Paul Stewart: The Stew: Don't Lose Your Head

Paul, although I agree with your article and the points you make I have a question. You have been on both sides. Is it easy to keep in mind the intricacies of the rule book while you are 'in the battle", especially late in a game 7 in the playoffs and other critical moments? I know that teams spend time in practice learning the rule book and its implications on the ice but it seems like the more complex and large it gets the harder it might be for players to follow perfectly. Don't get me wrong - Petterson had a mental lapse here (one of many for him and the other Pens' defensemen, which is very frustrating from a fan's perspective). Still, I think the rules here are not as simple and straightforward as they should be.

Crosby and Sullivan may be wrong but I think they are calling attention to the unfairness of this rule and how it can be exploited. Since calling the roughing penalty for ripping off a helmet is a judgement call that is not called all of the time, when it is not called, it gives the offending team a brief de facto 5 on 4 advantage because the helmetless player must either leave the ice or take his eyes off the play to find and put his helmet back on (when he does not have the puck). The helmet could have easily been kicked or otherwise slid 15ft down the ice in a direction he does not want to go.

As far as I am concerned there are only two fair approaches here:
1. Allow the helmetless player to play without a helmet until the next whistle, relying on his discretion for either putting the helmet back on or getting of the ice (but not requiring it).
2. Blow the play dead immediately and have the faceoff in the zone of the team whose helmet was ripped off.

My guess is that players would prefer #1. It is simple, easy to follow, and fair.

Paul,
Separate topic altogether.

I would be interested if you would write a column on what the referees typically discuss during the game intermissions. For example,

o Do they discuss blown calls?
o Do they discuss "skinny" calls?
o Do they discuss reviewed/overturned calls?
o Do they discuss their position on the ice during critical moments, or where they were looking at critical moments?
o Do they discuss observations on team tendencies like holding, grabbing, etc.?
o Do they agree to watch closer for anything?
o Do they discuss the chirping and rancor between teams, particularly after play ends?
o Do they hold each other accountable in any way or question the others' calls or actions?
o Since they're supposed to function as a team, do they discuss how to improve their teamwork or coverage?
o Do they ignore the game and talk about other stuff, like plans after the game, families, etc.?

Thanks