Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
I will be the first to tell you that the Rule Book contains many elements that seem contradictory.
For example, there are three different definitions of a high stick. It all depends on the situation.
In terms of whether a puck is legally batted into the net on a would-be goal, the standard is the height of the crossbar and it depends on where the stick makes contact with the puck (Rule 60.5). In terms of determining whether there should be a stoppage and a faceoff for an airborne puck being played by a high stick and retained by the offending team, the standard is the height of the shoulders of the player who played the puck (Rule 80.1). Lastly, in terms of whether a high-sticking penalty is to be called, the standard is the height of the shoulders of the opposing player who is struck by the offending player's stick (Rule 60.1)
Meanwhile, there are two entirely different "breaking the plane" standards for determining whether a goal has been scored and if a rush is onside or offside.
For goal/no goal situations, the plane extends upward. For example, if a goalie snares a puck out of the air with his glove but the puck is over the goal line before the glove brings it back, it's a good goal. For an onside, any portion of one of the attacking player's skate MUST be touching the blueline as it comes into the zone. One skate hovering over the blueline is offside if the other skate is beyond it.
I've been asked this question by several HockeyBuzz readers: Since I have gone on record as disliking coach's challenges for a skate that may or may not be a fraction of an inch offside -- I fully approve of the new delay of game penalty that discourages challenges on the splitting-hairs plays, as this is NOT the spirit of the offside rule's existence -- am I also in favor of having a rule that a skate over the blueline is onside?
The answer is no, I'm not in favor of changing the offside rule itself. There would be some unintended consequences if we extended onside plays along an aerial plane.
First of all, an all new type of argument would ensue. We'd be in for debates about the actual position of aerial skates relative to the blueline and the position of the puck. Secondly, we'd see some rather unique and potentially dangerous contortions from skaters trying to jump to get/stay onside.
Strategically, defenders would no longer just have defend the blueline itself. They'd also have to come up with an aerial defense a la the disputes over crossing the 38th parallel. Who owns the "air rights" to the blueline. Meanwhile, the dueling feet with a skate in the air (since it would be onside to hover it) could increase the risk of additional skate-cut accidents.
Bottom line: when you consider a rule change, don't just ask why it should be altered. One also has to ask "why not?" and look at the potential drawbacks. Personally, I don't feel it would be a positive change for the sport if we altered the offside standard.
*********
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.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»