There have been a few incidents during the new preseason that unfortunately warranted Brendan Shanahan, the new NHL Disciplinarian to hand out a pair of suspensions. What was different with these cases, is that Brendan Shanahan took the opportunity to create a video, posted on NHL.com to show and explain what occurred, as well as review the rules, and his logic and reasoning for the suspension and its terms. This is a refreshing change from the past where Colin Campbell seemed to hand out suspensions and discipline in a questionable manner.

Campbell in the past nor Shanahan now have a job to be relished. It is not easy. But it seemed that Campbell was pleased to remain very “old fashioned” in his approach, and lacked either the will or desire to explain a clear cut method for his decisions. This new approach conducted by Shanahan affords the fan some insight into the decision-making process and why a suspension is warranted.

There is also a little more of the “humiliation” factor in these “penalty box chats” to echo FDRs old “Fireside Chats” from the 30s and 40s. By showing the fans in video review, mentioning the players name, it has to be a little mortifying to see yourself, and know everyone else is seeing you commit the “crime.” It has a courtroom feel to it, and I support it.

There must be justification for a suspension and seeing the incident happen in video, and explaining clearly and calmly the decision creates more communication and understand for the NHL to its fans. It also sends a very clear message to the players that they expect the players to do a better job at minding each others well-being on the ice while in the heat of a competition.

This is a physical game, and a fast game. There is no doubt that accidents happen, and people will get hurt. But the league should be open to all methods to police the game, and do what ever possible to protect its players.

This new method might be a result of the season most likely starting without one of its premier stars, Sidney Crosby. As an Islander fan, I am no fan of the Penguins, or even Crosby, but his skill and talent cannot be denied, and for those of us who long for better coverage of the game we have a passion for in the USA, having a player like Crosby on the shelf won’t help.

What ever the reason for the new video approach, I am sincerely hopeful that Mr. Shanahan continues his video presentation if/when any incident should occur. The fans deserve the respect of the explanation, and the game we love deserve the clear and concise approach taken by Shanahan.

You can view both videos at NHL.com.

Disgusting

I was quite angered and saddened when I read about the incident that happened Thursday evening in London Ont. Afro Americans are key and important contributors to society at large — whether they play sports like Hockey, or are President of the United States. It is disgusting to see that there are people — too many people — still holding onto racist feelings and thoughts. It is horrible to think that society as a whole some how has breed this kind of mental moron. Hate begets hate, and when you hate, the only one that likely knows about it, is you. That is, unless your hatred manifests in something silly, stupid, violent or all of the above.

My heart and soul goes out to Wayne Simmonds for the atrocity he endured. There is no place for that kind of thinking in the NHL, anywhere else in hockey, or in this world. We are all human. We all bleed the same blood when we are cut, and it hurts just as much for any of us.

I hope that all NHL players, and those of us who cherish the game stand up to this kind of foul behavior. It has no place here.

Examining Further Nashville Trade Rumors

Last night was the second game of the scheduled three games in which Montreal plans to scout the Nashville Predators.  The rumors have seemed to surround J.P. Dumont and/or Steve Sullivan for Nashville with Sergei Kostitsyn’s brother Andrei being the player rumored to be coming back.

While injuries to Marcel Goc and Steve Sullivan last night might have put a damper on those trade attempts, did they make sense in the first place?

J.P. Dumont’s ice time has certainly decreased to the point that a change of scenery might do him some good.  While Dirk has pointed out that he still plays a significant role on the power play, the fact that Nashville’s power play just isn’t that good seems to indicate that a change there might not be a bad idea too.

Steve Sullivan certainly gets the ice time when he’s healthy.  He also is still contributing points, even if he appears to be snake-bitten in regards to his ability to finish off a breakaway.  While Sullivan brings more positives to the ice lately than Dumont, he also is becoming less of a fit for how Nashville is heading.  When you look at Nashville’s forwards, every one of them plays a gritty two-way game with speed that allows for a puck possession strategy with the occasional rush- except for Steve Sullivan and Cal O’Reilly (who’s injured).  Sullivan’s propensity to be easily knocked off the puck and to turn the puck over has made him a less than ideal fit for Nashville’s current style.

