The Problem With The NHL
Mike Adams | National Hockey League
Jun 23, 02:32 PM | Hype this story!
During the Stanley Cup Final, I received an e-mail from my sister in Pittsburgh. She is what you might call a casual fan, a relative newcomer to the sport. Only the excitement of the Cup run lured her to the television to watch hockey. Unlike most of us who frequent this site, she isn’t terribly well-versed in the rules of the game.
But what she wrote kind of opened my eyes:
As someone who is new to the sport I see no consistency from the refs. If the NFL were like that, it would be a joke. As a league, the NHL seems kind of back bench. They have a great product, but when you bring new fans in and they can’t figure who does and doesn’t get penalties, it makes it a second rate league.
Mind you, she was not complaining about biased officiating. Rather, it was a statement that a game that is difficult enough to follow on TV was being made nearly impossible because of the inconsistencies in officiating. Trying to read between the lines, what she was trying to say was within a game, game to game, round to round, it was virtually impossible to know what was a penalty and what wasn’t. I couldn’t agree more.
It was plainly obvious that the Final was called far differently than any of the previous rounds. And the standard they enforced certainly led to some of the most exciting hockey we’ve seen in years. But it most certainly was not the same standard that had been in force all year. In fact, the way earlier rounds were called was far looser than the regular season had been. So much for the mantra that “a penalty is a penalty whether it’s in the first minute of the first game or the last minute of the last game,” eh?
The league certainly contributes to the problem here. They assigned four referees to the Final—Paul Devorski, Bill McCreary, Dennis LaRue, and Marc Joannette. With the possible exception of Joannette, all of these guys are of the “let ‘em play” ilk. So we “insiders” really knew going in what type of series it would be. Unless a slash broke a stick or blood was drawn, or a team lost its cool in a blowout, these guys weren’t going to call anything.
But imagine the confusion of the casual fan. Maybe they watched some regular season hockey. Maybe a few playoff games. They saw players get their stick parallel to the ice while barely touching an opponent and go to the box. Come the Final, players were tackling each other while the refs pretended they didn’t see it. Why wouldn’t they be confused?
Imagine if this were the NFL and the league instructed the refs not to call a penalty unless it caused or prevented a goal. They would be laughed at. They would go the entire playoffs without a holding penalty. Those twitches by offensive linemen before the snap? Perfectly legal in the playoffs. Let ‘em play!
Thankfully, the NFL gets it. They realize the only way for new fans to understand the game is to enforce the rules consistently. The NHL? Not so much. The sport is foreign to many Americans simply because they don’t grow up on ice like their neighbors to the north do. They don’t “instinctively” understand the game or its rules. And the league makes it even harder by seemingly not knowing or enforcing its own rules.
And yes, this is a league problem. As I said, they assigned the refs who called the Final. They knew what they were getting. And they got exactly what they wanted. But as far as growing the sport, they have the same problem they’ve always had. As my sister so eloquently said, “They have a great product, but when you bring new fans in and they can’t figure who does and doesn’t get penalties, it makes it a second rate league.” And that’s exactly what it has always been.
Comments
bag o' pucks
Jun 23, 02:55 PM
I don’t buy it. Anyone who watches any sport religiously is intimately familiar with their sports’ particular flaws. NFL fans know that holding (on the offensive line) could be called on almost every play. It just isn’t. Basketball fans know that travelling could be called on almost every play, especially when a player drives to the net for a layup or dunk. It just isn’t called.
The reason why hockey is a niche sport has nothing to do with the officiating. It has to do with the rule set. In football, holding is easy to understand, whether it’s called or not. In basketball, travelling is easy to understand, whether it’s called or not.
But in hockey, the rules aren’t so apparent. Okay, they get roughing. But icing? What the hell does that mean? Why is it okay to catch the puck, drop it and play it, but if the puck bounces off your hand inadvertently and a teammate plays it the play is stopped? And why can you do that in that area of the ice, but not this area of the ice? And in the days of the red-line, Why is passing over two-lines illegal?
Hockey is a niche sport because the rules take time to understand, and everything happens extremely fast. Many folks have no idea why a play has been whistled because they didn’t even see the infraction.
