Being a referee for a major league sport has to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
Regardless of how hard you try or how well you know the rules, you’re bound to get something wrong at some point, at some time. Even when you get the call right, you’re still going to have people calling for your head on a silver platter saying you’re the sole reason why their team couldn’t secure the victory.
While there are and always will be complaints about the refs, this year’s have been completely justified. In what has a nightmare from a PR standpoint for the NHL, it seems these playoffs have exposed seemingly all of the gaps and weaknesses in the league’s rules, review process and officiating as a whole.
With no shortage of examples to look at, let’s start with perhaps the most glaring.
St. Louis Blues vs San Jose Sharks Game 3 – Timo Meier’s Hand Pass
In overtime of Game Three of the St. Louis Blues – San Jose Sharks Western Conference Final, there was a scrum to the left of goaltender Jordan Binnington that resulted in Gustav Nyquist setting up a waiting Erik Karlsson in front of the goal who buried the game-winning goal.
The Sharks celebrated and the Blues instantly looked to the referees. Just before Nyquist retrieved the puck, it was swatted out of the air and in front of the net by the hand of Timo Meier. The zebras huddled and then started skating to their locker room. What just happened seemed to be a perfect example of a hand pass, so the goal shouldn’t stand, right?
Wrong, the goal stood and the Sharks would take a 2-1 series lead much to the outrage of both the Blues as well as their fans.
According to section 10, rule 79 of the NHL’s Rulebook:
“A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team, either directly or deflected off any player or official.”
Section 10, Rule 79, National Hockey League Official Rules
Section 10, Rule 79.1, National Hockey League Official Rules
According to this rule, play should have have been stopped when his teammate, Gustav Nyquist, touched the puck.
The rule clearly allows for official discretion. In reviewing the play, the referee down with the play was positioned on the other side of the goal away from the play. It also didn’t help that a St. Louis Blues player passed between Meier and the official at the time of the hand pass as well.
That’s all well, but here’s where the NHL’s rulebook fails. As with kicking a puck into the net, a hand pass into the goal is a reviewable play. However, a hand pass between teammates that sets up a goal isn’t. As none of the referees called anything on the play when it happened, it was non-reviewable and the game was brought to its conclusion.
When the referees met after the goal, they couldn’t have done anything about it or taken another look at the play, even if they wanted to overrule the call on the ice. They were really stuck between a rock and a hard place as they didn’t see the original play fully and the NHL’s rulebook didn’t allow them to do what they needed to to make it right.
As a reward for the result of this game, the referees officiating this game have been ousted from the remainder of the playoffs.
San Jose Sharks vs Las Vegas Golden Knights Game 7 – Cody Eakin’s cross-checking major
Leading 3-0 in the second half of the third period, the Vegas Golden Knights were feeling pretty comfortable with their lead. Following a defensive zone draw awarded to the Golden Knights, Cody Eakin gives Sharks centerman and captain Joe Pavelski a hearty shove in the chest.
Pavelski began to lose his balance and after a collision with Paul Stastny, it would leave him crumpling to the ice. It was a hard fall and unfortunately for Pavelski, he landed with force on his head. He began bleeding from his head almost immediately and lay motionless for quite some time.
While this is certainly a scary result, the play that it resulted from is by no stretch of the imagination uncommon in hockey. Similarly to Warren Foegel’s hit from behind on T.J. Oshie, this is a hit that happens several times in a game and had no intent to injure, but had an incredibly unfortunate result. Both players were off balance and a common cross-check with no malice or a large amount of force ended up injuring both Oshie and Pavelski. Should the hits both have been penalties? Yes and they both were.
The issue with Eakin’s hit is that the penalty called on him is in reaction to Pavelski’s injury and not the play itself. Originally, Eakin was assessed a double minor and was sent to the penalty box. Later though, he was sent to the locker room after being hit with with a major penalty.
When looking at the hit itself, it is worthy of at the most a crosschecking minor. There was no intent to injure, the hit wasn’t especially egregious and there was no head contact by Eakin. The only thing that separated this hit from any other face-off cross-check is the injury that Pavelski sustained.