So, from a personnel standpoint, both Dumont and Sullivan might make sense moving either.  However, there are complicating factors.  Both have no trade/movement clauses in their contracts.  Both appear to love the area (as do their families) and intend to make Nashville their home after retiring (which might be after their current contracts).  On top of that, Dumont still has another year at $4 million.

Given all that, it would appear unlikely either are traded.  Maybe Sullivan might consider a trade to another contending team where he might fit even better since it would only be for a few months.  I doubt either will be moved though.

Around the NHL

Penguins vs. Islanders Aftermath- Should Fighting Exist in Hockey?

(Edit: Mark presents his excellent take on the issue as well.)

A lot of discussion has taken place in the hockey world among the media and the fans (here, here, and here) regarding fighting in the aftermath of the Penguins and Islanders “tilt” that resulted in multiple suspensions and one team being fined $100,000.  Much of that discussion has attempted to focus on the question of whether fighting should exist in the game at all.  Those that favor a ban on fighting have also brought a new weapon to the table- the “concussion prevention/headshot” angle.

There have even been rumblings from the League at times to come up with ways of eliminating “staged” fights and the ever-increasing number of fights after legitimately clean hits.  While rarely called, the League does have the instigator penalty.  Fights occurring in the last five minutes of a game also generate an “automatic review” by the League office and could result in a suspension for the instigator and a hefty fine for the coach.  Clearly, the League sees fighting as part of the sport but do have measures in place in an attempt to control their frequency and circumstances.  And, while fighting is definitely a part of hockey, when the games mean something (like the playoffs or international tournaments) fighting goes way down.

Many people think (if the linked threads above are any indication) that fighting makes hockey unique among the major team sports.  In some ways it does, but now in how most think.  Hockey is not unique in that fighting occurs.  All of the major sports have fighting incidents.  This past year saw a fight during the Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans NFL game between the Titans’ Cortland Finnegan (think Jordin Tootoo) and the Texans’ Andre Johnson.  The NFL sees a lot of pushing and shoving.  MLB and NBA fights are not unheard of, nor are the occasional driver fights in NASCAR.  Where hockey is unique is that the vast majority of fights have no bearing on the outcome of the game and fall within that area in which the League has shown a desire (at times, albeit half-heartedly) to eliminate.

If the League were to show a better desire to rid the game of these incidents, what could be done to assist in that.

First and foremost, Stu Hackel summed it up very well in that much stiffer punishments should be handed down by the League.

Secondly, I’d modify the rulebook to be more stringent against fights without fully removing them from the game.

• Modify Rule 47.14 to change the standard type of penalty for fighting from a Major to a Misconduct. This would effectively remove the participants from the ice for 10 minutes as opposed to just the five minutes today.  In and of itself, it also removes any short-handed time.
• Add Rule 47.23 – Delay of Game Minor – Both participants will be assessed a Coincidental Delay of Game Minor penalty in addition to the standard Game Misconduct.  If an Instigator penalty has been assessed as well, it will be served after the Delay of Game has been served.  In that event, the Instigating team will appoint a player to serve the Delay of Game penalty along with the actual offending player. This penalty, in addition to Rule 47.11 (Instigator) ensures that all fights will result in one or both teams being further penalized with minors.  This should result in 4-4 or 4-3 play.  The problem with the way it is today is that there’s really no punishment when there’s coincidental majors beyond two (likely) “goons” off the ice for 5 minutes.  Their shifts are so far apart anyway so as to make the 5 minutes moot.  With this minor, specials teams play now plays a role- guaranteed.
• Highlight and Increase Enforcement of Rule 47.2 – Aggressor – Not much to add here.
• Modify Rule 47.17 – Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor – The rule in its current state is pretty useless.  I’d modify the rule to hand out the following fines and suspensions automatically that would not be included in the deliberations of additional supplemental discipline:
  • First offense: $10,000 fine and 1-game suspension
  • Second Offense: $25,000 fine and 5-game suspension
  • Third Offense: $75,000 fine and 25-game suspension to player, $50,000 fine to the head coach, and $250,000 fine to team
  • Fourth Offense: $150,000 fine and 82-game (or year-long) suspension to player, $100,000 fine and 10-game suspension to the head coach, and $500,000 fine to the team
  • Highlight and Increase Enforcement of Rule 47.11 – Instigator – Not much to add here.  It’s not called nearly as often as it should be.  I’m specifically referring to the those fights that happen following a hit deemed to be “clean”.

