Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Owners Vote to Change Trade Deadline

How The New Rules Will Affect The Dallas Stars, NHL

Before we start this primer on the rule changes from the offseason, I have a confession.

Hi, my name is Erin, and I'm a rules nerd.

Yes, I'm a student of one of the geekiest aspects of the game - rules and, more importantly, their NHL-sanctioned interpretations, and the referees. I can tell you who the best skating referee is (most would probably vote Kelly Sutherland), which refs are the most authoritarian (Don Van Massenhoven, I'm looking at you). Heck, give me enough games, and I can probably tell you when the league sends a memo out reminding refs of particular calls to look for.

I have a problem. Please help.

But because I am such a rules nerd, I've paid a lot of attention to the changes that happen every summer, and there were a pair of big-time changes to safety calls, and the corresponding uptick in post-game suspensions, this summer that have already had an impact on the Dallas Stars and throughout the NHL.

After the jump, the exact changes to the boarding and illegal check to the head rules, what the previous interpretations were and what they are now and how previous disciplinary action against a known troublemaker like Steve Ott might have much longer repercussions than we realized.

Star-divide

To understand how the boarding and illegal check to the head (known as rule 48 from here on in) penalties have changed, you have to know where we started. I'm going to start with boarding because it's more straightforward.

The rulebook definition of boarding used to be a check that sent a player violently into the boards with a caveat that a player who deliberately put himself in a vulnerable position could negate the potential call. That was the letter of the law. The standard you almost always saw applied involved something I like to call the "no-no" zone and a player who got launched off of his feet after a collision or hit.

In general, the most dangerous area to get hit around the boards is an area about 2-6 feet away from them, the "no-no zone." That's because when a player is hit in this area, there is enough room for him to go into the boards very awkwardly, potentially shoulder or neck first, whereas if he were closer or farther away from the boards, he'd splat into them standing straight up or be on his butt and a little more in control of his body well before he slid into them.

If there was a collision in this 2-6 foot zone and the player who was on the receiving end of the hit was knocked off of his feet and awkwardly into the boards (what rules nerds call launching), referees were likely to call boarding no matter how hard the hit actually was. This caused a fair number of unfortunate situations where the hit was not particularly violent in and of itself but the player receiving the hit was off balance, but the league decided a long time ago that if a player with the puck was in a vulnerable position around the boards, the onus was on the hitter to deliver a check that wouldn't potentially break his neck.

Like many of the other violent fouls, boarding tends to get an automatic upgrade if there is an injury associated with the penalty. The default is a two-minute minor, then it can be five minutes depending on the degree of violence with a 10-minute misconduct associated with the major in the case of an injury to the head or neck.

So that's where we came from. The changes this summer were designed more to clarify the rule than to change how it is implemented. First of all, the rule was changed to talk about a defenseless player rather than a vulnerable one. And second, and far more important, the word "push" was added so that a player who "checks or pushes" a defenseless player who then goes violently into the boards has technically committed boarding. This simply clarifies that boarding is a penalty of the result rather than a penalty of the action. That push is where you've seen most of the uptick in calls during the preseason since referees are no longer as concerned about making sure the initial contact was a full check, and it's why you've heard reference to some of the Stars more enthusiastic hitters, such as Steve Ott in the game against the Colorado Avalanche, passing on the opportunity to cream guys into the boards.

The league also clarified that if a checker makes an attempt to pull up and minimize the dangerous contact once he sees the puck carrier is in a defenseless position, there should not be a penalty called. This doesn't mean just setting the feet and gliding into the hit but legitimately trying to slow down before the contact.

Here is video the league sent out to the players clarifying the boarding rule.

Now onto the much more controversial rule change, illegal check to the head.

Rule 48 used to say something like hits that targeted or had a primary point of contact with the head that came from a player's lateral or blindside were illegal. This became a big point of contention last season when the league couldn't decide how far lateral was lateral or what happened when a player was moving one direction but his head was turned. There were confusing mentions of "east-west" and "north-south" hits in a video that was supposed to make the rule clear, and then-disciplinary czar Colin Campbbell blatantly ignored his own rule definition by suspending Tom Kostopoulos for his hit on Brad Stuart when it didn't violate the existing rule 48 (though you could make a very good argument for a charge or interference).