I’m not saying refing in hockey is good or bad, but it isn’t the reason why the NHL has fallen behind NASCAR. Is there anything more apparent than a car race? Ooh, a car crash, that’s bad. Frankly, hockey is a niche sport because it’s a bit more complicated than other sports and most people don’t care or don’t get it. Not being a snob, I’m just saying.
Andy
Jun 23, 03:17 PM
I agree with almost everything that has been said here. My Dad never really watched hockey and I actually got him into these playoffs. By the time the Finals rolled around he could actually follow the puck, but he couldn’t follow the rules. Until the league starts calling EVERYTHING to a consistent standard, it is going to be hard for this league to gain traction with sports fans used to the consistency provided by refs in other sports like the NFL.
TIM
Jun 23, 03:29 PM
In my Arranging 2 class this semester we were talking about hockey, and kids were asking me all kinds of questions about the rules. My teacher had asked if any of us had watched the game, and I assumed he meant the Hockey game not the Celtics game, so I said of course I love Hockey. He asked me what icing was, and boarding. Some foreign students asked me how come they allow fighting in Hockey, and don’t throw them out of the league.
You might be right Pucks I think the two biggest issues are understanding the rules, and also the speed of the game. I have heard casual viewers complain about seeing the Puck which led to that Fox Sports Blue Puck fiasco.
Susan
Jun 23, 03:52 PM
Since my comment inspired the post, let me say a few things.
I think hockey is a niche sport because it’s been horribly marketed. I was not a hockey fan until I watched the winter classic last year. This year, I watched regular season games and every playoff game. Except when I was traveling for work and couldn’t get versus in my hotel.
If I can become a fan, anyone can. Hockey isn’t that complicated, it just moves fast and so I probably wouldn’t see ‘icing’ unless I was in the arena.
Let’s use ‘interference’ in the NFL as an example. As a fan, I know this is a subjective call. Unless it’s blatant interference it’s up to the discretion of the ref. I wouldn’t expect interference to suddenly stop being called because it’s the Super Bowl. And, for the casual fan, unless it’s blatant, they don’t know why it’s interference.
If the refs are going to put their whistles away…why are they even there? to drop pucks at faceoffs?
Pens1967
Jun 23, 04:23 PM
Ask James Harrison how consistent the NFL refs are about calling holding on offensive linemen. :)
bag o' pucks
Jun 23, 04:46 PM
Fans of every sport I know complain about refs. I hear football fans consistently complaining about blown calls, missed calls, etc. The difference between football and hockey is that each play ends in football. The refs can get together and discuss a call or a non-call, which they frequently do, and it’s usually not a major disruption to the game (video review excluded) because of the natural stoppage between plays, anyway.
In hockey, there is no such luxury for the refs, the only way to stop the play is with a whistle (or if the puck leaves the ice, is held by the goalie, etc.). Most stoppages in hockey are a disruption to the flow of the game.
No matter how much the sport is marketed, a puck being whacked around with sticks on ice will never make as much natural sense to the average person as a ball being tossed around. People all over the world played catch when they were kids, they bounce balls, etc. Those things aren’t relevant in hockey so they don’t tap into the psychology of childhood for most people. And not everyone grows up on frozen ponds, so…
Could the NHL be reffed and marketed better? Of course. Are those the root problems of the sport not being as successful as football or basketball? No. Hockey will never be as successful in the US as those two sports, but it’s not because of reffing or marketing.
I think, for adults, I don’t find many people who are converts to hockey as adults. By that time they don’t want to take the time to learn these goofy rules and figure out what the hell is going on. But, again, throwing a ball, catching a ball, running with a ball, bouncing a ball, that speaks to just about everyone, regardless of age. Most hockey fans I know liked the game as a kid.
But, for kids, hockey being a niche sport has much more to do with how readily available ice is, natural or artificial, and how much it costs to play, skates, sticks, pads. It costs virtually nothing to bolt up a hoop and get a basketball. Or a football just to toss around with some friends.