What’s the total overall impact to fighting with those changes?  The best way to answer that is to examine several scenarios and their impacts.

The famous Vinny Lecavalier and Jarome Iginla tilt in the Stanley Cup finals would have resulted in both players being in the penalty box for 10 minutes instead of 5.  Instead of both teams continuing play at 5-5, the coincidental Delay of Game penalties would have resulted in 4-4 play.  The downside of course is losing two players of that caliber for 10 minutes, but that should be the cost of the crackdown.  The coincidental minors might have benefitted one team over the other if they are  more suited to 4-4 play.

Your standard goon-on-goon fight should definitely be minimized.  Losing the goons for 10 minutes minimizes their ice time even more than it likely already is.  Hard to argue against that.  Additionally, if you’re a goon on a team that’s not built to take advantage of the more open and skilled play that takes place in a 4-4 situation, your coach likely keeps you on a shorter leash.  Sounds like a win-win for me.

These rule changes should also help prevent a majority of those fights caused by retaliation to completely clean hits.  So you’re a Shane O’Brien (meaning tough player willing to drop the gloves, but you play a regular role on the team) and Martin Erat comes out of one of his patented curls only to be firmly planted on the ice by a great shoulder to the chest bomb.  Do you risk the 10 minute misconduct, automatic delay of game penalty (and your team isn’t very good at 4-4), and likely instigator penalty for “revenge” of a hit the officials deemed clean?  If you do, you likely will only make that mistake once.

As for the Penguins – Islanders game, the major impact would have been seeing the goons on the ice less overall (again, a very good thing).  Michael Haley, for example, would still be serving his penalty from the first period instead of scoring early in the second.  There would also have been some stiff fines to players.

The truth is that the pitiful fines and small suspensions issued by the League are just not deterrents to the type play they have expressed the desire to eliminate from the game.  It goes well beyond the melee on Long Island or even headshots.  If the League is serious in their stated desires to rid the game of reckless behavior, this is the way to do it.

It would also help if there was more consistent officiating within a game and from game to game.  The effort last night against Vancouver was just about as piss-poor as I’ve ever seen it (and that’s saying something).  If Vancouver had been able to capitalize on all the weak penalty calls (and non-calls in their favor), frustrations might have built to a point where it boiled over (it had already reached that point with the myself and the other fans).

The Week That Was

Through three games of the four game home stand, Nashville has compiled 5 of a possible 6 points in going 2-0-1.

As of this morning, Nashville stands tied for 4th in the West with San Jose with one game in hand.  However, they are only two points ahead of 9th place Calgary.

The Week Ahead for Nashville

Nashville concludes their four game home stand tomorrow night against Phoenix, then have home games every other game.  Only the Phoenix game will not be televised.  Note the early time for the Dallas game on Saturday.

• Saturday, 2/19 – vs. Phoenix @ 7pm CST (no TV)
• Tuesday, 2/22 – at Columbus @ 6pm CST (FSN)
• Thursday, 2/24 – vs. Chicago @ 7pm CST (FSN)
• Saturday, 2/26 – at Dallas @ 1pm CST (FSN)

2011 NHL Trade Deadline: Monday, February 28th

You are invited to follow me on Twitter (@SingletonPreds).  For game recaps of all Predators games, check out my HockeyIndependent colleague, Mark Willoughby (@TheViewFrom111).

When Brendan Shanahan was first hired as the NHL’s new VP of Hockey and Business Development last December, many wondered exactly what his role would be. Sure, he was a three-time Stanley Cup champion and an Olympic Gold Medal winner. But, just how did the league plan on utilizing him in this new capacity?

