Now that I am back living in North America full time after several years of being based primarily out of Russia during the KHL and MHL hockey season, I have greater opportunity to watch NHL games in their entirety as well as those in the leagues where I direct the officiating.
One thing that has jumped out at me: I think the NHL needs to re-educate officials on penalty shot criteria. I have seen several calls this season -- both of clearly deserved penalty shots that were not called or iffy ones that were called from questionable positioning -- that have left me shaking my head. That is especially true of the non-calls.
I think penalty shots should be called according to the rulebook criteria, but there is also some feel involved. The rulebook is the referee's ally here, although there is certainly room for the NHL to tweak the penalty shot rules to clarify some gray areas.
The rule book is on the officials' side when the criteria are applied. However, there is also some feel and hockey sense involved, which is based on situation to situation.
When calling a penalty shot, the official should be confident and decisive in making the ruling. It's when the guy is hesitant to call what he sees -- when he's afraid of how the benches or a supervisor will react, and you can virtually see the wheels turning in his head on whether to call a penalty shot -- that he looks bad.
To review, here are five criteria for a penalty shot to be called on a breakaway scenario:
1) The attacking player is fouled from behind.
2) The attacker is past the red line (not the blue line).
3) The attacker has passed everyone on the defending team except the goalie.
4) The attacker has possession and control of the puck at the time he's fouled.
5) The attacker loses a reasonable scoring chance as a result of the foul.
Criteria two and five seem to cause the most trouble, especially the fifth. It is very common to see the fouled player still get a shot away and for no penalty shot to be awarded on the basis that the player "still had a scoring chance."
Well, yeah, maybe a great scoring chance became a much more stoppable one because the attacker no longer had the same amount of speed or puck control he had prior to the foul. Guess what? It's still a penalty shot, because the scoring chance should be re-established.
On the flip side, what if the foul from behind is shrugged off and the attacker goes in full speed ahead to get the same scoring chance he'd have otherwise have? If that's the judgment, then it is a minor penalty rather than a penalty shot.
My rule of thumb -- if a "great" scoring chance becomes an average/so-so one, it's a penalty shot. If great becomes "good", it's probably NOT a penalty shot.
Here is a good recent example of the "sliding scale scoring chance" decision that has to be made in a split second. Does this slash by Dallas' Alex Goligoski on Vancouver's Alexandre Burrows impede the quality of the scoring chance to penalty shot level? You make the call. My gut says no, but it's a judgment call and I wasn't on the ice.
A decisive call was made here on a 50-50 situation. So be it. If all five circumstances are all in place, the penalty shot ruling MUST be made. It doesn't matter what the score of the game is, what period it happens or anything else. That isn't always the case.
My advise to young officials never varies: Be bold and make the right call. If a penalty shot is warranted, calling a minor penalty instead of the proper call is a cop-out. In a supervising capacity, I would not look favorably on it.
During my active officiating career, I was never afraid to call a penalty shot when the rules dictated it. I called more than any other referee in the NHL over the course of my career. One season, there were 34 total penalty shots called in the League. I called 18 of them.
Quick story: When I was in my final season as an NHL referee (2002-03), I was refereeing a Rangers-Predators game in Madison Square Garden. After the pregame warmup skate, in the runway near the Rangers dressing room, I exchanged pleasantries and small talk with Pavel Bure.
"Hey, Stewy, I need ask you question," Pavel said in his distinctive Russian accent.
"Go right ahead," I said.
"OK, I'm in League 12 years. You never give me penalty shot -- not one! Everyone else; penalty shot here, penalty shot there. For me, never one penalty shot. Why not?"
He was smiling as he said it. We both had a laugh.
At the 4:25 mark of the still-scoreless first period, the Rangers had a power play. A scramble ensued around the goal mouth and Nashville defensemen Bill Houlder covered the puck in the Preds' crease. The rules dictated a penalty shot, and I called it.
Whom did Rangers coach Bryan Trottier select to take the penalty shot against Tomas Vokoun? You guessed it. He picked the Russian Rocket himself.
Skating between the red line and the goal mouth, Bure switched from his forehand to his backhand and back again no less than 11 times. The puck started rolling on him from the blueline in (the MSG ice has never been very good) and he was not able to settle it until the last moment.
Displaying the hands that made him one of the best pure goal scorers the game has ever had, Bure pulled off one last backhand-to-forehand move as Vokoun committed himself and slid the puck home just inside the right post.
It was an electrifying goal that left even the Predators in awe. After celebrating with his teammates, Pavel subtly looked at me and grinned. It was all I could do to avoid doubling over in laughter -- or applauding the incredible display of skill.
It was the fates of serendipity and the hockey gods -- not yours truly -- that created that penalty shot opportunity. By the way, Bure converted six of 10 penalty shot opportunities in his Hall of Fame career. Choosing Bure as the shooter was no doubt one of the easiest decisions Trottier ever had to make in his life.
Another permutation of penalty shot rules: One time, I refereed a game in San Jose between the Sharks and Maple Leafs. San Jose goaltender Arturs Irbe unwisely wandered out of his net and tried to stickhandle with the puck, promptly losing it to the dangerous Mats Sundin in the corner. Hopelessly caught out of position, Irbe threw his stick at the puck.
I called a penalty shot. No one, including those on the San Jose bench, could dispute that call.
What happened next, however, was something a bit unusual. On the ensuing penalty shot, Sundin started to move in deliberately and then quickly accelerated. As a matter of fact, he made such a quick move that I couldn't react in time. He skated right into me in the lower circle, knocking me down. Somehow, the Hall of Fame forward still found a way to beat Irbe.
Only thing was, I didn't see the puck go in. I waved no goal. Simultaneously, veteran linesman Swede Knox pointed at the net, to signify a good goal. Now we had to go to replay to confirm the goal.
Afterwards, I skated over to Irbe with a friendly word of advice.
"Arturs, you are the worst stickhandler I have ever seen in my life," I said. "Do both of us a favor. Don't do that again and you'll save us both a lot of trouble!"
Getting back to the original premise of today's blog, I don't know if the NHL has put a particular emphasis on penalty shot criteria from training camp until now but I think things have slipped a bit since the first year after the NHL came back from the 2004-05 lockout.
There have been eight penalty shots called to date in the NHL, though the first 171 league games of the season. By way of comparison, here's the devolution of penalty shot calls since 2005-06.
In the meantime, the Scouting the Refs website has a full history of the 72 Stanley Cup playoff penalty shots. It's a relatively short history given that it encompasses all NHL playoff games from 1922 onward.
Folks, hockey is hockey. Although there will be a slight naturally variance from season to season, penalty-shot worthy situations will arise at a pretty close to the same rate, with adjustments for style of play, coaching, etc.
Based upon the data there is strong reason to suspect that the NHL has gotten lax on its penalty shot education of officials and a re-education directive is in order. Then again, what do I know?
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.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»