NHL Hockey Fights: Visors and the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Rule

I sometimes have a moment of clarity when watching a hockey fight. "This is bloody absurd," is what usually comes to mind.

An explosive spur of the moment dust-up between two middleweights isn't the kind of bout that invokes such thoughts. It's usually a pair of long-standing heavyweight goons who casually challenge each other while a faceoff is taking place and then doff their gloves and start throwing after the play begins.

A bit strange and no surprise it causes some hockey watching newbies to scratch their heads and wonder if this part of the game is on par with "professional" wrestling.

Another aspect of fighting that brings into question the mentality of the players involved, is when one or both are wearing visors while throwing punches.

This doesn't seem to be a habit practiced by only those individuals who rarely ever get engaged in a fight (see Sidney Crosby's recent scrap.) For someone like that it would be completely understandable. In the heat of the moment and focused on protecting yourself and flailing wildly, removing your helmet is the last thing to be considered.


Jarome Iginla has been one player who has received a lot of criticism for repeatedly fighting with a visor on. I haven't personally seen many Flames' games this year nor seen Iginla in a fight. I am mainly going on second hand accounts posted on discussion forums. Though I have also seen him in fights without a helmet (which may have come off incidentally.)

The number of critical comments may also be due to his high-profile and the fact that he causes a lot of damage to other teams with his scoring and hence is singled out for those times when he keeps his helmet and visor on when fighting.

There is actually a penalty in the NHL rule book that addresses fighting with a visor:

Rule 47.6 states:

Face Protection - If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Should the player (including a goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty shall not apply.

I can't recall this penalty ever being called. It is contingent on a player being tagged with the instigator penalty first. With the fighting major and unsportsmanlike tacked on that would add up to nine minutes. Something that is rarely seen on a scoring summary. But the scenario that is given as an example in the penalty description rarely occurs because those players who wear visors are least likely to initiate such a confrontation.

Players who don't wear visors do so because of comfort, familiarity and at least some pride in shunning extra protection. While those who choose to cover part of their face with a shield have probably had something similar to protect themselves with since they started playing the game. And they are no doubt less concerned with things like their hard-case credentials and the abstract and nebulous "code" that seems to shift and change with every situation and incident.

It seems as if the laying down of helmets before a fight is more ritualized in the junior ranks where pressure may be greater to adhere to some fighting "rules." Also, in many of those leagues facial protection is mandated and so the situation is the same for everyone.

For the longest time in the NHL players did not wear visors and so it was not an issue. There was no need to remove helmets before a fight though misplaced punches still resulted in many a dislocated knuckle or broken finger.

As more and more players have started wearing visors and fighting has remained a condoned and accepted part of the game, it hasn't really been addressed too much beyond the obscure rule mentioned above.

Perhaps it's being left to the players in the hopes that simple common sense goes some way to reducing the number of slug-fests. Two players with shields who decide to battle and keep their lids on have to live with whatever hand injuries come their way. A player without a visor who goes after one with, is simply accepting the inherent disadvantage.

Regardless of whatever sense of honour there is in making it a fair fight, even if there is enough time to remove a helmet, there is something in-built that results in an aversion to exposing yourself to further danger. But a player with a visor who initiates or even mutually accepts an overture to start throwing haymakers, should have some obligation to remove his extra protection or face an additional penalty.

Unfortunately for those players who like the intimidation that the potential for some fisticuffs provides, they may have to accept that visored players enjoy some added insulation. Their decision to wear the shield increases the chances of hand injuries for opponents and reduces the likelihood that they will end up in a fight.

In fact, visors can and do also result in some face injuries for players who keep them on during punch-ups. But it's common sense that a player is better off with more protection when staring down a possible on-ice hammering and will probably avoid the kind of nasty season ending injury recently suffered by Mark Bell.

NHL Hits and Suspensions: Derian Hatcher, Alexander Steen, Joffrey Lupul

The Philadelphia Flyers are at it again. This time, however, the attempt to inflict damage on an opposing player backfired.

The hit was delivered by the Philadelphia Flyers' Derian Hatcher, fresh off accusations that he bit the finger of the New Jersey Devils' Travis Zajac when the two teams played on January 4th at the Rock in Newark.

But this Downiesque attempt to take off an opposing player's head had unintended consequences during the game between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Flyers on January 5th, 2008.

In the second period of the game, Hatcher lined up Alexander Steen with an open-ice hit, clearly launching himself at that crucial last second before impact, where the physics of such a move guarantee the most momentum and effect.

