Mike Chen's Hockey Blog
Next entry: Fun With Google Image Search
Previous entry: Hockey Songs Vs. Cricket Songs
Putting Rules On The “Intent” Rule
by Mike Chen on 11/19/09 at 04:20 PM ET
Comments (13)
I might be in the minority here, but I support the idea behind the “intent to blow the whistle” rule. Refs are human and that means that they need to take time, however minuscule it is, to comprehend what they’re seeing, grab the whistle, and blow it. That part makes sense.
That being said, I think last night’s Brad May no-goal was a pretty spectacular job of backpedaling by the league. The problem with a rule based around something intangible like intent is that there’s no real way to quantify it. When you take intent and interpretation and third-party input, there’s no way it can come out clean. Because of that, close (or in May’s case, not so close) calls get tossed into this gray area where nothing good comes out of it.
But maybe there’s a way to add a little black-and-white to that gray area. Cue up your Thomas Dolby LP here.
Thanks to the miracles of modern science, there have been extensive studies done on how quickly the human body physically reacts once the mind processes a thought—known in layman’s terms as reaction time. In general, you’re looking at around 0.2 seconds. For a hockey ref, that means once he loses sight of the puck, it will take about 0.2 seconds for him to start moving his arm with the intention of grabbing the whistle and blowing on it.
Because hockey’s a fast-moving game with sticks and skates and jerseys flying around everywhere, what if we err on the side of caution and round that up to 0.3 seconds? Ok, then you establish that as your baseline and you add in video review. So, keeping that as a standard, you use your best camera angle of the ref to determine the moment that he begins the motion to blow the whistle. Once you define that moment, take it back 0.3 seconds. Has the puck crossed the line before then? If yes, then it crossed the line before he intended to blow the whistle. Case closed.
Here’s an example. If the puck is moving around the crease and it crosses the line with 10.5 seconds left but the whistle blows afterward, then we look at the replay. If the whistle blew at 10.2 seconds left, then that means the ref roughly began his intent at 10.6 seconds—or 0.1 seconds BEFORE the puck crossed the goal line. The intent was there before the puck crossed the goal line, so no goal. However, let’s say the whistle blew with 10 seconds left. That means that the intent began around 10.3 seconds left, which is about 0.2 seconds AFTER the puck crossed the line. Good goal.
You can get even more specific with this if you analyze the replay down to the frame/clock counter of when the ref began moving his arm to grab the whistle. It just gets too messy to describe an example without pictures.
(Sorry for the math problem, everyone. No more numbers, I promise.)
If the NHL leaves this issue up for interpretation, it’s just going to pop up time and again, creating a debate every few weeks about “What is intent?” Why not just take an average number proven by research and apply it to the rule? That way, there can be no debate. It may not be perfect, but at least it’s a hard-and-fast rule that both sides of the ice can agree to as The Rules.
As for the Brad May goal, the replay I saw didn’t have a clock tacked onto it. However, you can count a good “one-one-thousand” by the time the puck goes in and the whistle blows, so even eyeballing it tells us that this one’s a goal.
Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Brad+May, Officiating,
Comments
Well, for better or worse, it’s actually in the rule book:
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.
H/T to IllegalCurve.com for actually slogging through the NHL yearbook.
Now, the other way you could eliminate that is if you put a sentence in the rule book that says “Play is blown dead upon first instance of whistle blown regardless of referee intent.”
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/19/09 at 05:46 PM ET
Intent doesn’t even apply in this case, because he didn’t intend to blow the whistle until after the puck was already in the net.
Posted by John W. from one win at a time on 11/19/09 at 05:54 PM ET
I think your specifics are overly scientific but I agree with what you’re saying.
You can’t take the ref’s judgement out of the game but you can look at an example like last night and tell the ref, “No, we can tell you did not intend to blow the play dead, no matter what you tell us.”
Posted by DetroitHockey on 11/19/09 at 06:03 PM ET
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
Yes, perhaps the league can hire Neurologist to examine the refs EEG’s to detrmine the exact moment the refs synapses have actually ‘fired’ to determine unequivocally when his intent to blow the whistle was. 
