The Intent To Blow Rule

Occasionally, even the most die-hard hockey fan will be caught off-guard by a rule or regulation of which they were previously unaware. It happened to me the other night watching the VERSUS studio panel during the Buffalo Sabres/New York Islanders game, when Bill Clement, Keith Jones and Brian Engblom were discussing that controversial play in which Ryan Miller was pushed into the net and Garth Snow was pushed over the edge, inferring that league officials are rooting against the Islanders. (You know, the same league whose commissioner was "speechless" when his favorite team won four consecutive Stanley Cups in the early 1980s.)

In between yawns, I heard Engblom utter something that caught my attention: That the referee's whistle doesn't signal the end of the play; rather, the play can be over in the official's mind prior to the whistle actually being blown. A search of the NHL's 2006-07 Official Rules turned up this segment of Rule 32.2:

As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.

Pardon me for my ignorance concerning this curious regulation, as I believe I've spent a cumulative total of three and a half years watching television broadcast teams waste my valuable time with endless audio-enhanced replays that examine whether or not a whistle had been blown to stop play. According to the NHL, it actually doesn't matter if the puck crosses the line before the whistle; all that matters is whether it does before a referee's intent to blow kicks in.

For example, take this controversial moment from a regular season tilt between Ottawa and St. Louis in January:

The Blues lost another apparent goal with 2:18 left when officials said David Backes' shot was covered. Again, replays showed the puck went over the line and was pulled out by Gerber before the whistle blew. The puck wasn't stopped until Gerber covered the puck.

"Before the whistle blew?" According to the rule book, that phrase should never appear in an NHL game story. No, I believe what the writer meant was, "Before the referee decided to blow his whistle. In his mind."

What gets me about this rule is the wording of it; specifically the phrase "slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown." What, exactly, does "slightly" mean? Is that the same "slightly" we hear when the league's television ratings decline "slightly?" If I can count to "two" in the time between when a referee declares his intent to blow and when we actually hear the whistle, is that "slightly?" Wait, strike that last question: How can I begin to count without the benefit of a Vulcan mind-meld in order to see when the referee thinks a play is over?

Earlier this season, a game between the Florida Panthers and the Carolina Hurricanes introduced another facet of this "Intent To Blow" rule, which is the nebulous idea of a "blowing motion." D-Lee of Red and Black Hockey explained the controversial play in which Don Koharski's whistle seemed to come at the same time as a goal was scored:

We've seen this before, where the referee says that he was in the "motion" of blowing the whistle, and the play should be deemed dead at that moment. This is what happened. In the replay, Koharski goes to his mouth with the left hand and whistle just before the puck crosses the line. His call was "high stick", and if that's the call, the play should be dead. Period. Whether the puck had or had not crossed the line is irrelevant. The whistle was being blown.

In the end, I really have no idea what's more bizarre: That the NHL rule book gives referees the power to think a play dead, or that I was actually able to glean something thought-provoking from the VERSUS studio show.