If last week’s Research, Development and Orientation camp was an early indication of what Shanny has been up to, the league is headed in the right direction. He organized an on-ice think tank, if you will. While most of the changes will not be implemented anytime soon, maybe even never, taking a proactive approach towards exploring ideas is what keeps many businesses successful over the long run.

Shanahan acknowledged such in his opening remarks to kick things off, “We’re happy with the way the NHL game is. But you shouldn’t wait until something is broken to examine it.”

So, the NHL invited 33 top prospects (listed here) from the 2011 draft pool to an R&D camp in Toronto.  The group was divided into two teams, headed by former Columbus Blue Jackets head coach Ken Hitchcock and current Phoenix Coyotes assistant Dave King.

Nearly every NHL team sent at least one representative to observe and comment on what they saw.  A full list of the rule changes tested and comments from General Managers like Brian Burke, Joe Nieuwendyk and Dale Tallon can be found on the NHL.com blog located here.

We decided to go a different route and hear from two of the players that were actually on the ice, experiencing the proposed ideas.  If you’re a regular reader of MayorsManor, you’re already familiar with Seth Ambroz from a feature piece we did on him last month.  He’s currently projected as a top-five pick in the draft.  The 6’3″ forward plays for the Omaha Lancers (USHL), a team partially owned by the Kings Luc Robitaille.

Our other guest is Matt Nieto, a southern California native who grew up as a die-hard Kings fan.  He’s headed to Boston University this fall, one of the top college hockey programs in the country. 

Both also have ties to Team USA - Ambroz just returned from the Ivan Hlinka tournament in the Czech Republic, where the U.S. picked up the silver medal…Nieto is a two-time gold medal winner at the U-18 World Championships and he recently participated at the evaluation camp for the World Jr. team. 

MM:  There wasn’t a lot of prep time at this camp, you guys hit the ice to start the testing soon after arriving.  Before we talk about the actual rule changes, which team were you on and who were some of the guys with you?

Ambroz – I was on the black squad with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (Red Deer/WHL), Nick Shore (U. of Denver/WCHA), Zack Phillips (Saint John/QMJHL) and Daniel Catenacci (Sault Ste. Marie/OHL). We were coached by Dave King.

Nieto – I was on Ken Hitchcock’s team (the white team) with Shane McColgan (Kelowna/WHL) and Robbie Russo (U.S. National program).  To be honest, I didn’t know many of the guys though.

Each day there was a morning and an afternoon session.  Among the first batch of rules tested were things like hybrid icing and some face-off variations.  Did anything stand out that you liked, disliked and/or was there anything that was confusing to you?

Ambroz – Nothing was really too confusing.  I was used to the hybrid icing from the USHL.  On the faceoffs, they would set the puck down and blow a whistle.  Actually, that was a little confusing at times.  Most of the rules were pretty straight forward though and you didn’t think about it once the play started.

Nieto – I think the faceoff rule was the most awkward thing they tested, where the ref would put the puck down and blow a whistle to start the draw.

Was it confusing at all to have the play start that way?  Usually a whistle in hockey means to stop play, here it was used to start play…

Ambroz – It was a little bit confusing.  It was interesting to try and get used to it.  Once you got it though, it was right back to hockey as usual.  I didn’t really mind it at all.

Nieto – That was a big part of it.  Some guys heard the whistle and they sorta froze up.  It was definitly kinda weird.  Personally, I wasn’t a big fan of it.

They also tested some new overtime rules, starting with 4-on-4, then going to 3-on-3 and eventually 2-on-2.  What did you think about that format?

Ambroz – Once you get down to 2-on-2, there’s a lot of ice. There would definitly be some scoring if they try that in the NHL. I dont see it really happening, but…you know, the five minute OT and the shootout seems to be working well. I could see them change it a little bit, but 2-on-2 is a bit much.

Nieto – I though it was pretty fun actually.  You’re never really put in a situation where you’re out there 2-on-2, so I’m not sure if they’ll use that rule.  It was different.  But, I think most of us had fun with that one.

Would you want to see NHL games decided by a 2-on-2 contest?

