Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

I see that the NHL's Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations claims he is going to fine divers, their coaches and their teams with the full backing of NHL general managers. Color me impressed.

Let's slap a fresh bandaid on a hemorrhage. Actually, let's not even do that. Let's just pay public relations lip service to putting a bandaid on the hemorrhage with no intention of even reaching for the box of bandages.

Hey, Soupy, what happened to that "diver list" idea? Was there ever a list created? Was there a penny of "diving fines" imposed? Not that anyone knows about, at least.

What happened to the protocols of Rule 64.3, which call for the NHL to warn, fine and then suspend divers/embellishers for their first, second and third offenses? I will tell you what happened. They never get enforced.

So now the Competition Committee and the NHL GMS have voted to SOFTEN Rule 64.3 by replacing the potential for suspension with the potential for an escalating fine. Notice I said "potential" because the mechanism by which it would be enforced is as clear as Campell's Cream of Mud soup.

According to Colin Campbell's statement on NHL.com, "embellishment plays would be reviewed in the Situation Room in Toronto for supplemental discipline. A player would be subject to a warning or fines for embellishment regardless of whether he was issued a minor penalty on the ice."

Oh, really? The nameless, faceless TV-watching crew in Toronto will take secretive breaks between wolfing down their wanton soup and kung pao chicken and reviewing disputed would-be goals to watch potential instances of diving to write in their Diving Diary and then issue fines.

Yeah, I'm quite sure that will be a big deterrent. I am even more sure that Rule 64.3 will continue to go blissfully unenforced even in its weakened form.

You want a more effective and harder-hitting way of dealing with diving? I recently proposed one that has actual transparency and is enforceable. Of course, in order to enforce it, the Hockey Operations department would have to actually support its on-ice officials. So, on second thought, that might not work under the current Hockey Operations regime either.

Now let's look at a couple of the other proposals that the NHL's Axiom to the Peter Principle ("some people rise BEYOND their highest level of incompetence") is trying to push through:

Widening the trapezoid from 18 feet to 22 feet. The trapezoid was a bad idea to increase scoring chances by giving forecheckers more chance to get to the puck. It hasn't worked, even in tandem with rules to prevent defenders from holding up forecheckers.

Just eliminate the damn rule and let goalies go back to playing the puck as they can. In many cases, it results in turnovers and the goalie being caught out of position. As for the goalies who are exceptionally good puckhandlers, shouldn't they be able to use their skills to the maximum? I thought showcasing the skills of our players was a good thing. Silly me.

Fact: There are far more too many men on the ice penalties than ones for goalies playing the puck outside the trapezoid. But instead of tackling the more pressing issue -- I proposed a practical plan for structuring and enforcing the too many men penalty -- the Competition Committee decides to tinker with a rule that is less likely to pop up and which is best served to be eliminated altogether.

Only one player is eligible to take a faceoff after an icing, and that a second faceoff violation by that player would result in a two-minute bench minor penalty for delay of game (Rule 76.6). I get that the League wants to discourage the team that ices the puck from committing a deliberate faceoff violation to give their troops an extra couple seconds of rest as someone else moves in to take the draw and everyone gets re-set.

Is this the way to do it? I would say not.

Basically, you are giving the team a freebie faceoff violation without getting its center tossed from the circle. There is still a brief delay to get re-set AND the team doesn't even lose its draw man. Exactly how is that a deterrent? Which is more important to a coach: having his faceoff man of choice get two chances at taking a defensive zone draw or gaining an extra two seconds?

I am fine with the proposal of widening the hash marks a bit in the circles. I am also fine with teams switching sides between the end of the third period and overtime in order to create a longer line change and slightly increase the chance of the game ending in OT rather than a shootout.

I will deal with the "Coach's Challenge" idea in an upcoming blog. I have plenty to say about that.

*********

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.