But that suspension led directly to the wording change this offseason. Lateral and blindside are no longer in play with rule 48. Instead, all deliberate or reckless hits where the head is primary point of contact is the head are now outlawed.

This has caused all sorts of problems in the preseason as players continue to try to put their shoulder into another player's chin. No matter where you come from on the ice in relation to the player you want to hit, you must try to avoid hitting him in the head, and some guys just aren't doing that yet.

There is a very large caveat though, one that also exists in the boarding rule. If a player that you have lined up moves into a vulnerable position immediately before or simultaneously with the hit being delivered, then that will exonerate most dangerous hits. Now, if you clearly had your elbow stuck out to nail a guy in the nose, he moves and you get him in the back of the head, you're still going to be at fault. But if you have your shoulder lined up with his chest and he suddenly lunges forward, as Brendan Shanahan ruled was the case in the Chris Campoli-Ryan Malone hit from the other night, then the hitter has not violated rule 48 even if contact with the head occurs.

In general, the standard for "immediately before" in the NHL is in the range of a half second, which is the grace period for interference once the puck is released, though Shanahan has yet to clarify exactly how much grace period a hitter will get. This is something we'll have to watch for as the season goes on.

The other, smaller caveat is that hits where there is contact with the head but the primary point of contact was the body, which usually happens on a follow through or on incidental contact from the upper part of the shoulder cap while most of the shoulder is going into the chest, are not rule 48 violations.

This hasn't been a part of any controversial decisions yet, but I'm sure it will come into play at some point in the season.

Here's the video the league sent out on the new interpertation of rule 48.

Finally, a quick bit about suspensions. For some time now, we've been working under the impression that a player's disciplinary history resets 18 months after his most recent suspension, which is important because being a repeat offender can get a player a significantly longer suspension.

And while the hit to the player's wallet does go way down after the 18 month limit, Shanahan told Puck Daddy recently that he will consider a player's entire suspension history when making a decision, particularly when a player has a history of violent infractions. There are a few Stars who have history of suspensions for violent infractions, most notably Ott (for charging, clipping and eye gouging) and Stephane Robidas (automatic 1-game for two boarding majors over a set period of time).

That concludes my rules nerding for today. If you've got any questions about the rule changes, or really anything about NHL rules or refereeing, comment away.

Comment 17 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is a brilliant post.

Extremely informative. Thanks Erin!

Defending Big D- Dallas Stars news & analysis
@brandonworley - Follow me on Twitter!!

by Brandon Worley on Oct 4, 2011 2:21 PM CDT reply actions  

Surely they can't take those Robidas boarding calls seriously.

Both of those calls were an absolute joke.

"I want to have Jamie Benn's babies. And you can quote me on that." - Brandon Worley

by Tsudbury on Oct 4, 2011 2:23 PM CDT reply actions  

They might have been jokes in terms of the hits taken without the result

But it was technically a suspension for violent infractions (sometimes called safety or physical infractions). I would assume because it was a cumulative suspension and not about an individual incident being punished, he would be considered lower on the sliding scale of repeat offenders, but he’s still got a mark that would hurt him in a hearing.

His two majors are textbook “boarding is a penalty of result” calls that suck when they happen to your team, but the rule is there because those hits can be extremely dangerous.

Follow me on Twitter @ErinB_DBD

by Erin Bolen on Oct 4, 2011 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

I was thinking this exact same thing

Last night…specifically about the increased role we’d like for Otter to take. Can’t very well do that if he’s sitting out for 10 games.

I’m just waiting to see if the rules are applied across the board for all teams. If Darren Helm continues to leave his feet to hit people 3 feet from the boards as usual and the league looks the other way while simultaneously coming down hard on Robidas, I’m going to be steamed.

by jabudi on Oct 4, 2011 2:44 PM CDT reply actions  

You to Ovie!! :P

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato

by k9mike on Oct 4, 2011 2:51 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Leaving a feet is a charge

And they never, ever, ever call that consistently. It’s a giant pain.

General standard is three strides (of distance traveled, not actual legs churning) or leaving feet, but there’s a huge gray area because they allow guys to leave their feet if contact occurred when the feet were on the ice, and that’s almost impossible to tell in real time.

