Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
A couple of HockeyBuzz readers messaged me yesterday to tell me that my two-part "You Make the Call" blog last week predicted the same exact disallowed goal controversy that would arise in Game 3 of the Tampa Bay versus Montreal playoff series. In reality, it doesn't take a latter-day Nostradamus to predict there will be controversy in the playoffs over incidental contact around the net and a subsequent goal/no goal ruling.
Much like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, these sorts of plays happen and get magnified every spring. That was why I picked that particular topic as the playoffs got started.
Yesterday's no-goal ruling was similar to the ninth scenario that I described in last week's
"Wait, So Why Was that Goal Disallowed?" blog: goaltender Carey Price initiated the contact inside his crease, the attacker vacated the crease and a would-be goal was scored a split second later.
The
rulebook direction (referencing Table 18, Example 6C under Rule 69, which covers potential goaltender interference situations) is to disallow a goal of this nature on the basis of goaltender interference even if the goaltender initiates the contact in trying to move across his crease and even if the forward immediately vacates the crease. The earlier incidental contact with play continuing before the goal was scored is also covered within the NHL's table of examples.
Do I like the rule the way it's written? No, I don't. It's poorly written and has all sorts of confusing permutations -- and further sub-permutations of those permutations.
I understand why it exists. It is designed to preserve the sanctity of the crease for the goaltender, affording him more protection and ensuring unhindered access to move in his crease.
That's all well and good. However, in a situation where Price seems to be deliberately exploiting a rule designed for his protection and also had plenty of chance to make a save, it feels like an injustice to reward him and his team by disallowing a goal.
Listen, you can hate the rule all you want. Blame the NHL rule makers. I don't think it is fair to blame the on-ice officials for essentially following what they've been instructed and coached to do.
When I was a referee, I went by feel for the game situation as well as the (poorly written) rulebook. My supervisors hated that, but situations like yesterday's show why I worked that way.
First, let's watch the video of the entire sequence. Afterwards, I will break the plays down with my own interpretation of how I would have called the sequence if I were on the ice.
There is a whole lot going on around the net here throughout the entire sequence. Here is what I see:
1) 1st play, the Tampa player goes to the net with the puck. There's no charge and no penalty here. Play continues.
2) P.K. Subban obstructs the attacker from getting out of the net.
3) Price goes to the far side and bumps the back of the attacking player.
4) The puck goes over to the other point and Price slides across.
5) Price hooks the puck into his own net with no one having touched him.
According to the book, if the action referee was going to disallow the goal, he should have done it either a) because he saw a penalty or b) because of the incidental contact.
The official opted for B, which can be justified under the rule described above. Nevertheless, there is still something missing here. The goalie
recovered . Price recovered from the initial contact and had every chance to regain his position unopposed. This to me is the "out" by which a good goal call can be justified.
If I were the on-ice referee and got questioned about allowing the goal, I would say that the incidental contact was well before the puck went in and the goal was scored after the goalie had a reasonable chance to recover. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Well, this looks like a good goal.
Regular readers of my blog know I believe many of the problems that people commonly blame on the on-ice officials are actually the result of poor coaching. If I were supervising and coaching the referee here, my feedback would be as follows.
1. Positioning sells calls and your positioning here was far from ideal. You were too far back in the corner and not close to the net. From about 25 feet away, you've hurt your chance to really see all of the plays. Also, you should angle to the pipe as you come into the end zone. I go back to the first NHL game I worked, where I incorrectly disallowed a goal where my positioning could have been a little better and I was too hasty in my ruling.
2. On the first play, the Tampa player has the puck and nicks the foot of the goalie as he tries to score. This is all legal, so it was correct to let play continue. The attacker falls into the crease and doesn't charge the goalie or interfere. As he tries to get out, he gets obstructed by the defender and then the goalie bumps him.
3. Use some patience on the call. Take a moment to process what you saw. Was Price actually impeded? Stand up straight and blow the whistle. Throw your hands straight up and then relax. Skate away and take some time to confer with your partner, then go to the phone. Take your time, and get it right.
4. You skated to the Tampa bench by yourself. That's a no-no under the protocol, and you made things even tougher on yourself.
There are only three signals at the net; three actions that the ref can make. Option number one is to point at the net if it's a goal. If it's no goal, put your hands across chest and make a no-goal wave-off. The final possibility is to place your hands over head to signify "It's a dead play and now we'll confer."
This was only the second playoff game for referee Francis Charron and his knees were probably knocking. Whose wouldn't? I feel for him because I know how hard it is out there.
Lastly, although it shouldn't matter, some stooges have already brought up that Charron is a French-Canadian and it's a Montreal game. That had NOTHING to do with his call. He is a young official trying hard to do his job. He doesn't deserve to have his integrity questioned.
*********
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. 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.
Stewart is currently working with a co-author on an autobiography.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»