Nieto – I think it would be pretty fun to watch.  But, I don’t think it’s a rule they would pass because 2-on-2 is pretty tough to play on full ice.  There would be a lot of chances, that’s for sure.

How about things like adding the goal verification line (an additional line added behind the goal line), using wider blue lines and the crease rule.  Same question – like, dislike, confusing?

Ambroz – I actually liked when they added the extra goal line.  I think it’s pretty smart.  If the puck touches it, it’s a goal.  That makes a lot of sense.  The crease rule has been played over in Europe and in some international tournaments, where you can’t really be in the crease.  Being a big, power forward, standing in front of the net, that can be a little frustrating at times.  The wider blue lines were nice.  That gives the d-men a little extra room to work with.

There was a also a face-off variation where if a guy gets thrown out, the remaining player gets to pick who he wants to take the draw against.  What did you think of that idea?

Ambroz – I actually thought that one made sense.  It should give the center a big advantage, with a good chance to win it.  If the other guy is going to cheat, it makes sense.  It’s pretty funny when you get a big, 6’5″, 6’6″ defenseman in there to take the faceoff.  And it seemed like they always won the draw too.

Nieto – I actually preferred the other faceoff variation, where if a guy gets caught cheating, rather than being thrown out they just move him back a little.  You don’t have as much leg power to win the draw that way.  You can’t really lean on your stick.  Overall, I thought that was the best face off rule they tested the whole camp.

They also tried a configuration where there were three faceoff dots down the center of the ice…

Ambroz – It was pretty fun to try.  It seemed like a lot of the centers just wanted to shoot it on net off the face-off.  It gave you a different look on things.  However, I’m more in favor of the five face off dots.

Nieto – That was pretty tough because in the defensive zone I usually use the dots on the sides to position myself.  Without those there, I felt sort of lost out there.  It was definitely kinda awkward. I think it works in your favor if you’re in the offensive zone.  But, in the defensive zone, it’s tough to defend that draw.

In one of the many variations on how to end a game there was a shootout format where the same guy can shoot multiple times in the shootout, similar to what’s used at the Olympics.  Are you in favor of that change?

Ambroz – I dont mind it at all.  If you have a good player that can bury it like that – heck, take advantage of it if you can.  How often is it really going to happen that way?  Well, I know it happened at the World Juniors awhile ago, in the US-Canada game with Jonahtan Towes.  I like both ways I guess.  I have nothing against either way.

Nieto - I like it. I think it’s a great rule. I think it’s very effective and makes the shootout more interesting and fun.

One of the more radical ideas tested was when they took the second referee off the ice and placed him on a platform, sort of above the glass (near the blue line, on the opposite side of the benches).  What did you think about having the second ref off the ice?

Ambroz – I thought it was a good idea.  There is a lot of stuff that happens behind the play that maybe he’d be able to catch.  It was pretty interesting to watch.  It can get a little confusing at times though.  The off ice ref did end up calling a few penalties and they were good calls, so it definitly helped to have him up there.

Nieto – I actually thought that was a pretty good rule.  From my understanding he wasn’t just calling penalties up there.  He was also communicating with the other ref, telling him what was going on in front of the play.  So, that was good because most of the time the refs can’t see the whole ice.

Was it distracting to see a guy up there, out of the normal line of sight?

Ambroz – No, not at all.  You only really noticed him when you were sitting on the bench.  When you’re on the ice, you don’t even think about it or focus on it at all.  It’s like he’s not even there.

Nieto – I didn’t really notice him that much.  The fans might not be able to see though, that might be a factor.

Finally, there were 32 other top prospects there in camp with you.  Aside from the few players you may have already known, who impressed you the most?

Ambroz – Nugent-Hopkins was a great player. He had some great hands, great vision and a good shot. It was amazing to see all the different types of players and abilities - some were playmakers, goal scorers, power forwards, all different types.

Nieto – I’d have to say Ryan Murphy, a defenseman (Kitchener/OHL). Just the way he skates so nicely and joins the play offensively, but never gets caught back on defense. He really impressed me.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The camp also featured some off ice “orientation” sessions for the future NHL Draft picks, focusing on things such as the importance of being a person who displays strong character and how to best utilize new media, like facebook and twitter.

