Mike Chen's Hockey Blog
Next entry: What’s JR Up To?
Previous entry: A Tiny Sign of Life
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
by Mike Chen on 01/15/10 at 02:02 PM ET
Comments (11)
The NHL has a not-so-pretty track record of going overboard comes to rule changes; in the past, they either made rules that seemed nonsensical (whoever thought a two-line pass would be a good rule?) or they wound up mucking up their own rules with crazy flowcharts of “if-then” statements for interpretation. Case in point—the ever-popular intent-to-blow rule.
It seems like just about every team has been screwed out of at least one goal with the whole intent-to-blow debacle, and it’s not getting any better. When we came out of the lockout, the first few years were all about rainbows and harmony when it came to the rules. The “new” NHL (with a logo going UP instead of down!) and the “new” rules (actually, just the old rules finally being called) made everyone as happy as Luke Skywalker buying power converters.
I’ll leave the rant about the return of obstruction for a more appropriate time, like the playoffs. I think we all know everyone’s big complaint is the whole intent-to-blow rule, and it makes me think back to the late 1990s when skates in the crease were all the rage.
In case you need your memory refreshed about this (which means you probably don’t live in Buffalo):
How many times did we see this whole skate-in-the-crease thing? So many that EA Sports even included it in their late 90s games—and there seemed to be a “human factor” variable in the game, because the computer refs would make the wrong call sometimes. I spent plenty of nights in college with my roommates arguing about how their virtual player’s skate was in my virtual goalie’s crease.
However, as awful and stupid as that rule was, at least it was a black-and-white rule that was supported by overhead video. It may have created countless groan-inducing moments, but at least it was a rule that seemed to be cut and dry. I mean, how could you screw up when you had a video image of someone’s skate in the crease?
(Insert appropriate Brett Hull joke here. Short aside—I remember right after the Stars won the Stanley Cup, the Sharks game presentation team got in big trouble when they had a pre-game video of SJ Sharkie breaking into the league offices to check out their records, only to find a giant asterisk next to the Dallas championship. The Sharks organization had to apologize, but I thought it was really freakin’ funny.)
So the crease rule was more annoying than anything else. It interrupted the flow of the game, it made fans hesitate to celebrate, and it really just seemed kind of a stupid way to try and protect the goalie. Plus, you’d think that in the time it was used, they would have had a moment when they used the “possession” rule used to justify the Hull goal (if they could have pulled up video and cited a previous precedent, I think everyone would have calmed down a lot more). The intent-to-blow rule, though, puts in that intangible variable of human opinion. It creates a gray area that is leaves things too loose to work in a game of split-second timing.
I suppose it comes down to what you think the refs roles are. Should refs merely enforce the rules, basically acting like human conduit for the words printed in the rulebook? If that’s the case, then the league should adjust the intent-to-blow rule to a more black-and-white version: play to the whistle. Or should the refs act as interpreters, using their best judgment and factoring in for human error when calling things? If you support that, then the logic (if not the execution) of the intent-to-blow rule is reasonable.
For me, I always think rules are rules in sports. If you let things slide into opinion and interpretation, you inevitably lose the objectivity that creates a fair playing field. Thus, I side with the group that wants something done about this intent-to-blow rule. If you’re going to keep it, add in some strict guidelines that make it tangible for everyone. When you get too much “interpretation” in the rules, you wind up inevitably throwing things in favor of one side or another—just like when the league inevitably relaxes it obstruction rules again, that will tilt things in favor of those who clutch-and-grab instead of skate and work for body position.
Rules are rules for a reason and they should be treated as such. Of course, until we can replace refs with NHL robots (maybe we can reprogram those old NHL on Fox robots), there will be some element of human error, but the league should try to minimize that in every way possible. Otherwise, it starts becoming about one guy’s opinion rather than two teams on the ice.
Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Brett+Hull, Officiating, Rules,
Comments
Let’s play the hypothetical game. Let’s say they change the rule from intent-to-blow to whistle-has-blown. What if the goalie legitimately and clearly covers the puck, but the ref takes a second too long to blow his whistle (maybe because he’s slow, maybe because a player bumped into him, or whatever). Then after the puck is clearly covered and before the whistle is blown, an attacking player drives his stick into the goalie’s glove and pushes the puck into the net.
By the changed rules, that’d be a fair goal. But it seems to me like it shouldn’t be.
Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 01/15/10 at 03:01 PM ET
As far as I remember the intent-toblow has always been the standard, and previously was determined to be whistle is moving towards lips. That’s how I was taught to officate in the early 90’s anyhow.
Posted by Rovingbandit from DC on 01/15/10 at 03:15 PM ET
People come to the games to see the players play, not the officials officiate.
Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 01/15/10 at 03:16 PM ET
Why is it so hard for a ref to anticipate a play a little bit? Have the whistle to the lips already and the delay-to-blow shrinks considerably, so does the chance at fumbling the whistle. In a “ready to blow” position, take that second to confirm that the play is dead, then tweet away. No multi-tasking.
Maybe the refs need an electronic whistle. Something that stops the game clock with the push of a button, giving replays a clear cutoff point. Yay technology. Yes, I am being largely facetious with this suggestion.
Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 01/15/10 at 03:55 PM ET
Have the whistle to the lips already and the delay-to-blow shrinks considerably, so does the chance at fumbling the whistle.
I’ve wondered about this many times before. I mean, I’ve seen high school basketball refs that keep the whistle in their mouth from time to time.