Unfortunately for Hatcher, and even more for his team-mate Joffrey Lupul, Steen's instincts kicked in and he hit the ice. Lupul took the elbow intended for Steen straight in the chops, going down under the full weight of the lummox Hatcher. Lupul was helped off the ice with images of cheese steaks and freight trains dancing in his head.

The spinning has already started with rabid denials of the reality staring people in the face in the form of video from multiple angles.

Considering the usual template that is applied in the aftermath of such incidents, there could be some synapses short-circuiting amongst the sociopath set.

Does Lupul deserve the (potential though unconfirmed at the moment) injury he suffered because he didn't anticipate the hit?

What about that tiresome cliche that was being spewed with regularity by certain fans early in the season? Does it get tweaked slightly?

"It's great to be feared again to have our players scared of getting their heads taken off by one of our own goons!"

It also presents an interesting conundrum for NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell. Do you suspend a player clearly engaging in the type of behaviour that has been suspension-worthy this season? Or do you let the fact that the hit took out one of the Flyers' own players stand as punishment enough?

Contact and degree of injury are two of the obvious tests for the league in determining whether they will hand down further punishment for an illegal hit. It would be remarkable if the NHL expressed their displeasure for Hatcher and the Flyers by doling out an official sanction in this case.

Campbell and Gary Bettman have both hinted recently that the next incident from the Flyers would result in fines against the team.

If anyone had doubts about whether the series of attacks and illegal body checks (some blatant, some border-line) that resulted in suspensions to Philadelphia were unfortunate "coincidences," there has been little question for some time now that they are part of a conscious and deliberate approach to the game.

As for the match-up between the Leafs and Flyers, Steve Downie's style of conduct was on display again with a sucker punch to Jason Blake that resulted in two minor penalties and allowed the Leafs to get back in the game with a power play goal. Downie's actions may well be in for a review by the league as well, especially considering his antics earlier in the season.

The Flyers went on to win the contest 3-2. Though it helped them little in this game, their fans will likely brush aside criticism of their style of play with the claim "winning is the most important thing, no matter how you do it."

Video of Derian Hatcher's Mistaken Hit on Joffrey Lupul

NHL Overtime and Shootout Points: Claims of Artificial Parity are Exaggerated

With the bunched up standings in both conferences in the NHL this season, talk has been about so-called "artificial parity." This is usually attributed to the frustrating overtime and shootout system that sees one point given to the loser in either post-regulation game situation, while the winner receives two.

Together with the more even distribution of talent due to the salary cap, the result is there are only five points separating 5th and 13th place in the Eastern Conference.

As a sop to owners and fans and in an attempt to keep playoff races tight, the system that awards extra points for losing once the game goes beyond regulation has been ripped by many. The claims of artificiality seem plausible as well. Surely that extra point skews the standings and makes things closer than they would be otherwise.

I assumed so also. But when I re-adjusted the standings using a system that still gives the ultimate winner in overtime or the shootout two points while the loser gets nothing, there is little change in terms of how close the race is in the Eastern Conference (for the sake of brevity I limited the analysis to one conference.)

Here are the current standings in the east, followed by the rankings without a point awarded to the loser:

Current Eastern Conference Standings

1. Ottawa 55
2. New Jersey 45
3. Carolina 43
4. Montreal 45
5. Pittsburgh 42
6. New York R 44
7. Philadelphia 42
8. Buffalo 40
9. New York I 40
10. Boston 40
11. Florida 39
12. Atlanta 39
13. Toronto 38
14. Washington 35
15. Tampa Bay 33

Adjusted Eastern Conference Standings: No Overtime or Shootout Points for Losing Team

1. Ottawa 50
2. New Jersey 42
3. Carolina 40
4. Pittsburgh 40
5. New York R 40
6. Philadelphia 40
7. Montreal 38
8. New York I 38
9. Florida 38
10. Atlanta 38
11. Boston 36
12. Florida 36
13. Toronto 30
14. Washington 30
15. Tampa Bay 30

Negligible difference in terms of the separation between teams within the top eight playoff positions and little effect on those struggling to get into the eligible-for-post-season spots.

The only real change is in the rank for a handful of teams who have fared poorly when games have gone beyond the normal 60 minutes of play.

It is also worth looking at how the standings would look if the NHL reverted to a set-up used a number of years ago when a tie was a tie and both teams received one point for their efforts.