Posted by Down River Dan on 11/19/09 at 06:03 PM ET
I think your specifics are overly scientific but I agree with what you’re saying.
That’s why you have to click the link to the Thomas Dolby song above when reading my explanation! 
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/19/09 at 06:40 PM ET
also - and i will just keep emphasizing this until i’m blue in the face, even if you want to keep “intent” in the game as a purely unscientific subjective decision by the ref, they could allow that on-ice ref to look at the replays and be a part of the review process. because only that ref “knows” when he “intended” to blow the whistle. if LaRue looked at that replay himself and saw “hey, there’s where the puck went over the line, and here is where i intended on blowing it” then he could make the right call himself, under the letter of the current rules.
but the way it is now, the replay officials and the war room are the only ones who look at it, yet they have no grounds to question the ref’s subjectivity. putting a monitor over by the scoring official is a minor addition and would not involve changing the rules (like adding mike chen’s suggestion or removing the “intent” rule all together). the ref doesn’t even have to ever look at the monitor unless it’s a situation where the call is based on their subjectivity. every other professional sport includes the game official taking part in the review process.
i can’t believe that the league isn’t taking a proactive stance on this. the fact that this situation happened in a relatively meaningless game in the first half of the season gives them an opportunity to make damn sure it doesn’t happen in a game 7 in the playoffs.
but yet mike murphy pretends like there’s nothing that could be done here…
Posted by perfection on 11/19/09 at 07:05 PM ET
I disagree. This concept only works if the reff correctly idenfifies the play as dead when he intends to blow. I have yet to see that actually be the case. If the reff loses track of a loose puck and the puck ends up in the net before the whistle is blown, why should it be called back? If play was truely live it should be a goal, and it’s not like a whistle mislead the goalie or defenders. This is truely inexcussable considering that instant replay can definitively determine whether the play was live or not. If the ref doesn’t blow his whistle and the goalie never covered the puck, the goal should stand.
The only time intent to blow should be considered is if the goalie is covering the puck and the reff intends to blow before a player knocks the puck out from underneath the goalie. Using it as the end all to determine the stoppage of a play is flawed and should be changed..
Posted by ChrisinA^2 from the University of Michigan on 11/19/09 at 07:16 PM ET
“Intent” is great in theory but if the puck moves in that split second during “intent”, then the puck wasn’t frozen in the first place and the whistle should not have blown.
Try explaining this rule to a casual NHL fan let alone a potential fan that the sport desperately needs
Posted by Mike Serven on 11/19/09 at 07:16 PM ET
Here’s the inherent problem with this. 99% of plays in hockey games end when the whistle is blown. Not when the ref intends to blow the whistle, but when he blows it.
Icing? Offsides? Penalty? Puck goes out of play? All these plays end with the sound of the whistle.
Cut and dried. Whislte blows, play stops.
Except when there’s a blown/questionable/challenged call?
The NHL changes the rules when there is a challenge. The team challenging a call has to prove something that only one person in the world knows (the intention of the ref), rather than proving something that anyone watching the game can see (what actually happened).
The only way this “intent to blow” works is if there is a replay after Every. Single. Whistle.
The ref looks at the play and stops the tape when he intended to blow the whistle, so that the clock stops at the exact right time, rather than the time the whistle blew.
I’m sorry, NHL, you can’t have it both ways. Either every play ends when the whistle blows or every play ends when the ref intended to blow the whistle. It’s not fair to have it the other way.
Posted by Garth on 11/19/09 at 08:41 PM ET
As a USA Hockey official for fifteen years, I can tell you the “intent to blow” rule is very real. And if you’ve ever officiated, you can appreciate what the rule is designed to do. There certainly is that split-second that transpires between the time the play is dead in your head and when you get your hand up to your mouth.
It is a rule that is needed, but also should be used very, very sparingly. To use it as the official in the game last night did is where the problem begins: the rule is okay, but the abuse of it is inexcusable. The official last night used the rule to save face, and as a result the rule itself is undermined in a very big way.
