Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22
This season, with the change in national broadcasters in the NHL, a couple of retired NHL referees have been added to the broadcasts to offer analysis and commentary on the officiating side of the game.
Nothing against the two former referees who were hired for the gig: Don Koharski and Dave Jackson. But the brief segments have been of little value to viewers from an educational, entertainment or thought-provoking standpoint.
To me, the value of having former officials on the air is NOT to say little beyond, "The call looked correct to me.... now, back to you." The value would come from:
1) Explaining to the public that the first thing to examine is not the decision itself -- goal/no goal, penalty/no penalty, minor/major, stoppage/play on, etc. -- but to look at the positioning of the official who made the call. If I had a dollar for every time I've said "positioning sells calls", I'd be making money in an unusual way. If an official is out of position, it's hard to justify the judgment call aspect. When an official tries to mentally "fill in the blanks" because of a less-than-ideal vantage point, the chances of arriving at a poor decision increase tenfold.
2) Educating the public about the imperfections, quirks, counterintuitive aspects and occasional contradictions contained within the NHL Rule Book. This is especially true when it comes to goaltender interference rules. How many times have you heard broadcasters, coaches and players say "I have no idea what is and isn't goalie interference these days.... flip a coin"? You heard it all the damn time! Well, it stems from just how convoluted that particular section of the NHL Rule Book is. Every playoff year, there are heated controversies over goal/no goal rulings stemming from disputed goalie interference plays. It's OK to advocate for that part of the Rule Book to be re-examined and cleaned up. If the NHL Office doesn't like it, well, it is what it is.
3) Clearing up common misconceptions that pertain to the rules. The rest of today's blog will center around one of the most frequently said -- but erroneous -- statements about the Rule Book: a stick slash is an "automatic penalty". Maybe we'll do a blog series on similarly common misconceptions but it would actually be better on TV where you can more readily teach with a series of video examples.
Contrary to what many hockey announcers say on the air -- and the way the rule often gets applied on the ice in the National Hockey League -- a stick-to-stick slash is NOT an automatic penalty in the Rule Book. Even when a stick breaks, a stick-to-stick infraction depends on the judgment of the official gauging the severity and placement of the act (for example, goalies slash at ankles all the time and rarely get called).
As with every call, correct application of the rule is reliant on the skating and proper positioning of the officials: a penalty should not be "assumed" based on a broken stick alone. If an official doesn't see the slash itself but only sees the opponent's stick laying in two pieces a split second later, a call should not be made. Likewise, the R2 referee stationed 70 feet away may not actually it from that distance and while looking through and around the players on the ice.
NHL Rule 61.1 is one of the more misunderstood and misapplied rules in the book as pertains to slashing-the-stick violations. That is not only the case in the NHL and AHL, by the way, it is the same in Europe in the KHL as well as hockey at the collegiate, junior and other levels.
This is a rule that, as written, affords the officials some power to use their own judgment; which, I might add, makes it part of an increasingly endangered category of hockey rules. Here is the key phrasing of the rule, with bolded emphasis added:
Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.
There has been an uptick in such calls in the NHL the last few years ago. No doubt due to pressure from the League, the discretionary parts of the rule -- 1) to determine if there was a legitimate attempt by the defender to play the puck and 2) to judge whether the slash was forceful enough to significantly impede the attacking player's efforts to carry the puck -- have gradually given way to making this rule something much closer to an automatic penalty that it is incorrectly purported to be.
As a discretionary infraction observed by an official, the slashing-the-stick infraction is a legitimate call. When the rule becomes a semi-automatic "cookie cutter" call, especially in situations where a player loses his stick or a stick breaks, it leads to some pretty cheap penalties.
Unfortunately, to a large extent, stick slashing has become one of the newer methods of choice for checking. Combined with those short-cuffed gloves, it's a deadly combination for broken wrists. The sticks today all have a critical spot where they break with little flex. Once again, the equipment manufacturers and the cheap made-in-China type quality of these expensive pieces of equipment have changed the game for the worse.
I have seen a few too many situations in the NHL where a defender legitimately tries to play the puck and still ends up in the penalty box. The judgment part of the ruling got cast aside because his stick happened to make glancing contact with the attacker's stick.
Something else this has produced: ever-increasing embellishment by players fishing for a penalty call. The same player who shrugged off much harder chops and hooking attempts when he sniffed out a scoring chance around the net two shifts earlier suddenly gets butterfingers when the slightest contact is made with his stick along the walls. The stick goes flying out of his hands, and the player immediately looks at the referee to see if his arm is going up for a penalty.
There are many players around the NHL who are guilty of this sort of embellishment. During my own active refereeing career, if I spotted a player doing the butterfingers act on a stick slash that was barely forceful enough to swat a fly, I would have given the player a two-minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. I had no time or patience for that sort of nonsense.
By the way, in situations where the referee doesn't bite on the marginal stick slash or similar penalties that have come to be expected as near "entitlements", there is also a preponderance of current players who can't just glad play continued without being penalized themselves for unsportsmanlike conduct. There are guys who show the official up with that palms up "Where's the penalty?" gesture or sarcastically wave their hand and shake their heads.
During my own refereeing career, I let it be known to players that they could have their say within reason but they'd better not show me or my fellow officials up with histrionics. When someone waved sarcastically at me, I would skate over and say "Are you waving goodbye? Alright, then. Goodbye!"
As with many other issues, I believes the problem stems from poor coaching of officials. I do not blame the referees themselves, who have been made to feel like they are compelled to call a slash every time someone's twig breaks when players are jostling for position.
As an unabashed old-timer, I still remember Bobby Hull and white ash sticks. Jack Chipchase used to use a double barrel shafted stick. Those suckers were almost immune from breaking.
*********
A 2018 inductee into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, 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.
Visit Paul's official websites, YaWannaGo.com and Officiating by Stewart.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»