Tie games: No overtime, No shootout, Each Team Receives One Point

1. Ottawa 52
2. New Jersey 41
3. Carolina 41
4. Montreal 41
5. Philadelphia 41
6. New York R 38
7. Boston 38
8. Buffalo 36
9. Toronto 36
10. Pittsburgh 36
11. Florida 36
12. New York I 35
13. Washington 33
14. Atlanta 31
15. Tampa Bay 31

Again, little difference. The division leaders still maintain their positions while there is some movement amongst the other clubs.

This example was arrived at by simply subtracting the extra points awarded to the teams that won in the 5 minute extra frame or the shootout. Obviously this re-jigging slightly penalizes those teams who, for whatever reason, are more proficient when the extra point is on the line (in the west, Edmonton would get hammered using this model.)

So it appears as though the extra point awarded to the team who actually "loses" in the two tie-breaking formats does nothing for parity. The limitation is that this only accounts for the first half of the 2007-08 campaign. The influence may be greater once the season is complete though this should be a good representation of the overall effect.

The simple conclusion is that there is no good reason to keep this rule, especially because of the feeling of most fans that it just doesn't seem right.

There's something fundamentally flawed in the notion that losing deserves some kind of consolation point. It's kind of a tacit admission by owners and management that they have their own doubts about the veracity of the whole set-up.

The most troubling aspect of the "loser gets a point"arrangement (and hence, the major shortcoming in this little experiment) is that there is no way to accurately measure how this affects the mentality of players when involved in close games and tight playoff races.

Instead of the desperation and frantic play that comes with the knowledge that a win is necessary to have a chance at the post-season, a team may let up to maintain a tie so that they are guaranteed at least one point.

Many have presented the hypothetical situation in which a team loses in overtime or the shootout in the last game of the season yet the single point is enough to get them the final playoff spot.

When you introduce variables into the basic premise of victory and defeat and advancing your own team's cause while halting your opponents momentum in the standings, there is bound to be some negative fallout.

Many fans seem to loathe the shootout though personally I have no problem with it. There is already a cliched criticism that it's "an individual skills competition in a team sport."

But there are many sports in which a player's specific skills are isolated in a way that highlights individual ability in a team competition. Often the final outcome of the game hinges on those situations. For example, free throw shots in basketball or field goal attempts in football.

Granted, those features exist throughout the entirety of the game in those sports. But so what? Simply accept that the shootout is a part of the hockey, albeit at the end of regulation and overtime. It has become an important part of the game with certain skills more important than others, just as different aspects of the game already require a shift in style and mentality.

Failure to address the importance of the shootout and giving players an out by whining about its presence are only counterproductive to a team.

There will be no return to the bland and unsatisfying tie games of the past. That doesn't mean alternative methods of overtime aren't worth investigating with the result that the shootout may ultimately end up taking place with less frequency.

However, it is a certainty that the NHL must eliminate the absurdity of a point being awarded to teams that lose, whether it is in overtime or the shootout.

NHL Suspensions: Chris Simon Attack on Jarkko Ruutu

It's hard to commit an act of violence in the NHL that receives universal condemnation. A player can pour every ounce of energy into an explosive, premeditated, pivoting two-handed slash to the face of his opponent and someone, nay, a legion of people, will come screaming to the defense of the piece of filth.

It doesn't take much to provide the basis for such bizarro world rationalization. Any questionable action by the player who's been attacked is all it takes. A genuine foul or perceived slight that went unpunished, either earlier in the game or months previously, justifies the retribution that flows his way.

A barely concealed glee at injuries resulting from cheap shots is not a difficult-to-find sentiment amongst hockey fans. To be fair, it's the kind of bald-faced sociopathic ranting usually seen in the discussion board trenches, where the normal societal division of those who love to play the callous lunatic and those who love to be outraged is magnified a thousand times.

In the "public face" discourse of such incidents, the mainstream hockey media voices all the appropriate outrage, calls for punishment from the league and uses it as a segue to demand that the game be cleaned up. No doubt they are sincere in most cases.

But there are just as many references to the importance of "consequences" and that nebulous "code" that has never really been adequately articulated by anyone, ever. The proper and expected responses come when the glare of exceptional occurrences transcend the game and everyone is at their politically correct best.

So it is a rare instance that gutlessness is distilled into its purest essence and a moment of clarity is shared by all fans, including those of the offending player's team and those who normally take pride in celebrating cowardice and cruelty.