The San Jose Sharks ended up scoring four goals on the ensuing five minute power play and beat the Vegas Golden Knights in overtime to advance to the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Say what you want about Vegas’ penalty kill, (and it was impressively bad), but they shouldn’t have been on the penalty kill for any longer after the first goal.
There isn’t much to argue in favour of the San Jose Sharks here as the NHL reached out to the Golden Knights and apologized for the call, acknowledging that it was wrong. In addition, the referees who made the call were banned from officiating the remainder of the playoffs.
Washington Capitals vs Carolina Hurricanes Game 2 – Michael Ferland’s check to the head
Here’s another example of a major being given to a hit that certainly didn’t deserve five minutes, though the Hurricanes didn’t have as much trouble killing the penalty as the Golden Knights.
During game two of the Carolina vs Washington first round series, Michael Ferland delivered a heavy hit to Capitals forward Nic Dowd at Capital One Arena.
Needless to say, Dowd went down and was a bit shaken up afterwords. Ferland was promptly given a five-minute major and a game misconduct for an illegal check to the head.
All it takes is for the hit to be replayed once to realize that the principal point of contact wasn’t Dowd’s head and that Ferland delivered his check squarely to Dowd’s chest.
In full speed, the hit does look scary and at first, it looked like Dowd’s head snapped back as if it were hit, but that simply wasn’t the case. If there’s anything this playoff has proven, it’s that a five-minute power play can completely alter the flow of a game. In addition to this, the player assessed the penalty is done for the remainder of the night.
Especially on this stage, the right call has to be made. Losing a player off of your roster for the rest of the night and having to kill off a five-minute major penalty is entirely too big of a burden to place on an undeserving team. Taking the extra bit of time to make sure throwing a player out of the game is the right call is well worth it.
Colorado Avalanche vs San Jose Sharks Game 7 – Gabriel Landeskog’s offsides
About halfway through the second period of the San Jose Sharks vs Colorado Avalanche second round game seven, the Avalanche think they’ve tied the game up at two at SAP Arena.
Once the players got back to the benches, however, the Sharks challenged the goal, alleging that the play was actually offside. One quick look at Nathan MacKinnon is all it takes to see that he was nowhere near over the blue line before the puck crossed, but the Sharks weren’t talking about MacKinnon.
Instead, they were pointing at Avalanche captain Gabriel Landeskog, who was in the middle of a line change during the play. After review, the play was ruled offside and the goal was promptly overturned.
The offsides challenge is one of the worst things to come into the NHL in recent memory and this is a perfect example of why. Landeskog wasn’t near the puck, he didn’t contribute anything to the play and him leaving the ice happened way before the goal was scored. It had no bearing at all on the play or the players involved in it, yet it still overturned the game-tying goal. This isn’t what that rule was intended for.
While this sentiment doesn’t exactly fall into line with the definition of offside or the black and white of what the rulebook says, it does have this to say about the matter:
“If, during a delayed off-side, an attacking player in the attacking
zone elects to proceed to his players’ bench (which extends into the
attacking zone) to be replaced by a teammate, he shall be considered
to have cleared the zone provided he is completely off the ice and his
replacement comes onto the ice in the neutral zone. If his replacement
comes onto the ice in the attacking zone, if the delayed off-side is still
in effect, he too must clear the attacking zone. If the remaining
attacking players have cleared the attacking zone and the Linesman
has lowered his arm for the delayed off-side, he shall be considered
on-side”Section 10, Rule 83.3, National Hockey League Official Rules
But, the linesman’s arm was down by his side and he wasn’t signalling a delayed offside. Then, the above rule that clarified that Landeskog wasn’t offside was unable to be applied to the situation as it wasn’t a delayed offside which allowing him to be called offside. Makes sense.
Regardless of this, for the goal to be overturned, there must be conclusive evidence against it. For the play to still be onside, all Landeskog had to do was just touch the blue line, even if it was just a little bit. From the camera angles seen, there’s no way anything conclusively against the play could have been gathered.
