{"id":742745,"date":"2017-09-22T11:28:06","date_gmt":"2017-09-22T15:28:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportsdaily.com\/?p=742745"},"modified":"2017-09-22T11:28:06","modified_gmt":"2017-09-22T15:28:06","slug":"slashing-and-penalty-calls-in-the-nhl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportsdaily.com\/news\/slashing-and-penalty-calls-in-the-nhl\/","title":{"rendered":"Slashing and Penalty Calls in the NHL"},"content":{"rendered":"
The majority of the talk lately seems to be about penalties and the NHL\u2019s ballyhooed crackdown on slashing infractions.<\/p>\n
Now, I\u2019m probably a little more\u2026motivated\u2026when it comes to this topic than I am most others. After all, I\u2019ve spent two seasons tracking infractions and have presented in my officiating review<\/a> what I believe to be reasonable evidence that only about 16% of total infractions committed on the ice are penalized.<\/p>\n That 16% means that about one in six infractions gets called. This rate changes depending on the kind of infraction committed, be it boarding, cross-checking, hooking, and so on, but in no situation does the rate of a call climb above 30%. Slashing was, by far, one of the most frequently committed infractions I logged, sharing this distinction with interference and hooking, both of which are more technical fouls and less likely to result in an injury.<\/p>\n Overall stick infractions such as slashing had become a very real problem for the NHL and anything that increased attention to and enforcement of them was overdue.<\/p>\n If we\u2019re going to explore this issue, we first need to return to how big a problem it was.<\/p>\n Johnny Gaudreau missed roughly six weeks due to a fractured finger as a result of receiving 21 slashes<\/a> to the hands and wrists during a single game against the Minnesota Wild.<\/p>\n 21 slashes in a single game on a single player. All to the hands and wrists.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a problem.<\/p>\n Last season I reviewed 40 games split between the Oilers, Flames and other NHL teams. During that time I recorded roughly 2090 infraction incidents, some penalized, many not. From that data I published my findings at Oilers Rig and Flamesnation<\/a>. The core conclusion I came to was that the officials were being directed by the Board of Governors to enforce the rules such that a minimum number of power plays were taking place within the game and that players were likely expected to adjust accordingly.<\/p>\n I believe that the impetus for this direction from the BoG is due to an internal but misguided desire within the league for \u201cparity\u201d. But not parity in an economical sense, instead one where every GM wants their 4th<\/sup> line, $1 million dollar foot soldier to be able to not have his head caved in against another team\u2019s $7 million dollar superstar forward. So, they say \u201clet \u2018em play, this is hockey not ballet!\u201d.<\/p>\n That appears to have changed this summer when apparently GMs realized that the overall product was suffering and that allowing players to target the hands of stars sometimes results in injury to those talents whom the paying public has come to witness. Also, it doesn\u2019t look good for a league to have people sitting out a game with impromptu amputations. Just as Mark Methot<\/a>.<\/p>\n But is the current NHL crackdown going too far? We\u2019re only a few days into the pre-season but fans are, of course, reacting emotionally to what they\u2019ve witnessed in a small, highly-circumstantial period of time.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s begin by looking at the games that took place on Sept. 18th<\/sup>. Counting the games of EDM @ CGY, CGY @ EDM, WSH @ NJD, TOR @ OTT, CAR @ BUF, MIN @ WPG, and NYI @ NYR (MTL @ BOS data was unavailable at the time of this writing), there were 99 power play opportunities handed out for an average of just over 12 per game, enough for 6 power plays for each team.<\/p>\n Now, on average, I recorded anywhere between 40 and 60 infractions per game, with a 16% call rate that came out to about 8 penalties being called per game, four power plays a side. An increase to 12 would mean a penalty call rate of roughly 24%, still allowing 3 out of 4 infractions to go uncalled.<\/p>\n In my study I broke down infractions based on severity, types 1, 2 and 3. Type 1s were the kind nobody wants called, ticky-tack calls that generally get groans and raised eyebrows from fans and observers alike. The game doesn\u2019t need to be called at that level and nobody would welcome it. Type 2 are fair calls, they meet the criteria in the rule book and by eye and deserve to be called. Type 3 are the really glaring ones – a boarding on a vulnerable player, a high stick that drops the victim to the ice, a slash that breaks a player\u2019s stick.<\/p>\n The highest rate of call from the previous two seasons were those in the type 3 range at about 30%. That means 1 in 3 get called for something so obvious the guys in the nosebleed section can see it. Simply said, that isn\u2019t good enough for any league that describes itself as \u201cprofessional\u201d.<\/p>\n What we\u2019re witnessing here is a nominal increase in overall call rate to about 24% and on only a limited range of infraction, namely slashing. It remains unclear whether interference, cross-checking, boarding, and the like will continue be held to the same questionable standard.<\/p>\n So why am I so fired up over the NHL\u2019s new focus? Because not only is it long overdue, but because there are already voices criticising it, saying that it disrupts the flow of the game, that one team constantly getting power plays isn\u2019t fair, that referees are deciding the outcome of the game.<\/p>\n Let me take a moment to step up onto my soap box and say a few words about a team getting penalized too often and what that means with regards to fairness.<\/p>\n These arguments are, if you’ll forgive me, complete and utter bull.<\/p>\n Arguing that penalties disrupt the flow of the game is like saying speeding traps disrupt the flow of traffic.<\/p>\n Saying that one team getting more power plays isn\u2019t fair is the logical equivalent of saying that both teams should get a point for showing up or that the better team should have to scratch their best player. That\u2019s not how sport, or life, works. If we assume that penalties are being evenly called and without bias (a bold leap, I\u2019ll grant you) then the best advice I give to you about your team taking fewer penalties is to stop committing them.<\/p>\n Complaining that referees are deciding the outcome of the game by enforcing its rules is an argument so bereft of any kind of mature reasoning that I\u2019m afraid I can\u2019t even formulate a reasonable reply. Provided the referees are calling the game evenly, without prejudice towards veterans or stars, then a referee calling a penalty isn\u2019t deciding the outcome of the game. The player who took the penalty did.<\/p>\n And if calling penalties for actual, real infractions like slashing results in more goals per game, well, what could possibly be wrong with that?<\/p>\n