Thus far, a lot of emphasis has been placed by the league on cracking down on headshots, while a lot of media sources are also demanding that attention be given to the number of fights in the NHL right now. But amongst these violence trends, another seems to have arisen with far less fanfare — but arguably with just as great a consequence.
Whilst the refs have been busy watching for big hits which deserve a game misconduct, a series of little hits are beginning to shake up the most important athletes in any professional sport. Blindsided by an onslaught of suspensions, the league has found itself plagued by goaltender interference.
Of course, one of the reasons that there hasn’t been a ton of media coverage on these often subtle bumps is because it is an issue that has existed forever, in league terms. The tension that exists between encouraging goal-scoring and protecting the netminders has regularly resulted in a piecemeal comprehension of the rulebook. If a player is in the crease, is that fair play? Before the late 90s, the resounding answer was “no,” but with the turning of the millennium there came an about-face as the league struggled to increase goal totals. As a result, the rules were altered to suit the league’s need, allowing players to be standing on the blue paint when a goal is scored, or even to score from the area itself if that happens to be the case.
But then, where exactly is the “safe zone” for goalies, now? If players can stand in the crease without risking a lost goal, then the netminder’s range of mobility is significantly reduced. The debate now becomes one concerning physically touching the goalie — an analyst’s worst nightmare. Factors such as the goalie’s position, the player’s intention, and the timing and location of the touch come into play in determining whether a goalie was genuinely interfered with, or if the bump was harmless.
And so, from year to year — and even game to game — it is basically impossible to predict just how and how often the referees will call goaltender interference. Sometimes what seems to be a blatant example of goaltender interference is passed on by the official, while other times a simple tap results in a penalty or a reversed goal. Analysts are rendered to spending their time guessing the refs’ thoughts, rather than speculating on whether the decision was valid or not based on simple facts. Needless to say, it is usually a doomed endeavour.
But what must be noted is that this year, the referees seem to be overlooking the importance of this issue. “Bigger issues” are at stake,” I am sure they would argue, and yet the decision on whether a touch is interference or otherwise is easily one of the most pivotal ones made on a nightly basis. After all, a Steve Downie hit only occurs once or twice a season, but goalies are daily thrown off of their games because of bumps and taps.
Last night once again, the media’s fury may have been needed, but is not quite present.
Consider this clip below, which appeared but twice on CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada last night — once after the Toronto/Pittsburgh game, and once on the Score Board Saturday segment.
The emphasis of this play was minor, in this instance. The Sens had clearly dominated the match against the Rangers, and the goal served merely to cancel out Gerber’s shutout bid. Nonetheless, the play is questionable at best, and despicable at worst. To summarize, Gerber seems to have the puck covered, but the ref refuses to call it dead, which results in the puck coming loose and Jagr marking a goal. But aside from refusing to blow the whistle, I would argue that the ref missed another call: goalie interference. If the players hadn’t been whacking Gerber’s glove, the puck would have been solidly held in place, until the ref finally called the play dead. Instead, the stickwork of the surrounding players resulted in a reward. Does this seem right?
I’m not making a case that the players poking at Gerber should have received a penalty. They didn’t hit him with any intention to injure, and you can’t obstruct the offensive effort of a goaltender, so the two major reasons for penalizing a player aren’t present in this case. But should the goal have been allowed? Okay, so the ref didn’t whistle it dead. But he surely wouldn’t be undermining that decision by revoking to goal; the question isn’t one of whether he was right or wrong to leave the clock running, but one of how much the players are allowed to jab the goalie with their stick. By allowing the goal to stand, the message is sent out that players wanting an easy goal should keep on poking at the goalie’s glove when he has it covered.
And even more importantly, I don’t see a single mention of the play in the media this morning! Instead, the press seems to be lethargically recuperating from the monumental effort it took to convict Jesse Boulerice of his crimes — and to criticize Colin Campbell for the way he was handling situation (since he was clearly going to overlook one of the most blatant cheap shots in the NHL’s recent history).
Oftentimes, the media makes a sound choice in what to pick on and what not to. For example, another play last night saw Vancouver’s Marcus Naslund sprawling across Edmonton netminder Dwayne Roloson. The ref, standing directly behind the net, had a great vantage point and decided to let the goal scored on the play stand, despite Naslund’s presence. A few minutes later, Kelly Hrudey confronted the hit with the comment that Roloson seemed to trip up Naslund himself. And he’s absolutely correct. Naslund certainly was not aggressively hugging the net; in fact, he was skating backwards in a perfectly harmless position when he ran into Roloson’s legs, which were protruding from the crease into “normal” ice. To ignore this instance was perfectly normal, and acceptable.
But in the former situation, there was a clear impact by the interference. Gerber would not have surrendered that goal if it weren’t for the sticks hitting him. And, on a daily basis, this kind of play is overlooked in order to target big hits for criticism.
It’s time for there to be increased focus on the little things. Consistency is pivotal to make hockey a fun sport to watch. If one game has 10 interference penalties assigned while another involves a goal or two getting permitted despite interference, it makes the sport hard to stomach. While it’s good to see headshots being confronted, let us not forget other issues as a media centre. Rather, it’s time to tackle league policy en-masse, to spark a new wave of innovations that actually matter.
2 Comments
October 15, 2007 at 1:03 pm
While it’s good to see headshots being confronted, let us not forget other issues as a media centre. Rather, it’s time to tackle league policy en-masse, to spark a new wave of innovations that actually matter.
In that last paragraph, it sounds like you’re saying that headshots don’t actually matter. But I think you only mean that goaltender interference actually matters, even if the refs and the media seem to have forgotten it.
Inevitably, there’s some subjectivity involved in making these calls. But surely the league can outline some standards to guide the referees, to introduce an acceptable degree of consistency. Because I agree — goaltender interference actually does matter.
October 15, 2007 at 2:24 pm
You’re right, it does. What I should have said is “to spark a new wave of innovations that won’t progress without the media.” I honestly don’t think this headshot thing needs that much more attention, since the league seems finally to have listened to the players/fans. Now it’s time to start working on other things!
And that’s exactly the problem. Refs are supposed to make judgment calls, but they’re not supposed to make their own set of rules every game. There needs to be some standard definition of “goaltender interference” with which they can work. I suspect that it would start by looking to the rulebook, but the game has evolved so much that even that would likely require tweaking.