What's the NHL Problem: Officials or Rulebook?

[chuckcouples]

How many goals have been scored in the playoffs that should not have counted and how many goals were not counted that should have counted? Is the problem that the rulebook is too undefined or is the problem that the on-ice (and video review team) have no clue what they are doing?

Here's a list of the "goals" that I watched live, feel free to add to the list:

Kadri OT winner vs TB (too many men)
Lehkonen OT winner vs Edm (puck played with a high stick)
Makar goal vs Edm (clearly offsides)
Coleman no goal vs Edm (kicked in)

Those are the ones that I remember without thinking about it and funny enough it does not include a single goalie interference call. I am sure there are plenty more controversial goals that can be added to this list. I don't remember a previous playoffs with this many controversial goals.

[Invictus]

Here's a list of the "goals" that I watched live, feel free to add to the list:

Kadri OT winner vs TB (too many men)
Lehkonen OT winner vs Edm (puck played with a high stick)
Makar goal vs Edm (clearly offsides)
Coleman no goal vs Edm (kicked in)

Speaking in regards to only the Makar goal and Coleman no goal (didn't really see first two):
Both these were called correctly and consistently with plays of the past.

Rulebook is too undefined/unclear. 100%
NHL puts out videos like (https://www.nhl.com/video/video-rule...edium=referral) to explain oddball rules, because the rulebook... just doesn't.

[LawMan]

In my view, each of these goals had a different issue which was the source of the controversy.

In general I think the NHL rulebook is fairly well defined as written in the rule book. There is some room for some improvement but often time adding to a rule creates unintended consequences which are worse than the original. The problem with rules (any rules, or laws) is that they must be written in the abstract but then applied to actual fact patterns to render a ruling. What the rule says is agreed on what it means can become an issue.
Most of the controversy associated with each of the goals you listed concerns the application of the rule in question, both in how the rule was called and how the rule “should be” called. In those cases re-wording the rule would not help.

Lets break down the 4 goals mentioned.

1. Kadri winner in OT
Rule 71 – Premature Substitution. At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.
When a player is retiring from the ice surface and is within the five foot (5’) limit of his players’ bench, and his substitute is on the ice, then the retiring player shall be considered off the ice for the purpose of Rule 70 – Leaving Bench.
If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring plays the puck or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while both players involved in the substitution are on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called. If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called.

Fairly clear, however to me “subject at the discretion of the on-ice officials” should be removed. What discretion is in play? Either the sub is within 5 feet of the bench or not. The Rule 70 is clear as day: if the new player plays the puck while the sub is on the ice it is too many men. That rule is clear as day. Further Rule 71, if both players are on the ice and either plays the puck its too many men. That rule is clear.

The controversy here is two-fold in my opinion:
1. Bad application. Simply put I think this was a blown call. The reverse angle, from behind the Avalanche bench shows MacKinnon was at blue line and mid-ice a good 30 feet from the bench when Kadri stepped on. Further, Kadri scores while MacKinnon is on the ice, standing next to the bench but on the ice. I think they blew the call.
2. No review opportunity. In this day and age this is the REAL kicker. A team can challenge for offside, high stick, hand pass, kicked in, goalie interference, several of these include discretion. The fact that the Lightning could not challenge the too many men aspect and get a chance to use all the videos out there is the issue here.


2. Lehkonen OT winner vs Edmonton
This is the least controversial from a “written rules perspective”.
The Rule
Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle. When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that … not applicable

This rule is clear as day. You cannot bat the puck above the normal height of the shoulders. i.e. if you are crouched down or on your knees your normal shoulder height applies. There is no discretion, either it was high or not…
Simply put the controversy here is about application. Was the spot in the air where the puck hit Lehkonen’s stick higher than the “normal height” of his shoulders? It was super close, with dozen of angles and replays we can disagree but there is no way to write a clearer rule. Further the "unclear reviews remain as called on the ice" applies to break the tie.

3. Makar Goal vs. Edmonton
I have written at length about this goal. Rules 83.1 and 83.3 are in play. The play was called in accordance with the NHL precedent on the “tag-up” offsides and a video the NHL put out stating an attacking player is allowed to “tag up” before his teammate touches the puck. (see the video at the link Invcitus posted). This is not what the rule says. The NHL should re-write Rule 83.3 to indicate that where an attacking player enters the zone before the puck, said player can “tag-up” so long as he does so before another attacking player touches the puck. This was the explanation given, this is not what the rule currently say.