The only reason I could think of not to do that is maybe a safety one, where the refs are advised not to keep it in their mouth for an extended period of time in case an errant puck hits it. I should ask our beer league refs if USA Hockey tells them anything about that.
Posted by Mike Chen on 01/15/10 at 04:06 PM ET
The only reason I could think of not to do that is maybe a safety one
I could see that. Even just hitting a rut and taking a spill could be problematic. But I’m not suggesting they skate around with the whistle as a substitute pacifier. When a player starts driving the net with the puck or winds up for a shot, raise the whistle then. Be ready to call the play at hand. Long delays tell me the refs aren’t paying attention, and shouldn’t be on the ice.
Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 01/15/10 at 04:16 PM ET
Case in point—the ever-popular intent-to-blow rule. ?
I’m pretty sure there is no such rule as “intent to blow”. in the rule book.
It is merely a convenient method of covering up a mistake in properly positioning oneself to see the play.
When the league went to 2 referees it needed to add a significant number of officials. Most were/are not skilled enough to be in the NHL.
The league has seen many of its senior officials retire in the past year or so, and it will continue with Frasier & some others leaving at the end of this year.
The majority of officials now have less than 10 years experience. The young officials are threatened by bettman and his stooges into calling a prescribed number of penalties, or risk not getting picked to officiate playoff games.
The “intent to blow” controversy is just symptomatic of a poorly run organization which is overseen by individuals with absolutely zero knowledge of hockey, and who’s only intent is to market the game to America. The integrity of the game be dammed.
Posted by Down River Dan on 01/15/10 at 05:20 PM ET
Here is the official verbiage for the rule that has become known as “intent to blow the whistle”:
32.2 Disputes – The Referees shall have general supervision of the game and shall have full control of all game officials and players during the game, including stoppages; and in case of any dispute, their decision shall be final.
As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.
Posted by Mike Chen on 01/15/10 at 05:29 PM ET
I feel that with some very small changes in the video review rules the NHL could almost eliminate some of these controversial situations, while still maintaining some human factor, and giving some deference to the on ice officials.
In the case of the intent to blow, the ref should have to explain the situation with the war room. for example “i believe that the Goaltender made the save and froze the puck, but before the whistle, the puck was pushed over the line in a scrum.” If the video clearly shows that the puck actually trickled through the goalie’s equipment on the initial shot, and he never stopped it, then it should be a goal. If the video shows that the goalie did infact stop the initial shot for any length of time, or is inconclusive, or the whistle blew before it crossed the line, then its no goal.
Or, like in the NFL, the ref should be able to see the replay and discuss it with the replay official, and could make the call themselves, rather than be overturned by the war room.
The other change i would like to see, which i will dub the Tomas Holmstrom rule. If the ref believes that a goal should be disallowed because of goaltender interference, video replay should be used to confirm that there was indeed contact between the goalie and attacking player, and that contact happened before the puck crossed the goal line. If the video shows contact, then its the on ice officials opinion as to whether that constitutes interference. But, ive seen alot of goals disallowed because players like Holmstrom and others that have that reputation, and then you see the video and there’s a foot or more of daylight between them and the goalie.
I know the league wants everyone to believe that the refs are always right, and that its impossible to review or overturn the on ice official’s perception orinterpretation of whats happening on the ice. But i think these changes would actually do more to protect the officials. Is it more damaging to the league and the officials to be overturned, or see the replay themselves and then make the right the call, or to have the whole world watch the replay showing the ref make the wrong call, and the league back them up?
Posted by jwad from DC on 01/15/10 at 06:54 PM ET
it will change when Cindy has one waved off by the ITB rule…...
Posted by gunnar from Ada, MI on 01/16/10 at 07:45 AM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
What Do You Expect From A Rookie Season?
About Kukla’s Korner
Kukla’s Korner is updated around the clock with the work of our own talented bloggers, plus links to the best hockey writing around the internet. We strive to bring you all the breaking hockey news as it happens.
The home page allows you to see the latest postings from every blog on the site. Subscribe here. For general inquiries and more, please contact us anytime.
Get the top online sports betting bonuses available to sports betters!
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker.
As well as reading about hockey games, you can also find info about poker like which poker sites accept American Express or which are the best Canadian poker sites and also find the top rakeback sites at rakeback.net.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
I agree wholeheartedly. It’s bizarre/insane/stupid for a ref to (1) think the play is dead, and so (2) intend to blow the whistle, but (3) before he blows the whistle the puck crosses the line, and then (4) he waives it off anyway, because the play was already dead in the privacy of his own mind, even though (5) HE NOW SEES THAT HE WAS WRONG AND THE PUCK WAS STILL IN PLAY.
Say, for instance, you’re Harrison Ford in the movie “The Fugitive.” You are hunting for your wife’s killer. Let’s say you think person x did it, and you decide to kill the guy in revenge, but then you realize before you pull the trigger that the guy is the wrong guy. DO YOU THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITH KILLING THE GUY BECAUSE OOPS YOU ALREADY STARTED KILLING HIM IN YOUR MIND? No, you stop and thank your lucky stars you corrected your mistake before you ruined an innocent person’s life.
I blathered extensively on this topic (and the related topic of who overrules whom with regard to intent to blow) here: http://wp.me/ptucv-DE and would love to hear what you think.
Posted by Quisp on 01/15/10 at 02:56 PM ET