Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this happen over the years: a hockey announcer or print reporter pontificates about a "blown call" by the officials without knowing the rule that was supposedly either missed or misapplied by the referee. It happens all the time.

Local announcers, frequently the color commentators who are ex-players and/or coaches are often among the worst offenders. It also happens quite frequently at the national level, especially with in-studio analysts. Unfortunately, I think many viewers accept these gentlemen's hockey expertise at face value rather than watching with a critical eye.

Some are commendably well-versed on the permutations of the NHL Rule Book. They study it and should be respected for their knowledge. Many others do not brush up on the rules, thinking they know more than they actually do simply by having played and/or coached the game.

Case in point: The other night, I was watching John Tortorella on NHL Network. Twice in the course of the show, he incorrectly cited the NHL Rule Book in his commentary on plays in the highlight package.

In discussing the Chicago vs. Rangers game, Tortorella opined that a goal should have counted on a play where the puck was under the goaltender's pad and a player knocked the goalie's pad -- and the puck -- into the net as the whistle blew.

First of all, it is not a legal goal if the goalie is pushed into the net by an attacking player in order to force the puck over the line. Secondly, the referee was completely within his rights to blow the whistle for two reasons: The puck was under the goalie's control and it was out of sight.

On another part of the show, in regard to the Calgary vs. Vancouver opening game, Tortorella incorrectly cited the high-stick rule as pertains to Brandon Sutter scoring a goal. There are actually three different definitions of a "high stick" under the NHL Rule Book.

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).

In the instance Tortorella was referring to, it was Rule 60.5 that applied to judging the legality of a goal. He incorrectly mentioned the standards of 80.1 (shoulder height).

I'm not picking on Torts here. Actually, I kind of like the guy. When I was still reffing and Tortorella was a coach in Tampa Bay, I admired his energy and moxy and I respected the way he managed his personnel during games. We never had a problem with one another. I think he's a good coach. However, that doesn't make him an expert on the NHL Rule Book itself or the craft of officiating.

Say what you will about Bruins' play-by-play announcer Jack Edwards. I have said my piece about his work in the past. However, I have to give him credit for attending the NHL Referees' training camp this year. I wish a lot more hockey media people would do that.

As a matter of fact, I think the NHL should require the rights holders who broadcast their games to have their on-air talent study and pass a rule book test. This could help decrease the amount of incorrect information that is presented to the public in the name of expert commentary.

The only two former referees who have done extensive television work are Kerry Fraser and myself but the networks would serve themselves well to employ a retired ref to discuss rule book related issues because so many of the ex-players and ex-coaches (or coaches-between-jobs) in the studios and broadcast booths are weak in this area of knowledge.

Likewise, I wish the PHWA would take steps to improve the rules-related knowledge base of its membership by encouraging each chapter to review existing and newly created rules before the season. This would increase the caliber of print/ online coverage in terms of explaining certain calls to their readership.

This is particularly true where goaltender interference rules (Rule 69) are concerned, especially in the standards for defining and applying the many different scenarios in which "incidental contact" takes place. Admittedly, Rule 69 one of the most convoluted and sometimes contradictory sets of regulations in the book.

Goalie interference also is the number one misunderstood rule set in the NHL Rule Book and the one that is most frequent embroiled in controversy about calls that are made. The NHL adds a coach's challenge (used successfully by Toronto's Mike Babcock on opening night) but stubbornly refuses to fix the underlying problem of the need to clarify and streamline the rule itself.

Time after time, potential goaltender interference plays around the net spark controversy. This is especially true during the Stanley Cup playoffs, when there is even higher emphasis by teams on crashing the net.

When was the last time a playoff year has gone by without multiple controversies over goal/no goal ruling on plays where there is contact made with the goalie in and near the blue point and the borders of the crease? It happens every single year. Likewise, every single year, commentators and print media either cite the incorrect subset of Rule 69 or else simply make it up as they go along in their indignation.

Look, it's not the responsibility of the NHL broadcast and print media to fix the problems with the Rule Book. It is, however, their responsibility to know what they are talking about when commenting on controversial calls. There are ways we can move that process forward but it doesn't seem to happen.

To my readers, the next time you watch a game and the broadcast booth commentator or in-studio analyst opines on a correct/missed call, may I suggest that you access the NHL's 2015-16 interactive rule book and look up the rule(s) in question for yourself.

I think you'll be surprised -- even amazed -- at how often the expert analysts on the national and local airwaves are wrong about the rules of the game. Meanwhile, doing your own fact-checking can also increase your appreciation for the broadcast guys who've done their homework and consistently pass along the right information. Ron MacLean is the North American national media gold standard in terms of rules knowledge, but there are other national and local guys who have also made themselves pretty strong in this area of their preparations.

Final point: As most of you know, I am a third-generation referee. My grandfather is an inductee in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame. My father was a prolific collegiate and high-school hockey referee. Nevertheless, when I first pursued an officiating career after the end of my professional playing days, I got a rude awakening about how little I actually knew at the time about the NHL Rule Book.

I flunked my first rule book test. John McCauley, in his infinite wisdom, had an ingenious way to bring me up to speed. Rather than having me re-take the test, he required me to write for him a comprehensive test of the NHL Rule Book. That was when I started to get into the habit -- which remained with me the rest of my career -- of taking the Rule Book everywhere I went and reading it thoroughly.

I also researched the history of various rules, why they were created and how and why they were removed, redacted or added to over the years. It's dry reading perhaps but it is also an essential and invaluable knowledge base.

************************************************************************



************************************************************************

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.

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.