Honestly, I’m hoping the new rule 48 will cut down on guys trying to go so high in the first place which would then cut down the number of charges that happen. Technically, the lower you go, the more effective your hit is (just like in football – you want to get at or below the other guy’s center of mass), so if we get this Scot Stevens-esque shoulder-to-chin hit out of the game, it might fix a number of problems.

Follow me on Twitter @ErinB_DBD

by Erin Bolen on Oct 4, 2011 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

That and interference

Remember when it used to be interference to hold up a guy who didn’t have the puck instead of calling it a Great Defensive Play?

It makes me burn with a white hot hatred when announcers not only miss the fact that it’s supposed to be a penalty but actually applaud the play.

I listen to Mike & Mike in the morning and back when they were talking about Derak Cheater faking being hit by a ball, several people on there actually defended it and said it was “gamesmanship”. Then a few guys said that when they were older players in the NFL, they’d ask the refs to let them get away with more because they were too old to hang with the younger players….and it evidently worked.

THAT is what I can’t abide by, and why I absolutely hate people piling on compliments for older defensemen who know how to get away with holding and interference rather than keeping up with the game.

Sure, I wouldn’t expect someone who bent the rules back when obstruction was done on every play to adjust right away to the newly-enforced rules….but c’mon, we’re several seasons into it and journeyman defenseman get away with murder while the younger guys are called on every offense.

Sorry…just a particularly annoying thing I’ve noticed about sports since I started paying more attention to it.

by jabudi on Oct 6, 2011 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

Man...you weren't kidding about the Nerd comment....lol

Just kidding…;) great post. Good to have someone that takes the time to really research this stuff. :)

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato

by k9mike on Oct 4, 2011 2:50 PM CDT via mobile reply actions  

Yeah, I have a problem

I’ve done some fan ref evaluating during the playoffs before. It’s kind of fascinating because it makes you look at the game from a whole other point of view and realize what a freaking impossible job refs have. Not only are a lot of the rules full of significant gray areas, even before you introduce embellishment, but there’s so much going on between them and most of the infractions it’s a wonder they get as much right as they do.

Follow me on Twitter @ErinB_DBD

by Erin Bolen on Oct 4, 2011 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Amen to that! glad I dont have that job...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato

by k9mike on Oct 4, 2011 3:21 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Don Van Massivehoser

Take off eh.

What the Puck?

by DirtyBrotenScoundrel on Oct 4, 2011 3:58 PM CDT via mobile reply actions  

Erin. You are my favorite.

Passing this along to a friend to spread to other teams fanbases.

by justanotherhockeychick on Oct 4, 2011 5:04 PM CDT reply actions  

Well they won't affect Avery.

Unless we pick him up, heck we’re paying for him til the end of this season.

Golf Leafs Golf!

by accharbs on Oct 4, 2011 5:52 PM CDT reply actions  

So Ott and Robi are the only two with repeat offender status?

I can see that as an issue for Ott. He has a rep with the refs and will be more closely watched and given less benefit of the doubt.

I think Robi is OK unless he does something clearly over the line.

by 1paniolo on Oct 5, 2011 11:58 AM CDT reply actions  

They were the only two I could find with a cursory search

Though I didn’t check the new guys or some of the lower-end players. I did check the obvious suspects of guys who are bigger hitters (Fistric, Burish, Barch, Grossman, Daley) and didn’t see any suspension history there.

I know Neal is also a repeat offender as well, but he’s obviously no longer with the club.

Follow me on Twitter @ErinB_DBD

by Erin Bolen on Oct 5, 2011 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Dallas Stars website. We talk Stars hockey 24/7/365. You're welcome to join in the discussion; please follow the code of conduct for commentary.

Managing Editors

Brandon_small Brandon Worley

Sb_avatar_small Brad Gardner

Staff Writers

Twitterme_small Brandon Bibb

Hullring_small Cole Jones

100_0353_small Tsudbury

198849_alds_rangers_rays_baseball_small Josh Lile

Me2_small Taylor Baird

Erin_and_kevin_at_rangers_small Erin Bolen

317075_10150847392930195_672210194_21620161_1404425884_n_small Huw Wales

Contributors

Small starshorns

Pic_2011-02_small scm83x

Moderators

Avatar_small RyanM

Lolastros_small DFWTrojanTuba