Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

In the final two minute of the third period of Game One of the Stanley Cup Finals between the New York Rangers and Los Angeles Kings, there were a couple of controversial plays. First, there was a slashing-the-stick penalty on New York's Brian Boyle with the score tied at 2-2 and 1:36 remaining in regulation. With about 20 seconds left in the third period, there was a potential too many men on the ice penalty on Los Angeles that went uncalled.

Let's talk about each play and the bigger picture.

Slashing the stick

Boyle's chop on Dwight King's stick was not particularly forceful, but the opposing player's stick broke. Contrary to what some have said, this is NOT an automatic penalty.

Even though the stick broke, 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).

This is also reliant on the skating and 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 over here 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 couple of years in general, but especially this season. 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.

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.

Back in December, I wrote a lengthy blog about the negative consequences that arise from too-frequent misapplication of slashing the stick penalties. 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.

Too many men on the ice

The rules allow a buffer of five feet from the bench on line changes. Generally, it is a linesman who
spots too many men infractions and makes the call.

As a rule of thumb, I am no fan of this as a penalty in most situations. Did the offending team gain an unfair advantage? If not, I'm not in favor of calling a penalty despite what the letter of the rule says. This is yet another rule that should be re-considered by the NHL.

In this case, Drew Doughty's skates were on the ice while Slava Voynov played the puck well outside the five-foot zone. However, Doughty was about to climb over the boards. There was no actual advantage gained by Los Angeles. Technically, it was a missed call under Rule 74.1 but it was a good non-call in my mind.

I can already hear people saying, "But, Stewy, wasn't this a perfect opportunity for a make-up call? One ticky-tack 'automatic' penalty could have been canceled out by another, and the teams would have skated four-on-four."

I'm not a fan of make-up calls. Two wrongs don't make a right. Beyond that, I don't think EITHER play should have been a one-size-fits-all "automatic" penalty.

At any rate, chintzy too many men penalties are far from unique to the NHL or North American hockey in general. They also pop up too often in European and international hockey. I will share with you a proposal I presented in Russia this year.

I would like to see a line added to the ice markings and placed five feet (or, under Russian rules, two meters) from the bench areas. If the sixth player is entering or retreating to the bench and he is inside the box, there would be no call. If the sixth player steps out of the safety of the box to enter play and is now more than five feet out with six players outside the area excluding the goalie, then the call would be too many men.

This would gives the linesmen a clear and definite visual and verbal description of what should be called and eliminates the vaguely worded aspects of the rule: If there are six men outside the box, it's a penalty. If the sixth enters play but another player steps into the safety box, no penalty.

In the KHL arenas that I have been able to inspect, I have found that what may be thought of as a luxury actually is a major contributing factor to the Too Many Men situations including the one that recently flew across the airways in the KHL.

The standard length of NHL and most North American rink bench areas has the coach standing behind the players at about 2 feet. The length of the bench with a door at either end is 24 feet. Usually,the trainer and the equipment men handle the doors. The coaches stand at the ends for D and for Forwards with the head coach pacing between them.

Players going on the ice jump over the dasher, players coming back to the bench usually go through he two doors. The D sits at the end closest to their goalie. The Forwards sit closer to the end that they are attacking.

These players are so jumpy, and they don't pay attention. They jump up and down, blocking the coaches view of the ice and the number of players who are going on and coming off the ice.

For the on-ice officials, the linesmen and referees who must weave their way on the ice through the bench areas that combined measure nearly the half length of the one side of the rink, it become a challenge to not get knocked about by players who never seem to see us.

To be able to track players, watch the puck, call their lines or get to the end zone or up to the red line becomes a nightmare.

The solution for the officials is that the linesman on the opposite side of the benches must be the responsible party to keep track of the numbers of players on the ice. If the Referee is on the bench side,he is likely not getting a good view. The deep referee is concentrating on end zone play and action around the net and the crease,he won't be much help as the benches are 60 feet away and out of his area of action and concentration.

There MUST be a more realistic approach as to what is too many men. If the extra player gets a chance to take the puck and go while the player he is replacing is well over the line, then make the call. If the extra man stops a break by the opponent who has a chance to move with the puck that too should be a penalty.

The only aspect that we in officiating must strongly instruct is that the linesman on the side opposite the benches or the back referee must quickly count the players on the ice almost as often as they take a breath. It should become a sixth sense for the officials to make the count by a quick perusal.

*********

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.

In addition to his blogs for HockeyBuzz every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, Stewart writes a column every Wednesday for the Huffington Post.