Here is a rule that needs to be re-written for improved clarity and to line up with the NHL’s precedent and intent.

4. Coleman no goal vs Edmonton (kicked in)
The Rule
Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii)
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping.

The rule is well written and thorough. Adding to the rule would not make it more clear, it might change the rule, and make the Rule easier to apply but it would not make the current rule more clear.
The controversy here is 100% around application to the facts. We can all read the same rule, watch the same replays and have a different conclusion.

We can agree the puck hit Coleman’s skate, and disagree on whether Coleman made a distinct kicking motion. Removing “distinct” would change the rule, but not make it more clear…

In conclusion:
1. Kadri - Fine rule, blown call. Should be reviewable.
2. Lehkonen- Fine rule. Grey area factual call. Impossible to agree even with review. Fine call. Also, call on ice stands.
3. Makar - Rule needs to be re-written the NHL’s precedent is not what the rule says.
4. Coleman kick- Rule is fine. Interpretation and application is grey area given how close it was/was not a “distinct kicking motion”

[Invictus]

We can agree the puck hit Coleman’s skate, and disagree on whether Coleman made a distinct kicking motion. Removing “distinct” would change the rule, but not make it more clear…

No... the puck didn't hit Coleman's skate, Coleman's skate hit the puck.
That's the simplified difference between a goal and a no goal call.

I'm not sure you'd want to write more in the rules though and risk making it sound so convoluted.
The word kicking itself is kind of an issue since how fans interpret it is not how the NHL see's it / enforce it.

Excellent breakdown

[stevegamer]

No... the puck didn't hit Coleman's skate, Coleman's skate hit the puck.
That's the simplified difference between a goal and a no goal call.

I'm not sure you'd want to write more in the rules though and risk making it sound so convoluted.
The word kicking itself is kind of an issue since how fans interpret it is not how the NHL see's it / enforce it.

Excellent breakdown

I think you are attributing causality to what LawMan said. The puck and the skate came into contact with each other, which is "hitting" each other. It all comes down to interpretation of words.

I think the issue is threefold: the humans the rulebook, and the playing area.

To fix the Kadri goal, there's a simple solution to eliminate discretion - a line that denotes the 5 foot allowed area around the bench, and make it reviewable.

[Axeman33]

I lean more towards the officials being the issue than the rule book. The rules are written and the referees are PAID to know this rulebook and apply to the game in front of them. It's literally their job. When they don't apply the rules as they are written, the fault lies at their feet, not the book. Now are some of the rules vague? Sure, and that's why I say I lean toward the officials and dont come out and say it's completely their fault. As I say, they are paid to know this and if THEY themselves have questions about any of the vague rules, then maybe THEY need to bring that up and clarify them to remove any ambiguity on their part as to not affect the game we as fans pay to watch.

[rataylor22]

The correct answer is both. The officials (as directed by bad leadership) are bad, and the rule book is poorly written. The pre-eminent rules expert in hockey (imo) Sean McIndoe has often pointed out that the NHL never really chooses to cleanup and re-write the rule book, because (and this is directly from leadership) it’s “a lot of work”, so they mostly just edit, amend, cross out, etc. with little effort to make sure their rules are consistent and coherent. The rule book (if you actually read it) is a complete mess, which doesn’t change the fact that the officials are also poor at their job.

[2014olympicgold]

Refs have always been the issue, it's a human element and there will be errors. But our replay system has gotten so quick and strong we see more errors after the play. I also think the refs should be calling EVERYTHING to the rulebook, and fans need to learn to blame players for infractions and not the refs. You start calling the rulebook, then we can start questioning the rulebook if it's good or not.

As for the kicking rule, it's in place so players aren't swinging their skates everywhere for safety. I'm fine with them having a rule where it stops players from kicking pucks into the net. I think you should make it illegal to use your feet to direct the puck into the net while in the blue paint, I think this removes a lot of the questionable ones, and ones that are impossible to defend against.

[niconasr]

The correct answer is both. The officials (as directed by bad leadership) are bad, and the rule book is poorly written. The pre-eminent rules expert in hockey (imo) Sean McIndoe has often pointed out that the NHL never really chooses to cleanup and re-write the rule book, because (and this is directly from leadership) it’s “a lot of work”, so they mostly just edit, amend, cross out, etc. with little effort to make sure their rules are consistent and coherent. The rule book (if you actually read it) is a complete mess, which doesn’t change the fact that the officials are also poor at their job.