Chris Simon's insane stomp onto the ankle of Jarkko Ruutu's ankle seems to have achieved that rarest of unanimous loathing amongst hockey fans. Simon of the Islanders, in what was a clear and deliberate move, drove his skate blade into Ruutu's ankle, as Ruutu was lying prone on the ice.

That it was planned and Ruutu couldn't even see the attack coming makes it even more insidious and unforgivable. Add in the potential for the seriousness of the injury that could have resulted as well as Simon's track record and he is in for one record-setting suspension.

The odd thing about the incident is that, while it was obviously intentional, it almost seemed like an afterthought by Simon as he made his way through the gate onto the Islander's bench.

Here is the YouTube video of the attack

He wasn't involved in a fast moving, intense game situation. The "fog of battle" defense, that points to the speed and the near impossibility of pulling up in some cases, is irrelevant here. And yet it seemed so casual and pointless. The term "banality of evil" comes to mind (only the second Nazi reference I've made in the past week.)

And so the guessing game begins about the length of suspension the NHL will hand down to Simon. I really wanted to avoid checking in at Bob McKenzie's blog over at TSN because after doing so it's almost impossible not to be derivative of whatever he has to say on such issues.

He has an uncanny ability of putting his finger on the pulse of the league after every suspension-worthy incident and accurately predicting, within a few games, just how long the sentence will be. However, he hasn't commented on this most recent episode yet.

Following the attack with his stick on the New York Ranger's Ryan Hollweg last season, I believe Simon will get hit hard.

The rest of the season, with a less than subtle hope on the part of the NHL and many fans that he decides to call it a career.

Performance and Mindset: The Toronto Maple Leafs and the Shootout

The shootout is currently an important part of the NHL. Rip it all you want (and it is rip-worthy) but the ability to do well in the one-on-one tie-breaker represents the number of points that will decide whether many teams reach the playoffs.

With a dozen or so opportunities for most clubs in the regular season, failure to attach significance to players' effectiveness at scoring goals in the shootout indicates a serious flaw in thinking on the part of coaches and management.

The Leafs are failing miserably in both performance and perspective.

The philosophy starts with coach Paul Maurice, who has a bizarre habit of ridiculing the shootout as well as flippantly dismissing his team's ability to determine its outcome.

The thoughts and mood of a coach are contagious and influence the players a great deal. Here are some comments from Paul Maurice following the Leafs' shootout loss to the Montreal Canadiens last night:

Coach Paul Maurice has little patience for questions about the shootout. He acknowledges the entertainment value of the format, but little more.

"It's part of our practice, sometimes the guys do it on their own at the end. Sometimes the goalies want them. It's not something you want to do every day with a goaltender, one shot right after the other after practice," said Maurice.

Read the full article here.

This comes following a previous Leafs shootout loss against the New York Rangers on November 10th. Maurice was both sullen and derisive in the press conference after that one. He mocked the format and suggested it was good for nothing more than "novelty value." He forgot to mention that besides that, shootouts are worth valuable points that will help determine his team's regular season place in the standings.

You can see the trickle down effect that his frustration has on the team. In the same Toronto Star article, a number of players indicate their failure to get a grasp on the shootout. They essentially come across as flummoxed and annoyed at having to participate. They seem to have no focus or game plan heading into each shooter/goalie showdown because that's the message they are receiving from their coach.

It's hard to overstate the effect that repeated statements from managers and coaches have on players. In effect, those declarations become the team's operating procedure on any number of issues. Players pick up on these beliefs and make them part of their overall opinions and understanding about the game. And then it affects their behaviour.

Just yesterday, as John Ferguson made the rounds on Toronto radio stations responding to some of the criticism he has faced recently, he repeated a rehearsed statement about "the fine line between winning and losing." Lo and behold, today Toronto players are regurgitating that remark almost word for word. You give your players a subtle out shameless excuse to explain away their failures and they will latch onto it, subconsciously or otherwise.

I'm surprised Maurice hasn't been leapt on by the Toronto media for such a deficient approach to a part of the game that many teams are taking advantage of. There's no guarantee that a more positive outlook and more practice for shootouts will improve the Leafs' record but it would be a step in the right direction. With much of the focus and scorn being heaped on Ferguson, Maurice is getting a free pass on this one.

Mike Peca, who wasn't re-signed by the Leafs in the off season and ended up with the Columbus Blue Jackets instead, recently got in a few digs on his former team regarding their poor shootout record. Columbus haven't had much more success than the Leafs but they did come out on top during their most recent attempt against the Red Wings.