The general consensus among the officials I worked with over the years is that while the “intent” rule is a good one, still it is one ripe for abuse.
If the call in last night’s Wings game happened in a Bantam game it would be a terrible call; for it to happen in an NHL game is beyond the pale. An NHL official used a relatively obscure rule to save face, and the NHL allowed it.
This is inexcusable on so many levels it is mind-boggling. And if we fans of the premiere league of this great sport allow this to die with but a mere whimper in the coming days, then we need look no further than the mirror when we ask why the NHL is able to do to our game what it does.
Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 11/19/09 at 08:47 PM ET
And if you’ve ever officiated, you can appreciate what the rule is designed to do. There certainly is that split-second that transpires between the time the play is dead in your head and when you get your hand up to your mouth.
Is there a problem with anticipating a play and already having the whistle to the lips, ready to signal? Executed like this, there should be virtually no delay on the “intent” and timing of the whistle. Be in position to make the anticipated call, take a brief moment to verify things play out as expected, then make the call.
I’ve never officiated a hockey game, but I have spent time as an umpire in baseball, and the above is basically what’s instructed when making a call on the base paths as well. Even if a guy should be out at first by several steps, you do not make the call until you are 100% certain the fielder did not drop the throw, he’s on the base for the out, etc. Calls should be very deliberate.
Right, hockey is a fast game with sticks and limbs flailing, and there’s still the couple millisecond human reaction time. I get that. But getting a call right is important. And since there is no standard among officials on how long the goalie must actually freeze the puck when it’s location is known before getting a whistle, what little time lost is inconsequential.
If it actually takes an official any significant amount of time to whistle a play at the proper moment, it just tells me he wasn’t really paying attention.
Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 11/20/09 at 12:25 AM ET
I have no problem with your basic idea here, nor do I have an inherent problem with the “intent” rule.
What I have a problem with is that the NHL is so stuck on a technicality in their rulebook that they’d rather let a call that was obviously wrong by all common sense standards stand, then to change it.
LaRue may have intended to blow the whistle. All we can do is take his word for it. The point is that if he did, it was a horrible, foolish mistake, as said intent must have been when the puck was clearly loose, in the slot, well in front of Auld, with nothing covering it.
I think it’s clear what happened here. May whipped a pretty average backhand shot at Auld—the kind of shot that is stopped 95% of the time by NHL goalies. Just like everyone in the arena assumed Auld would make the stop, so did LaRue, so as soon as the puck disappeared in/behind Auld, he blew the whistle to reset for the face-off to Auld’s left.
THIS was LaRue’s mistake. He should’ve seen the shot go, and then skated up to the cage to check where the puck was before he blew the whistle.
The “intent” rule is okay, but it cannot be the end-all. The league should have the authority to overturn a play like that because it was nothing more than common sense. If it can be determined the official made a mistake in said “intent,” the call should be subject to review.
This is just one more situation where the NHL has slapped common sense in the face.
Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 11/20/09 at 09:27 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.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
What Do You Expect From A Rookie Season?
About Mike Chen’s Hockey Blog
Mike Chen prides himself in being the only hockey writer integrating puck discussion with both Morrissey quotes and Star Wars references. Since 2004, he’s blogged about all things hockey and currently contributes to FoxSports.com, the Battle of California, and RotoRob.
Questions? Comments? Hate mail? Contact Mike here.
Up until about 3/4 years ago you NEVER heard a ref make an annoucement that It was my “intent” to blow the whistle. I dare you to find evidence of such a thing happening.
Only after the implementation of video review, did we begin to get that excuse.
I believe it was Mick Mcgough during a game up in Edmonton several years ago.
Mcgough had absolutely blown a call on a legimate goal by the Oilers and his excuse was “i intended to blow the whistle”
First time EVER for that sort of nonsense, and now any sort of F### Up can simply be magically erased with a B.S. explanation.
Mcgough had several other blown calls not too soon after, and not soon after that .....he was FIRED, and so should that J.A. from last nites game.
Posted by Down River Dan on 11/19/09 at 05:43 PM ET