The rules related to high-sticking in the NHL Rulebook are some of the more interesting ones in the book. Depending on the situation, different levels of stick elevation are classified as a high stick.
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). For purposes of today's blog, Rules 60.1 to 60.4 is the category of "high stick" I will discuss. I will touch on the other types in a future piece.
First of all, the rule refers to normal height where the fouled player's shoulders are when the shoulders aren't being shrugged upwards and when he is upright and not stooped over at the time. That should be a self-explanatory definition, but I have heard hometown announcers -- and coaches -- "cleverly" try to argue the semantics of it.
Secondly, there is one exception to Rule 60.1: it is NOT supposed to be a penalty if a player is in a normal wind-up or the follow through of a shooting motion when he accidentally strikes and opponent above the shoulders. Even if this action ends up inflicting injury on the recipient, it is not a penalty.
Note, however, that this exception does NOT include wild or reckless swings at loose pucks in which an opposing player accidentally gets struck by the stick. That falls in the same larger realm of high sticking penalties where the offending player is responsible for a careless and dangerous use of the stick, even if it was accidental.
Now we get into where some actual judgment ought to be applied by the referee but too frequently there are cookie-cutter rulings made: Should the penalty be a minor (Rule 60.2), a double minor (Rule 60.3), or a five-minute match penalty (Rule 60.4) with an automatic review by the League?
Back in the early 1990s, there was a brief trend toward five-minute penalties and player expulsions whenever blood got drawn by a high stick. Over the last 18 years or so, however, the four-minute penalty has become almost obligatory.
My take: Using the "blood standard" results in some bad calls being made. I've seen very reckless high sticks get only the two-minute minor because there was no blood. Meanwhile, in the same game, there was a four-minute penalty because of a slight trickle of blood from a less egregious high stick (example: the player was trying to lift the opponent's stick off the puck and accidentally crawled up and glancingly nicked the other guy on the chin).
Rule 60.2 says it should be a double-minor when an "injury" results, regardless of whether it is an accidental or careless high stick. I am fine with the wording of it, but not the application.
The referee should use his judgment here. Was there an actual injury?
The cookie-cutter use of Rule 60.2 causes some fouled players to TRY to bleed to get a lengthier power play for their teams. I've seen players dig their fingernails into their own skin and bite their own lip on purpose to produce "blood evidence." I once even saw Claude Lemieux pop a pimple on his face and try to argue that the resulting speck of blood was from getting highsticked.
By the way, there is no truth to the urban legend that Ray Bourque used to carry a fake blood capsule to bite down on in the event he got high sticked. I would not have totally put it past good ole Claude the Fraud and a few other guys to try that extreme of a stunt, however.
Another thought: As both a player and referee, I thought that stickwork was far worse for the game than fighting. There's never been any shortage of crusaders to abolish fighting, yet they are short on suggestions for what to do about players who deliberately use their stick as a weapon.
I do not believe in referees showing any mercy to players who "accidentally on purpose" carve up opponents with their stick. If your gut tells you it was intentional, dump the S.O.B. from the game.
During my own playing days, the worst stickwork offender in the game was Boston Bruins forward Bobby Schmautz. Teammate Wayne Cashman was pretty bad, too, but no one was more ruthless than Schmautz when it came to intentionally inflicting injury.
I need to be completely honest here: Schmautz was someone I have zero respect for and wish he had gotten his comeuppance. I nearly lost my eye to a deliberate high stick from him one night. I was far from his only victim.
As a matter of fact, one of my few regrets from my career is that I once had a wide-open opportunity to pay Schmautz back and injure him, and I didn't do it. He really didn't deserve anyone to take the high road with him, because he never did it in return for anyone else. He could not have cared less for other players' safety, nor did he feel an ounce of regret after injuring someone. It wasn't a heat of the moment thing. It was calculated.
During my refereeing career, I knew whenever I worked an Edmonton Oilers game that I had to keep a close eye on Glenn Anderson. He was a master at making deliberate high sticks try to look accidental, especially as he was getting knocked to the ice on a check.
In many cases, it is the smallest players on the ice who use their sticks as an "equalizer", whether it is via slashing, high sticking or even spearing or butt-ending. I understand that it can be a matter of survival for these guys, because they get pummeled out there and need to find a way to throw some fear and hesitation into opponents.
I understand it, but I don't condone it.
In recent times, Daniel Briere -- who, off the ice, is by far one of the game's nicest people -- has earned several well-deserved suspensions for the way he uses his stick. Otherwise, he is an inviting target for physical abuse.
As an enforcer, it was my job to protect small, skill players like Robbie Ftorek from being pushed around and bullied. People say there's no place in the game for the policeman types, but there are still liberties being taken out on the ice and deliberate stickwork -- whether retaliatory or not -- is not an appropriate response.
Despite protests to the contrary, Marty McSorley's infamous stick chop to the head of rival enforcer Donald Brashear was not McSorley's only incident of that nature during his career. It was the most extreme case, but Marty was not always above getting a guy with the stick if he couldn't get him in a fight.
As far as players policing themselves goes, I realize that a bit of fear can be a healthy thing. Beyond that, however, nothing goes further toward making the game safer than showing mutual respect.
************
Recent Blogs by Paul Stewart
Hockey Barns and Broken Zambonis
Stick Slashes, Butterfingers and Gordie Tattoos
A Slap Shot Story: My Day as a Long Island Duck
Officiating Without Fear
Referees and Maitre D's
Accountability, Acceptability, and Reputation Penalties
************
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 only 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:
»