Further preventing the Leafs from grabbing any extra points is the performance of Vesa Toskala. He has been in goal for all Leafs' shootouts so far this season and his play is part of the reason for the team's 0-3 record in those situations.  Toskala is 0-7 in shooter on goalie challenges since the NHL adopted the current tie-breaking procedure.

Paul Maurice summed up his most recent musings on a part of the game that has Leafs' players and fans shaking their heads with this quote: "I don't know how much is chance."

A set play that can be practiced, improved upon and tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of each particular opposing goaltender and involves probabilities and odds that go up based on shot type and shooter; that can be accompanied by a focused and positive outlook and embraced as an opportunity to pick up a good chunk of extra points in the race to get into the playoffs, is essentially written off as nothing more than pure luck...

NHL Suspensions: Randy Jones Hit on Patrice Bergeron

There's widespread relief at the news that Patrice Bergeron suffered nothing more than a concussion and broken nose after the nasty hit from behind by the Flyers' Randy Jones in the Bruins/Flyers game Saturday night. The fact that a head injury and broken nose are met with relief is a sign of how bad it initially looked and the length of time Bergeron lay motionless on the ice.

The guessing, spinning and closing of ranks began almost immediately after the game ended, accompanied by the contrite, humble apology from the perpetrator that has become a requisite part of each subsequent incident.

Bob McKenzie has offered up his take on the hit at TSN, concluding that the suspension that Jones is likely to receive will be far less than those handed out to his Flyer team-mates earlier in the year (Jesse Boulerice tagged with 25 for his cross-check to the face of Ryan Kesler and Steve Downie with 20 for his hit on Dean McCammond.)

McKenzie's sound and reasoned interpretation of issues and incidents in the NHL have made him one of the most respected hockey pundits in the game. To the point that he probably has the ability to influence those within the decision-making ranks of the NHL or at least give them pause for second thought on occasion.

However, I disagree with him somewhat regarding the hit on Bergeron and what the appropriate (and probable) response should (will) be. Mainly for the reason that he bases his analysis of what happened and the likely consequences on the prevailing reaction of players and GMs around the league following the incident. No doubt there is a collective understanding and wisdom about the game within that group that doesn't exist elsewhere, and the weight of that view can't help but have some effect on the final decision.

I sense a kind of annoyance and "here we go again" exhaustion from other players and GMs after their reactions to a number of previous incidents. The mostly genuine responses at the time came at least partly because of outside pressure. The extenuating circumstances, arguable lack of intent and relatively little physical damage have made it easier to offer up the traditionally callous, "that's the way it goes" response this time around.

There's a mentality within hockey and sports in general, that injury equals weakness. It's right there alongside losing and is seen as a shortcoming of those on the receiving end as much as anything done by those inflicting the damage. "It's the fault of the injured player," narrative gets more play in hockey than most other sports. Most such claims beg the question and rarely is there an articulated or detailed explanation of exactly what the player did wrong. McKenzie at least addresses this somewhat in his editorial:

"Bergeron contributed to his own demise by turning away from the hit and going low into the dasher board, which led to a broken nose and concussion. "

I have to say that in the video I don't see at any time Bergeron turning away from the hit. It appears he went in blind and if anything should have turned to increase his awareness and line of vision of opposing players following him into the boards. The turning away from a hit becomes an issue when a player is in a position of peripheral or full vision and turns away from that to avoid a potential collision. However, McKenzie is right regarding the going in low and stopping with that dangerous few feet of space between the boards.

So, the partial blame theory has some credence . But, if blame is to be assigned, far more has to be shouldered by Jones because of the position he was in, the recognition he must have for the potential danger of such situations and the responsibility he has for being able to pull up. Similarly, if the accidental nature of Jones's actions should be given weight when deciding on a punishment, surely the unintentional and accidental aspect of Bergeron's less than perfect positioning should further lessen any blame he has for his own injuries.

I believe the kind of thinking offered up by Allan Maki in his response to the hit will get more consideration from the league. The suspension to be handed down from the NHL is an opportunity to highlight the responsibility players have to play within some kind of limits and to recognize the increasing speed and potential for these situations to develop. The NHL seems conscious of the changing nature of the game and have made certain that suspensions mean something this season. An insignificant number of games for Jones will simply validate the "things happen" story-line.

While it's hard to argue that this fits in with a particular culture and style of play advocated by Flyers coaching and management, the optics still don't look good on the heels of the prior incidents. I expect at least some coded warnings in the language used by NHL brass to address this, though I don't see any fines being assessed.