Nate
Jun 23, 05:42 PM
@Bag,
I agree with some points and disagree with others. Yeah football and basketball may be a little bit cheaper, but hockey can be played on the cheap too. I started out playing with a $25 pair of skates from K-mart and a $10 Mylec stick. Pads? Who needs them? We just toughened up our Knees and shins a bit. If a kid wants to play a sport bad enough, they’ll find a way. The problem comes about like in my hometown where the YMCA took over the Dek Hockey rink and now charge a $400 team league fee just to play 12 games. No more $3 a night pick up games, just league play.
But I’m sure that’s the same for every sport, some kids think they can’t play basketball without a $200 pair of shoes strapped to their feet.
I just don’t think “cost” is the cause, it’s the lack of places for kids to learn how to play. I mean, how long has it been since they had something like the Triple Crown roller hockey tournament in Pittsburgh? We used to look forward to playing in that every summer. I just don’t hear of things like that anymore, and the roller hockey is alot easier for the kids to play than ice hockey.
Sorry if that doesn’t make much sense, trying to reply and work at the same time.
Chris Gates
Jun 23, 06:01 PM
I had a professor last semester who was born and raised in Wales. He is a soccer fanatic and would constantly explain that Americans don’t like soccer b/c it doesn’t have built-in stoppages that please our short attention span. I think that applies to hockey as well. You’ll see play go back and forth for minutes on end with no whistle. Like in Game 7 of the Finals, where the period went non-stop for like 9 minutes or something crazy.
Also, I think that if you look at the Finals this year compared to last year, the officiating was much different. The penalty minutes were drastically higher in 2008. Something weird was going on this year. Both Wings and Pens fans had legitimate complaints every game.
—
Chris | PPT
stoopidful
Jun 23, 06:32 PM
As a middle aged female who only really started watching hockey sometime around the all star break of Jordan Staal’s rookie year, here’s my two cents:
While my dad had watched hockey while I was growing up and I maybe watched the Final in 91 and 92, I had to learn what the basic rules were. It was not that hard to pick up. I was only really frustatrated with the reffing in the first couple of games of the Final this year. Once the Pens started to figure out that they could engage in some of the same stuff without fear of a penalty, in my opinion, was when things turned around (this is totally ignoring game five which was some kind of an anomoly, perhaps having to do with the alignment of planets or some such).
I agree with Tom that the prevalence of large screen televisions is one of the factors which will make a difference in the increase in fans.
The fact that there seemed to be more people on the street for the Penguins parade than for the Steelers parade (OK, so it had something to do with the temperature and school being out) ought to be a cue for the NHL to realize that the fans are out there if they could just find someway to reach out to them.
Moq
Jun 23, 07:47 PM
In all honesty, I had a severe problem with the level of officiating applied during the finals. Mostly because it disregarded the rules used until then, during the regular season and the first rounds of the playoffs. They decided to stray from that line, or selected referees most like to adopt a conservative line. That made it difficult to watch at first, regardless of which team benefited the most.
The finals were entertaining despite that transgression by the league. But I suspect that abiding closer to the rulebook wouldn’t have detracted from the excitement. Regardless of the line applied, officiating would have been scrutinized and complained about. That’s the nature of hockey and hockey fans. However, I do hope the league intends to revert back to the original intent of the “New NHL”, ie. putting skill at the forefront of promoting the game. Otherwise we’ll se clutching, grabbing and the player type adept at exploiting it. Not to mention the injuries caused by the “let’em play” attitude.
Hopefully, the league will review officiating and revert to the proper way of promoting the game of hockey. The best blend of physicality, speed and skill.
bag o' pucks
Jun 24, 12:15 AM
The only other sport I watch is MMA.
http://sherdog.com/news/articles/time-for-change-with-judges-referees-18133
Everyone complains about the refs.
DaBich
Jun 24, 06:28 AM
Hey Pucks, I love watching UFC...hubby got me interested in it. And I can even pretty much follow the rules and everything.
I started watching hockey in my early 20’s…long time ago ;)
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think if you have a mindset and an interest in a sport, you can pick up the rules and follow it. If you don’t, then you won’t.
All sports do have people complaining about the reffing, but it’s painfully obvious, that the rules weren’t followed hardly at all, in direct contrast to the regular season. It more or less made a mockery of the game. Does it send a message to the players for next season that crap will be allowed? That remains to be seen.