Actually, I think it's neither. McIndoe himself also believes the refs or the rulebook aren't actually the problem, the problem is the NHL and how it tells its referees to apply the rulebook. You can't expect referees to properly call the game after the rulebook if their bosses keep telling them they need to manage the game a certain way.

That being said, great breakdown LawMan! That was a very interesting read!

[saucelife90]

Every Sunday there's controversy of some kind in the NFL. From a called/non-called pass interference on either side of the ball, to measuring a close first down. There's always a play that may or may not directly impact the outcome of the game. Strike zones in baseball change from game to game. The UFC has an "early" stoppage, or a controversial outcome in judges scoring every other event. Show me an NBA game that doesn't have a foul called on one side, and within minutes an almost identical play happening the other way that isn't called.

It's frustrating when a call doesn't go your way when it changes the outcome of a bet you have, or a team you follow. It's also glorious when that call goes your way. Welcome to sports.

[Axeman33]

Actually, I think it's neither. McIndoe himself also believes the refs or the rulebook aren't actually the problem, the problem is the NHL and how it tells its referees to apply the rulebook. You can't expect referees to properly call the game after the rulebook if their bosses keep telling them they need to manage the game a certain way.

That being said, great breakdown LawMan! That was a very interesting read!

So if you think it's neither, does that mean you think things are fine the way they are? Someone has to be the problem.

[niconasr]

Well, I just said the problem is how the NHL wants the refs to apply the rulebook. I think that covers it.

[Invictus]

I think you are attributing causality to what LawMan said. The puck and the skate came into contact with each other, which is "hitting" each other. It all comes down to interpretation of words.

I'm stating there is a difference between the puck striking the skate and the skate striking the puck that shouldn't be overlooked.
What LawMan wrote "We can agree the puck hit Coleman’s skate" is inaccurate and I don't agree with it.
It's important to make this distinction, because the NHL treats it different.

"A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot."
"A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal."
The key word in these two sentences is propel and deflect.
Coleman propelled the puck into the net - no goal.

In years past, even turning your skate to direct the puck was enough to have a goal waved off. That’s changed considerably, where players are now permitted to intentionally deflect pucks in — even to move their skate to do so.

The wording of 'distinct kicking motion' is now outdated and changing it to say skate would have the written rule more inline with how the NHL is enforcing it.

[Axeman33]

Well, I just said the problem is how the NHL wants the refs to apply the rulebook. I think that covers it.

At the end of the day, it's the refs that put their arm up. They make judgement calls all the time. I am not sure I'd blame the NHL on their judgement when the NHL is the one who governs the actual rulebook itself.

[LawMan]

Every Sunday there's controversy of some kind in the NFL. From a called/non-called pass interference on either side of the ball, to measuring a close first down. There's always a play that may or may not directly impact the outcome of the game. Strike zones in baseball change from game to game. The UFC has an "early" stoppage, or a controversial outcome in judges scoring every other event. Show me an NBA game that doesn't have a foul called on one side, and within minutes an almost identical play happening the other way that isn't called.

It's frustrating when a call doesn't go your way when it changes the outcome of a bet you have, or a team you follow. It's also glorious when that call goes your way. Welcome to sports.

Yup this a great breakdown. I follow the NHL the most but follow the other leagues as well. The NFL has by far the biggest problem with this in my view (of the big 4) because of how much one play can affect a game and the whole "what is a catch even" issue. Also, the irony that the NFL, by far the most valuable league in the world measures first downs by a ref saying "yeah right about here" but then pulls out the chains is really funny in my personal view.

Baseball is the best and worst. The best in that some/many embrace the "strikezone is ump dependent" idea. The worst in that now with video review bad umps get crushed and their are sets who adjust run totals based on umpires.

Boxing and fighting sports I do not really follow but I know from time to time have massive controversies over fights being stopped. Given the incredibly serious complications/issues over stopping/not-stopping I do not envy any of those refs.

Further, the whole refs changing calling the rule book (on penalties) and "putting whistles away" in OT 3rd period/playoffs is a related but different issue in my view. I would love to get to a world where a penalty is a penalty is a penalty. If a player is hooked call the bloody thing. I have always said a failure to call a clear penalty IS the refs "deciding the game" and is a far bigger problem then a team winning a playoff game on a powerplay goal.