What's Your Angle?
My big takeaway from the onside/offside controversy surrounding Game 1 of the Colorado vs. Edmonton playoff series is not whether the on-ice ruling should have been overturned on replay. Rather, it's a brand-new lesson about an age-old truism in sports and life: camera angles can be deceptive.
That's a lesson my grandfather, Bill Stewart, taught me when I was a child. He told me that positioning is everything when it comes to giving yourself the best possible chance to make the correct call. As an NHL referee, my grandfather officiated multiple Stanley Cup Finals. As a Major League Baseball umpire, he worked four World Series. As an NHL coach, he coached the Chicago Black Hawks to a Stanley Cup championship.
He knew of what he spoke.
During the 1948 World Series, my grandfather was umpiring second base when Braves baserunner Phil Masi may or may not have reached the base ahead of a tag by Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Masi was called safe. Boudreau and pitcher Bob Feller argued vehemently but the call stood. The next batter, Tommy Holmes, singled home the winning run.
Newspaper photos of the play seemed to back up Cleveland's argument. Boudreau appears to tag Masi before the runner reached the base. However, to his dying day, my grandfather was unwavering in saying (both publicly and privately) that he was right on top of the play and had the definitive vantage point. He always insisted Masi was safe on a very close tag play and that the camera angle painted an optical illusion in the newspapers.
Was the umpire's "safe" call right or wrong on that particular play? We'll never know. I wasn't born yet. What I can testify from my own years of playing and then officiating that plays that appeared to be clear cut calls from angles off to the side could actually be the wrong call from a straight-on angle.
Whenever such plays unfolded, I would think "Grampy was right, as usual."
Bringing the discussion back to present day, anyone could see that Colorado's Valeri Nichushkin was trying to get back to tag up on the blueline as Cale Makar brought the puck in, and that the puck crossed the blueline before Nichushkin could get back to the line. The dispute arose from whether Makar, who seemingly had enough control to constitute possession, touched the puck as it crossed the line on a delayed offside or whether he waited long enough for Nichushkin to get onside.
By the letter of the Rule Book -- remember the mantras that the wording in the Rule Book is an official's best shield -- I believe that the correct call was made but things were handled poorly.
The biggest reason was the near-side linesman was not on the line at the time of the entry by Makar. There's no way he had the best possible view of the entry itself and the tag up by Nichushkin to get onside. Fortunately, they found a camera angle that showed, by the letter of the Rule Book, the play was onside.
But I want to point something else out, because I see both media folks and fans alike using "conclusive photographic evidence" to argue whether the play in question was onside or offside.
Same play, two different angles. Angle one looks like the puck is touching the blade of Makar's stick. Angle two shows separation between the blade and the puck.
This effect is the same reason why multiple camera angles are used on video replays to determine whether a puck entirely crosses the goal line or whether a play is onside or offside. Ultimately, though, the first two considerations in the process are whether the official had an optimal view of the play and whether the ruling is supported within the Rule Book. The former was NOT the case here. The latter took one specific camera angle to justify.
Actually, I'm a little surprised there wasn't also an offshoot controversy about the camera angle -- near side or far side -- used on replay to determine exactly when Nichushkin touched up at the blueline relative to Makar's entry. I'm not saying that he didn't get onside. I'm saying that every aspect and permutation of plays that can go to replay are subject to scrutiny nowadays. Do we need to check every aspect by replay just to be extra sure? After all, an offside/onside play can have various components to it.
The rule in question in this play was introduced by John McCauley when he was the NHL's officiating director. Brian Burke got rid of it for a time.
These days, TV rules the roost. It's all about selling the sizzle and the controversy. I really don't think replay, especially on offside plays, has succeeded in eliminating or nearly eliminating disputes. Replay, to me, exists to avoid a repeat of situations like the 1980 Stanley Cup Final where a blantantly missed -- by about 4 feet -- offside play ended up figuring in a game that went overtime in the decisive game.
Are Today's Players Overtrained?
The Boston Bruins recently announced that Brad Marchand faces a six-month recovery timeline from surgeries on both hips including repairs of torn labrums. Throughout the NHL in recent years, there has been a spate of similar injuries: sports hernias, issues that end up presenting throughout the pelvic area, lower abdominal muscle tears, combined groin/hip surgeries, etc. The exact nature varies.
In general, players nowadays seem more vulnerable than ever to core muscle problems. There's no doubt that today's athletes are more thoroughly trained -- with body fat percentages that are almost impossibly low -- and that they correspondingly have greater strength and stamina to play a game where the pace of play has also quickened considerably.
That's a good thing. Sports evolve. My question is whether we've gotten to the "too much of a good thing" realm where players are actually overtrained?
Back when I played, groin pulls happened but it was very rare for players to need abdominal/groin/hip surgeries. We've seen some the same things with the evolution of the goalie position; the butterfly and hybrid styles seem to be tied to increasing number of athletes who develop chronic hip, knee or groin issues. I've seen pro goalies who've needed hip replacement by their early 30s. That didn't happen with the old-school standup goalies because there was much less stress on the hips.
Plenty of players and officials from every era end up needing knee or hip replacements later in life. I can testify personally to the wear-and-tear effect that builds up. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking here about still-young men who develop issues that were rare years ago.
A Hairball in the Pipeline
I'll go into this in my next blog, but I want to introduce the idea before I close this one. Due to the pandemic (which temporarily extended NCAA eligibility in certain cases) and due to a wider number of foreign-born and trained players coming to the U.S. to play NCAA Division One hockey, there has been a trickle-down effect. I think savvy NHL organizations should look a little more closely at levels they rarely if ever scout; such as Division 3 schools.
There are some really good prospects, especially goalies, who have been playing at that level not because of their ability level but because they've been blocked.
There are still stones that haven't been turned. But you've got to do the legwork to find them.
*********
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:
»