Stifling the Standstill Stalemate

By now, we all know what happened—or, moreso, what didn’t happen—in the game between the Tampa Bay Lighting and Philadelphia Flyers on Nov. 9th. Debate now percolates over what, if anything, should and can be done about standstill hockey.

While I respect those who maintain that the League can’t legislate against a team’s chosen coaching style, I steadfastly oppose the ultra-passive 1-3-1 alignment employed by the Lightning that evening. By the time of the Lockout of 2004-05, virtually the entire hockey world (except, of course, Jacques Lemaire) bemoaned the employment of the Neutral Zone Trap choking the flow and excitement from the game. As the League re-started, stricter guidelines and rules were enacted to defeat that very thing. Those who would defend its use now either suffer from short memories, or simple, pure hypocrisy.

The standstill in the Nov. 9th contest can’t be laid solely at the stationary feet of the Tampa Bay players and coach; Philadelphia chose to respond in kind, thus rendering highlight video meaningless, since it looked no different than a still photo of the game “action”.

Now, I’m one who prefers to avoid knee-jerk proclamations of doom-and-gloom, however, in this case, the potential for far-reaching effects should be noted. Endorsement of this sort of ultra-passive system in one or two instances could very well be the first step on a slippery slope leading back into the long-lamented, much-maligned “trap”. The call has gone out—rightly so, in my estimation—from many corners of the hockey world for “something” to be done about all this. As with any grey area, it is difficult to locate where to start.

For good or bad, and in hopes of facilitating and instigating discussion and refinement toward a solution, I offer the following framework:

There is no need to entertain NBA concepts like the shot clock or “illegal defense”. The NHL rulebook currently empowers officials to penalize players or coaches who purposely delay and/or hinder play. Two such existing applications of this discretion form the basis for the theory presented below. Each of these elements contributed, at least in essence, to the stalemate in question. They are:

• A player refuses to allow the puck to be put in play (e.g., by holding it in his hand or by shooting it over the glass)
• A coach, in protest of perceived officiating error(s), instructs his players to linger in the bench area, rather than line up for a face-off in a timely manner

Addressing the standstill issue simply requires a novel application of the theory and practice used in cases like those.

For this framework to take hold, both teams would need to employ stall tactics. If one team chooses not to, the game goes on as usual. However, if/when there is a repeat of dual delay:

Breakdown: Each team is punished, but equally and at a low level.

Breakdown: The cost goes up a bit, in that the coach cannot pick players to serve the minors. Using the TB/PHI example: If the lead defender is top-scorer Steven Stamkos and the defenseman is sixth-man Andreas Lilja; Tampa has incentive not to sit back (just as Philly would more likely attack if it were, say, Dominic Moore for TB and Chris Pronger for PHI).

*In a case where the defense passes the puck back and forth, the officials determine which player receives the penalty–could be as simple as who has the puck when the whistle is blown (a la “hot potato”), or the referees’ discretion could determine which player was more deserving of the delay call.

Breakdown: The stakes go up yet again. The addition of the 10-minute misconducts should lessen any consideration of using the double-minors to take a specific opposition player off the ice. Further, the coach is now taken to task as the architect of the strategy.

Breakdown: Enough is enough. Players will now be ejected, and those ejections will count toward supplemental discipline for multiple ejections, as any other would. Also at this level, there could be consideration toward fining the coaches/teams.

Again, this is offered as a framework for establishment of a standard of enforcement relating to blatant stall tactics. At each step, additional consequences drive the price of non-compliance steeper and steeper. However, as long as one of the teams refuses to resort to a standstill strategy, none of this would apply.

Now, a parade to the penalty box (and, if necessary, the locker room) ruins the flow of the game, as well. To that concern, I refer you to the initial Obstruction crackdown following the Lockout—player adjusted. The adjustment period to this system would be significantly quicker, since the offense is obvious and far less open to differences in interpretation on the part of the officials.

In fact, I’d say that the way to adjust to the above is to just go ahead and play the damn game, which is all we’re asking in the first place.