Close? Definitely. Conclusive? Not a chance. What made the situation worse was the NHL’s explanation for the call.
Seemed as if Landeskog’s skate was touching the blue line, or at the very least there wasn’t conclusive evidence to say it wasn’t.
To play the devil’s advocate one last time, how would Landeskog moving just a bit faster or someone opening the door for him have impacted the play any differently or changed the outcome? The only good thing to come out of this situation (unless you’re a Sharks fan) was Landeskog’s response, in which he modeled the perfect way to own up to a mistake and be a leader.
Boston Bruins vs Columbus Blue Jackets Game 4
About halfway through the first period of Game Four of the Columbus Blue Jackets vs Boston Bruins second round series, the puck is deflected high and to the left of Boston Bruins netminder Tuukka Rask after a shot from the blue line.
Everyone on the ice lost sight of it, there were players trying to jam away at the front of the net and still more behind the goal line looking for the puck. It wasn’t until the puck suddenly landed on the ice, much to the surprise of everyone, that the Blue Jackets were able to set up a play that led to a goal from Artemi Panarin to cut the Bruins lead to one.
Where was the puck between when it was deflected and when it hit the ice? In the netting.
I’m not going to pretend like the puck is easy to track, especially when it’s moving quickly. That being said, there is no way this goal should have counted. According to the NHL’s rule book:
“Puck Out of Bounds – When a puck goes outside the playing area at
either end or either side of the rink, strikes any obstacles above the
playing surface other than the boards or glass, causes the glass,
lighting, timing device or the supports to break, it shall be faced-off at
the nearest face-off spot in the zone from where it was shot or
deflected out of play that gives the team at fault the least amount of
territorial advantage…
However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by
the on-ice officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play
with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop
playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so. “Section 10, Rule 85.1, National Hockey League Official Rules
The play should have been blown dead instantly and a face-off should have taken place. That being said, the Blue Jackets did the right thing continuing to play the puck as under this rule, the goal stands as the officials missed it and did not whistle the play dead.
It’s completely understandable that the contact between the puck and the netting was missed though. Things move fast, it was hard to see, the referees are only human.
That’s understandable. What isn’t understandable is not being able to fix the call once it was realized that the puck went out of play. Also according to the NHL’s rules:
“NOTE: For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the
On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following:
a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects
directly into the goal off of any player;b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the
ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who
retrieves the puck.In both of the above scenarios, the NHL Situation Room must
have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in
order to disallow the goal.”Section 5, Rule 38.4, National Hockey League Official Rules
Since there was a pass in between the puck coming down and the goal, the play was non-reviewable. Once again, even if the officiating crew realized the mistake and wanted to make it right, their hands were tied by poorly written rules.
It’s baffling to think that when writing this rule, no one thought that this was possibly a scenario that could occur. It almost seems to be written in a way that allows for loopholes rather than trying to provide the best coverage it can.
This missed call has the same problem as the others, the referees weren’t allowed to take another look at the play and then correct the call. At any NHL game, there are multiple high definition cameras watching the play continuously from multiple angles to capture everything happening on the ice (or in the netting).
Why not use them? Why not ensure that the correct call is made as to what happened rather than a technicality because of unhelpful or constricting rules?
While not every play that happens should be reviewable for the sake of time, the NHL’s definition of what is able to be reviewed and what isn’t should at least be expanded. It seems to be fair that any play that resulted in a goal or resulted in a player being given a major penalty could be reviewed at the discretion of the officiating crew or the situation room in Toronto to ensure that the correct call is made. Isn’t that what they’re there for anyway?
Regardless, expect rule changes to come this summer. These playoffs have exposed seemingly weak spots and vulnerability of the NHL’s rules like no other season has before and as a result, it has been an absolute PR nightmare for the National Hockey League.
Between the injury to referee Wes McCauley and the benching of officials from earlier series’, it’s a wonder there’s anyone left to call the Stanley Cup Finals.