Ray aka WildcatRay
Jun 24, 10:59 AM
Your sister’s observation is my complaint, too. The NHL got matchups they wanted (Pens/Caps, Pens/wing dings) that drew attention to the playoffs. However, they did not seem interested in enforcing the rules in anything approaching a consistent fashion.
Case in point. Shown in replay, Maltby slashes Crosby on the back of his knee right in front of McCreary. It is clearly a penalty on Maltby, except in the mind of the key person on the ice, McCreary, who completely ignores the incident. To add insult to injury, the NHL does not (publicly) fine/suspend Maltby for what was clearly an attempt to injure, something the NFL would do to a player committing an equivalent infraction almost automatically.
Do I think anything will come of this. No, not until there is an overhaul of league leadership at the top.
Mike Adams
Jun 24, 11:38 AM
@ Ray,
Well that certainly could cut both ways. Malkin could have been suspended for instigating. Crosby could have been suspended for his whack on Zetterberg. But the NHL sent the message to both teams that anything goes by assigning the refs they did. Enough of the seniority crap. Put the refs who grade out the best in the Final, just like they do in other sports. And if these guys did grade out best, then this league has serious problems.
bag o' pucks
Jun 24, 12:34 PM
@Dabs. Agreed, I thoroughly enjoy MMA, it’s a great sport. The UFC has really dominated the landscape for a few years now, especially since buying out Pride (which was the top Japanese promotion, and arguably the best in the world at the time) a few years ago, and also acquiring the WEC more recently. Strikeforce puts on very good shows, also. Hockey will always be my first love, but MMA is great, also.
Dabich
Jun 24, 03:55 PM
Pucks, nothing, NOTHING beats hockey…not even chocolate :)
Ray aka WildcatRay
Jun 24, 04:49 PM
My point is that the inconsistency of the officiating is a black eye on what should have been a shining moment for the league. I cited the Maltby slash as an example of the poor officiating and as something that other leagues would not tolerate.
bag o' pucks
Jun 24, 07:18 PM
@Ray. “Should” have been a shining moment? The Finals were the shining moment. Only Detroit fans and people with nothing better to do are crying about the officiating. These Finals were the best I’ve seen in 15 years (and not simply because the Pens won), and every hockey commentator I’ve heard and the league seems to agree. I thought they were awesome: skill to the extreme, speed, hitting, nastiness, good goaltending (game five notwithstanding), unsung heroes. They were amazing.
Ray aka WildcatRay
Jun 25, 11:26 AM
I am quite happy the Pens, my Pens won!
@Tom,
As have all of us dealt with poor officiating, but we are talking “professional” hockey. Should it not be held to a higher standard than rec leagues, high school, and college levels? Are not NHL officials paid better than their college counterparts? Compared to the regular season the Stanley Cup Finals were awful in terms of the calls and non-calls BOTH ways.
I think we can all agree that consistency of the officiating is what is most important. Consistency is what was most absent in the Finals.
I can accept the occasional missed call. After all, the officials are human and not infallible. But, the 4 in the Finals were consistently inconsistent.
@Bag O’Pucks,
The poor officiating was the black eye, not the play of the Pens & wing dings, though the wing dings did look tired almost through the entire series. Also, what excited the commentators and other observers was the resilience the Pens showed because they did NOT fold their tents and go home after their Game 5 implosion.
The problem I am alluding to is that poor officiating was likely to be noticed by casual observers like Mike’s sister, observers who are not very knowledgeable of the game of hockey and having to figure out on the fly what is and is not allowed. They could, using the Maltby example, now think that it is OK to slash an opponent on the back of his knees because no penalty was assessed during the game nor was any (public) fine and/or suspension handed down to Maltby after the game. (As I also pointed out the NFL will fine and/or suspend players for their in-game play regardless of having been penalized during the game.)
While these casual fans may have enjoyed watching the Pens come back against the wing dings, they also would be thinking the NHL is a second rate operation that cannot get its officials to call the game according to the rule book and/or in anything resembling a consistent manner.
Commenting is closed for this article.