Officiating and the Stanley Cup Playoffs

Officiating in any professional sport has to be one of the hardest jobs in the world, especially if you value positive reinforcement. You basically have the amount of time it takes to bat an eyelash to make or not make a call. On top of that, you are married to that decision-'til death do you part-despite criticism from the players, coaches, fans, and the media. An unfortunate casualty of any game could be a win for either team and that is probably the cause of the most controversy.

In the playoffs it is tenfold and I feel the 2013 NHL playoffs is a prime example of this fact. Most recently we saw a Game 7 between the Detroit Red Wings and the Chicago Blackhawks which included one of these controversial calls. Here's my breakdown:

Brandon Saad rushes for the puck towards the benches, chipping the puck into the offensive zone while getting his stick under Henrik Zetterberg's skates: no call. Shaw gains possession of the puck at the half-wall on an odd-man rush. Kyle Quincey checks Saad into the Detroit bench, resulting in much pushing and grabbing between the two; no arm up from either official. Shaw holds onto the puck as the rush ensues, releases a pass that lands on the tape of Niklas Hjalmarsson as he jumps into the play. Saad tries to get a headlock on Quincey, pulls his helmet off, and falls to the ice. As he hits the ground, he throws a swipe across Quincey's face as the referee behind the play starts to creep into the frame. Hjalmarsson rips his shot past Jimmy Howard and the adjacent referee confirms the goal as the United Center faithful erupt into celebration. The trailing referee, however, with his whistle leaving his lips, immediately waves the play off. After several moments of confusion, play resumes with 1:49 left in regulation, a pair of coincidental minor penalties handed out, and the score still tied 1 to 1.

I'm a few days late to the party as far as passing out judgment on this particular incident but I think it is a prime opportunity to discuss the officiating in these playoffs overall. To be concise about it, well, it has been pretty terrible. Now I understand that it is damn near impossible to be 100% correct 100% of the time-why do you think video review exists?-but I think the more prevalent issue is that the officials are making wrong, or at the very least questionable, calls at the most inopportune times. Such calls as the Daniel Sedin Boarding call on Tommy Wingels in the Sharks-Canucks first round matchup that saw San Jose finish the sweep of Vancouver on the ensuing Power Play. Or Mika Zibanejad's skate "deflection" in Game 4 versus the Montreal Canadiens which would start an Ottawa comeback win. Or Game 3 between Chicago and Detroit, where a Viktor Stalberg game-tying-goal was waved off due to Andrew Shaw's presence in the crease which had no impedance on Howard's ability to stop the shot.

Any of these examples could arguably go either way bolstered by the availability of video coverage in multiple angles and social media has no doubt seen arguments over these calls come to pass. But it all comes down to the zebra-striped sweaters on the ice. The NHL has revamped itself over the past decade or so to increase scoring and encourage players to keep the game moving while limiting stoppages in play. As such, during the post-season the referees tend to swallow the whistles more and allow play to continue until it gets out of hand. But the result of "let them play" makes for inconsistent officiating which in turn could greatly affect the outcome of the game and in the playoffs there are fewer of those to go around than in the regular season.

Coming back to Game 7 of Detroit and Chicago, as we see the trailing referee, Stephen Walkom, slide towards the combatants behind the play there is no indication that a call is about to be made like, say, a hand in the air. It is not until Saad tosses a glove into Quincey's face that a call is made which implies that Walkom would send either both to the box or none at all. And all the infraction equated to was the same thing that occurs when a player crashes the crease before a goaltender covers the puck and the defense gets snippy: face-washing, pushing and shoving that doesn't escalate to anything.  I don't officiate hockey but this is where I completely disagree with the call. As Jeff Marek on the Marek vs. Wyshynski Podcast pointed out, maybe the thought process was a hesitation to call just one player and send the opposite team to the power play with under 2 minutes left in the game and instead wait for a reason to give both two minutes.

Now I understand that officials may not want to determine the outcome by giving one team a man advantage in the waning minutes of a game but to be honest everything an official does affects the game, whether that be making a good or bad call to faking puck-drops at the face-off dot to inadvertently deflecting a puck that causes a turnover. What I am trying to get at is that making these calls is a part of the game. When an official is in full view of what is happening on the ice, making a questionable call has the same effect as not calling a questionable play.

So is there a solution here? In theory, yes it's pretty simple. In practice, it's difficult but takes practice. But the solution I speak of would be an endorsement of consistency. That's all I would ask for and I'm sure I am not alone in that request. The NHL has a rule book, it is pretty well laid out. The officials take liberties, and that is fine but if you are going to call something in the first 5 minutes call it in the last 5. And when the referees are making calls consistently we can direct our ire at the players for taking stupid penalties instead of throwing the tinfoil hat on and rambling about some grand conspiracy against our respective teams. There will always be actions from officials we don't agree with, it's the human error element in all sports, but instead of pointing at any particular one and saying "that guy is a hack and screwed my team over with 30 seconds left in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final" we could at least give some benefit of the doubt and remark "well I don't agree with it but he does call Holding penalties very aggressively" or what have you. Now as for the puck over the glass penalty? Well that's a can of worms for another day.