Strong character and new ideas.  Sounds like something right up Shanahan’s alley.

The Mayor
www.twitter.com/Mayor119
www.facebook.com/MayorsManor

The Mayor appears courtesy of www.MayorsManor.com – where you’ll find tons of news, views and interviews from around the world of hockey.  Some of the RELATED ARTICLES you can read there include:

Interview with Seth Ambroz - an in-depth conversation w/ San Jose Sharks 1st round draft pick

Kings 2010 Draft Recap - looking at Derek Forbort, Jordan Weal, Tyler Toffoli and more

Interview with Matt Nieto – coming later this week, stay tuned

.

In the Overtime period of the Penguins 3-2 win over the Florida Panthers Monday night, something out of the ordinary occurred.  Panthers’ forward Nathan Horton was assessed a double minor for high-sticking Penguins defenseman Brooks Orpik.  The call of the penalty was not odd, but where it came from was.  The linesman “made the call” after play had stopped following the infraction. By made the call I mean informed the referee.

The call was actually made by Referee Kevin Pollock on the interpretation of the linesman (I’m not sure which one).  The NHL rule book states the following regarding the linesman and the calling of this infraction:

33.4 Reporting to Referee – The Linesman shall give to the Referees his interpretation of any incident that may have taken place during the game.  The Linesman must report upon completion of play, any circumstances pertaining to:
(viii) Double-minor penalty when it is apparent that an injury has resulted from a high-stick that has gone undetected by the Referees. (Rule 60)

Orpik was cut by Horton’s high stick.  Of that there is no doubt.  Anyone who wants to argue that Horton did not commit an infraction really should just go someplace else.  The foul occurred.  It’s just odd to see the linesman get the referee to ensure the call was made correctly or more appropriately, rare.  It’s so rare that plenty of Pens fans were saying they had never seen it before.  I had only seen it twice, this makes the third.  The rules compel the linesman to inform the referee of the infraction astthe next stoppage.  It shouldn’t be so great white elk-ish

So in the view of the rules what occurred is exactly what should have occurred.  There was a high-stick that the referees did not see, a linesman did and the linesman at the insistence of the rule book informed the referee of the foul at the next whistle.  Sure it did put the Penguins on the Powerplay for the remaining 3:35 of the Overtime and the ensuing 4 on 3 advantage was pretty much the reason they won, but is there some sore of conspiracy here?  No.

The rules were followed to the letter, which is something plenty of people want the league to do on a more consistent basis.  You don’t get to complain about it only when it adversely affects your team but pine for it the rest of the year.

In Saturday night’s tilt between the Atlanta Thrashers and the Pittsburgh Penguins a rule that is little known and inconsistently enforced across the NHL was cited to add more penalty minutes on Thrashers Captain Ilya Kovalchuk following a fight he started with Penguins Forward Matt Cooke.

75.2 Minor Penalty – A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions:
(iv) When a player, including a goalkeeper, is penalized for being the instigator of an altercation and who is wearing a face shield.

Fights put players off balance. If these two go to the ice, the helmet protects their head.

Now I understand the rule.  It really is against the “code of honor” to fight with a visor on.  Flames Captain Jarome Iginla fights often and wears a visor.  He is also very sure to take the helmet off prior to landing an opening blow.  That is the major safety problem with the rule.  When a player fights without a helmet or a visor-less player has their helmet knocked off during the course of the fight they are at substantially higher risk to fall backwards and smack their heads against the ice without the benefit of a helmet to absorb part of the force of the blow.  This is how concussions occur.

I understand the intent of the rule.  It is meant to discourage players with a visor from starting fights.  My problem is that in the end, the players who put themselves at the most risk on a nightly basis are the agitators and the fighters and they will not wear a visor as long as this rule is on the books.  No number of other players sustaining severe eye and face injuries will convince them otherwise because they know they will have to remove their helmet for a fight and then they will face a higher risk of  concussion if they fall backwards.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It comes down to the same question then, should fighting be a part of the game?  I am of the school that it should.  I’ve seen games turn on the result of a fight as a player and a fan.  However this is still one of two major safety items that must be front and center for the league along with hits to the head and the rule seems counter-intuitive to where the league wants players to go with respect to visors.

