Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Here we go again. Without exception, the most important and controversial calls in hockey are plays around the net involving goal/ no goal rulings. One of the most difficult rulings to make falls under rule 69.6 in the current National Hockey League Rule Book:
"In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed. If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the goal can be permitted."
Determining incidental contact on a play is strictly a personal judgment call by the on-ice official making the decision: intrinsically not all that different than someone tasting a spoonful of soup and deciding whether its too salty or just right.
Ah, but positioning sells calls, folks. If an official has an optimal angle to see the play unfold around the net, you can agree or disagree all you want on whether the soup was too salty (i.e., was the attacker pushed into the netminder and unable to avoid contact, was it incidental contact sufficient to disallow the goal, should there have been a penalty, etc). Ultimately, there is just one person's who judgment matters and should matter.
Problems arise when the official does not have a good angle on the play. The NHL will never listen to me about this -- or probably any other issue for which I beat the drum -- but they keep wondering why there are so many questionable calls on plays around the net. I will say it again: it's because referees are coached to stay in the corners rather than getting to the net.
The situation that arose in the Philadelphia-Calgary game on Tuesday was a perfect example of why the NHL really ought to rethink plays around the net. I don't care that the play was deemed no-goal due to incidental contact and the Situation Room in Toronto said it was not a reviewable play (although I had thought they were supposed to now have a broad array of discretion in reviewing plays as "good hockey goals" but, then again, I am not a fan of how they operate their video review system in general).
What I do find annoying is that the NHL once again put itself in a situation to fail. The R1 -- action ref in the Calgary zone -- is way off in the corner with bodies piling into the crease and could not have had a definitive look at what unfolded.
It's tough to tell in the video, but the initial ruling on the ice by the R1 appears to be a good-goal ruling (the R1 seems to point to the net). Thereafter, all four officials huddled to discuss the play. No problem with that at all, under these conditions. The officiating team elected to disallow the goal due to incidental contact and then spoke with the Situation Room in Toronto, who said it was not a reviewable play.
Personally, I think this is exactly the sort of play for which video review ought to be merited. I would like to see the ON-ICE OFFICIALS be directly involved in the decision of watching the replay and making a ruling -- rather than a group of unnamed people hundreds of miles away -- but the NHL has chosen its own system and is sticking with it.
Ultimately, I am not interested in whether the on-ice officials decided the soup was too salty or just right on this particular play. Debate to your heart's content on whether the Philadelphia player was pushed or initiated incidental contact. I will not participate in that discussion.
I do care that the NHL deliberately takes its ref out of position to make the most important calls of the game -- in this instance, involving a potential tying goal in the third period of a game with possible playoff implications for both teams -- and then defends its positional coaching and the video review system in place as the way to go to get correct calls made consistently and efficiently.
I do not criticize the NHL's handling of officiating because I have some grudge against the League. I criticize because I care and because I strongly believe there is a better and more logical way to do things which would contribute to being able to justify calls based on having the best possible positioning to make the initial ruling and a more coherent system for subsequent reviews
when necessary.
************
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:
»