I believe the suspension will be less than the ones handed down to Downie and Boulerice but more than the handful of games expected by others.

My prediction is 10-12 games.

NHL Officiating: Let 'Em Play

Growing up in the frigid wasteland known as Winnipeg, a common occurrence to alleviate the boredom was for someone in our group of friends to pull an outrageous stunt. In the process he would provide some entertainment for the others, create instant local legends to be re-told and embellished and gain the approval of his peers.

One such malleable sort would regularly take out one of the family cars when left at home alone. The rest of the lads would pile in, high on the coming adventure and thrilled at how easily they had manipulated the situation.

A quick ride to the outskirts of town and open fields so as to avoid detection from the police (we were well under the legal driving age) and the fun would begin. Everyone would get a chance to hammer the car into the ground. Hard turns that destroyed the alignment, grinding the gears at will and a competition to see who could drive the fastest and straightest in reverse without fishtailing.

It was all light-hearted fun done with the utmost of respect for the owners of the car. The individual who facilitated the free driving lessons no doubt assumed that because his parents implicitly trusted him with the run of the house, they also accepted his wisdom regarding whether to take the family car for a joy-ride. However, perhaps he did experience a shred of doubt about what we were doing.

Though he would have happily burned down the family house if he knew it would bring a long stretch of notoriety amongst his mates, Mr. Responsibility engaged in a desperate and pathetic bit of compensation for his misdeeds. As we careened around the field, he made certain to use the turn signal when he was at the wheel.

Yes, as he mashed the pedal to the floor and cut a swath through the waist-high wild grass, he made sure to indicate which way he was going to swerve. I believe he clicked on the right blinker just before he slammed into a copse of saplings and medium-sized trees, clear-cutting a path until coming to a rest against the one tree that wouldn't give way. The absurdity of his misplaced diligence ramped up our yelping, guffawing and back-slapping ever further.

It makes sense though. No, not the joyriding but the use of turn signals regardless of what situation you're in. It cuts out the need to waste mental energy and instead turns it into an ingrained habit that contributes to safety on the roads.  The same mentality applies to other situations as well.

***

I was listening to a recent podcast of Leafs Lunch in which the host Brian Duff was discussing the state of officiating in the NHL with former Leafs' assistant GM Bill Watters, who always sits in on the first half of the show.

Watters went off on one of his rants in which he lamented the new standard of reffing that has been evident in the NHL for the past few seasons. Since the league returned after the lockout in 2003-04, there has been a far stricter and more uniformed enforcement of all penalties, especially the type that fall under the category of "obstruction."

The result has been a better flow to the game and the inevitable whining from those who can't accept change. Watters' main point in criticizing the state of NHL reffing is that calls are not made with the consideration of "whether or not the penalty directly affects the game." Duff was left momentarily speechless before responding that the specific actions of the players in question and the subsequent non-call (from the Leafs/Panthers match-up on Thursday) of course affected the game.

It was a glaring example of poor officiating because calls in general have been more consistent since the changes. It stood out for that reason. Allowing too much leeway to referees means that calling penalties becomes far too subjective. Within such a free flowing, fast moving sport as NHL hockey, to require that refs determine whether or not an infraction affects the game, introduces far too much inconsistency.

The result would be a return to the days when certain refs carried reputations for how they officiated (which they still do but to a lesser degree.) And a shifting standard depending on what stage of the game the penalty takes place and at what part of the season the game occurs.

As with any debate where two options are being discussed, it comes down to which type of fallout comes with either choice and which is less detrimental. I'll take the situation as it exists today where there may be some poxy calls but they are all being made and a more entertaining game is the result. As opposed to having players unsure, pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and the inevitable increase in officiating controversies.

You don't hear the requisite euphemism these days, the one that used to accompany situations where the officiating in a game had broken down completely, "They're really letting them play tonight..." Oddly enough, that same description could be used for the state of affairs today and be far more applicable.

It's much easier to have consistency when the only issue at hand is whether the infraction took place, not the more difficult to determine qualifier that Watters talked about. Sorry Watters, you lose this argument hands down.

The teams that can't get their heads around the fact that this is the way it's going to be will continue to take penalties and be rightfully labeled as undisciplined. In the meantime, NHL refs can continue devoting their energy to calling penalties by the book instead of carrying on an internal dialogue with themselves about if it's the appropriate time or situation. Just as I'm sure my long lost mate is still dutifully using that turn signal regardless of whether he's on a crowded city street or bashing through a desolated field in an off-road vehicle.