Will visors be mandatory one day, probably.  Will this rule be ridiculous then?  Yes, even more so than it is today.  As long as fighting is an allowed part of the game, this rule shouldn’t be there.  Encouraging stars like Iginla to take off their helmet prior to a fight is the wrong message to send.  It is old school honor code versus common sense safety and in that fight the winner should be clear cut.

SLBD

Referee equipment. Not pictured; 'blind-guy cane' from the jerk store

I can’t write about the Leafs today. I just can’t. They’re awful. If I had watched last night’s game something would have been broken. I’m not going to talk about Ian White’s phantom double minor (urge to kill rising) but I will comment on the goal that wasn’t counted because of the referee’s “intent to blow” the game whistle.

In some ass-backwards way, ‘intent to blow’ makes a little bit of sense.  If a goalie has the puck covered and the opposition is whacking at it and the ref means to blow the whistle but the puck goes in a millisecond later, then yeah I can see it.  What has been happening this week (the Detroit goal included) is that the ref decides the play is done, missed that the puck is in the net already for a few seconds and then blows the whistle.  It goes against the spirit of the rules and really it is anti-sport.  The players are taught in every sport at every level to play to the whistle.  If the whistle is not blown, every player on the ice is still playing and so what happens should count, especially goals.

Does anyone know if time gets put back on the clock in a situation like this?

In last night’s Leafs game I think the ref was watching the scrum in front of the net instead of watching the goal, so here’s an idea that the NHL would never consider, partially because it makes sense.  Instead of making a huge change to the rules or the players, why not make a small change that no one will notice and will probably eliminate problems like this. Here’s my proposition:

You have 4 officials on the ice. There is no reason that either a) the near-side linesman drops down to the goal-line to watch the scrum for penalties, freeing up that referee to watch the puck and call goals, or b)the second referee drops down instead of the linesman. In either situation the back linesman would need to move up to cover someone, which is part of their job anyways.  In case A the back linesman would come up to the blue line to cover for the linesman and in option B he would need to be aware of a possible stretch pass to a breakaway and would need to follow that in.  Linesmen cannot blow down penalties or goals, but they can tell referees when a penalty has happened and then it can be called, and can point out a goal, allowing a referee to blow it.

Something else brought up today when I was venting to Duncan_Disorderly about why everything bad has to happen to me and my team!  What if the officials are wary to overturn goals because they’re the ones the next day on all the highlights saying they’re wrong? No one likes to have egg on their face, right?  So while we’re at it let’s eliminate how the refs are wearing microphones and explaining calls.  It’s really unnecessary.  People at the game have the PA announcer, people at home have the play by play guy.  Putting mics on refs seems like something cooked up by the same guys who did Foxtrax. (that’s a burn).

That being said he has also done some good for the game.  A lot of the owners love him, and a good reason for that is he’s made league revenues balloon.  That’s why I find it shocking that there are times when I see the NBA coming up with an idea right in the NHLs wheelhouse, a video rulebook on its website to educate fans, and the NHL isn’t all over it.  It’s the perfect idea, especially if we’re going to keep trying to make hockey work in non-traditional NHL markets.

Have you ever watched a game with someone who didn’t understand the rules?  Wouldn’t something like this be absolutely perfect?   I admit I could even get some use out of it.  I feel like I’m never 100% on the current rulings of delayed offsides and there are always rules that they are tweaking.  As of now the NHL’s equivalent is this, an online rulebook.  It is extremely dry, unhelpful and self-referential so that anytime you want to look up one rule, it will link to other rules to help you understand what they mean.

So NHL, you’re not fooling anyone, I know you read my posts, I mean, they’re even on the internet!  Do a video rulebook for your site.  Use players that you want to get exposure for.  Sell your game properly, not like you see the cool kids (NBA, NFL) do.   Help to educate new fans without alienating old ones and we can all get along.