Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
The National Hockey League's Rulebook is sorely in need of a good cleanup. It is a messy, reactive document filled with regulations that were created after-the-fact as a response to controversial situations that revealed a loophole in a previous half-baked rules.
Someone needs to sit down with the NHL Rulebook and revise it into a more coherent document that a) streamlines and clarifies the protocols, and b) anticipates that unexpected things can and will happen on the ice and guides decisions in those situations.
Listen, there's no such thing as a perfect rulebook. Nevertheless, improvements can and should be made to the NHL rules. I won't be waiting by the phone for my former bosses to call me for the job but it is the truth.
Here's a good example of an interrelated rule set that needs fixing: the
too-many-men on the ice (Rule 74),
illegal substitution (Rule 68) and
premature substitution (Rule 71) penalty protocols. The rules and their subsets have been adjusted and counter-adjusted many times over the years and, in my opinion, still have not been gotten right.
These housekeeping penalty rules need to be reconsidered and rewritten in a more streamlined way that makes sense within the game-flow context. As they are now, they create headaches for officials and teams alike.
For example, a key determining factor in the too-many-men penalty is whether the player(s) exiting the ice are within five feet of the bench when one or more teammates enter the ice and the offending team plays the puck.
Now here's my question: Is five feet (60 inches) truly so sacrosanct? If the player is 62, 66 or even 70 inches from the bench, is the official bending too far to let play continue without calling a penalty? Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what is actually going on in the game context.
One piece of the protocol puzzle for on-the-fly changes: Why not have a "substitution area" box added to the ice markings? If the exiting player is outside the area when a teammate enters the game, move on to the next set of criteria for determining if a penalty should be called.
Step two: Which direction is the extra player facing? Is he directly facing the bench or turned to where the play is taking place?
Step three (and this where some decision-making and judgment needs to be exercised by the official): The fundamental quesiton to answer is "Does the offending team gain an unfair advantage by virtue of the extra player on the ice?"
Where is the puck? Does having an extra man aid and abet the offending team in advancing the puck? Alternatively, does it hinder the other team from moving the puck the other way? Was there some sort of physical contact -- such as a body check -- made with an extra player still on the ice?
Another issue: How long has there been an extra player on the ice? This was one of the key determinations in one of the most famous too many men penalties in hockey history.
On May 10, 1979, the Montreal Canadiens played the visiting Boston Bruins at the Forum in the seventh and deciding game of the Stanley Cup semifinals. With 3:59 left in the third period, Boston's Rick Middleton put the Bruins ahead, 3-2, as he came around the net and beat Hall of Fame goaltender Ken Dryden with a backhanded shot. Boston then set about protecting their lead to nail down the game and advance to the Finals at the expense of the defending champions.
Throughout the series, the Bruins used Don Marcotte to shadow legendary Montreal sniper Guy Lafleur. As Lafleur left the ice after a long shift following Boston's go-ahead goal, Marcotte returned to the bench for a breather. In the meantime, two teammates jumped on the ice and entered the play. Actually, there were momentarily three extra Bruins, but Peter McNab (who had been the extra player in a too-many-men-penalty earlier in the series) was immediately pulled back off the ice.
Linesman John D'Amico saw what was happening. He screamed at Boston coach Don Cherry to straighten out the man power. The Bruins, in turn, hollered in vain at their players on the ice. Finally, after cutting Boston slack as long as he possibly could, D'Amico called for a stoppage of play with 2:34 left in regulation.
The linesman conferred with referee Bob Myers, who called a too-many-men penalty on the Bruins. Here's what happened next.
The ensuing power play goal by Lafleur against Gilles Gilbert tied the game. At 9:33 of overtime, Yvan Lambert won the game and series for the Canadiens. The Habs went on to win another Stanley Cup.
Boston had only itself to blame. As a matter of fact, there was an extra Bruins player on the ice for nine seconds before play was blown dead and the call made. Nevertheless, some Bruins partisans held D'Amico responsible for the series outcome. The play forever bothered John, who officiated over 1,900 regular season and playoff games in his Hall of Fame career. D'Amico passed away in 2005 at age 67 after a lengthy battle with cancer.
During my own active refereeing career, I would cut teams some slack when I felt it was merited by the criteria I described earlier. If there was an advantage gained by the offending team, I would call the penalty without hesitation. If appropriate, I'd issue a warning instead.
One time, for example, I addressed a warning to coach Mike Keenan loudly enough for both benches to hear.
I shouted, "Hey, Mike! Don't they require math at St. Lawrence University? Gotta be able to count to six!"
The line changes -- on both sides -- were a lot crisper for the remainder of the game.
At any rate, what we have right now in the NHL is a set of reactive, after-the-fact rules for too-many-men and illegal substitution situations. As I have said in previous blogs, the rulebook is as much a document of hockey history than it is of contemporary regulations.
For instance, Rule 74.4 covers deliberate illegal substitutions. Illegal substitutions in general are addressed as Rule 68. However, the permutation of intentionally sending out one or more extra players for strategic purposes is covered under the subsets of rules for too many men on the ice. Rule 74.4 is a relic of older rule books.
The history behind this rule dates back before the original expansion of the NHL from six to 12 teams. With an existing 5-on-3 against his team late in a game, a coach deliberately kept sending a fourth penalty killer on the ice immediately after faceoffs. Even if a penalty had been called, it would not affect the manpower on the ice for the rest of the game. Thus a rule was added to award a penalty shot against the offending team.
Another old-school alteration of the too-many-men rules -- the wording for not penalizing a team when the player going off or his substitute coming onto the ice cannot avoid being struck by the puck -- came about because of a strategy that had been introduced by Punch Imlach. Punch used to order his Maple Leafs players to deliberately send the puck into the skates of opposing players on sloppy line changes.
I have been asked many times by people what the differences are between "too many men", "illegal substitutions" and "premature substitutions".
The easiest answer to this question is that too many men on the ice is one type of illegal substitution, and the most common category, but it is not the only one.
For example, there have been instances where a substitute player is sent onto the ice to try to stop a breakaway on the goaltender (the rule is to award a penalty shot) or prevent an impending empty net goal (award a goal). There have also been past instances where a player has attempted to enter the ice from the penalty box before the expiration of his penalty or when a substitute player comes out from the bench too soon after a teammate exits the box and before he reaches the bench.
The premature substitution rule covers the specific situation of a goalie skating to bench for an extra attacker and a teammate entering the ice before the goalie is within the allowed five-foot area of the bench. This is NOT a penalty, but play must be halted.
Under the current NHL rules, the ensuing faceoff after a premature substitution is to take place at center ice when play is stopped beyond the red line. When play is stopped prior to the puck reaching the red line, the faceoff is dropped at the nearest faceoff dot within the zone where play was halted.
Rule 71 does not cover the handling of what to do in a situation where a goalie goes to the bench for an extra attacker and then tries to return to his position on the fly. Rather, this protocol is covered under the too-many-men rule.
For instance, Rule 71.4 states that "Once the goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker in overtime during the regular season, he must wait for the next stoppage of play before returning to his position." Otherwise a bench minor must be assessed.
Get the picture? We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. But what needs to be done is to take all of these overlapping rules and addendums to the protocols and streamline them into something more systematic and coherent.
************
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 an officiating and league discipline consultant 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:
»