes, the prime objective for every official to make the right call. However, sometimes, getting it right can also mean long delays that ruin the flow of play.
Then again, what do i know? Pass the wonton soup and the salt, please.
*********
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 is the chairman of the officiating and discipline committee for the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and serves as director of hockey officiating for the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC).
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials, while also maintaining 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.
Stewart is currently working with a co-author on an autobiography.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»