When NHL game management goes wrong

Two minutes into the third period, the Montreal Canadiens began to engage cruise control. A 4-3 lead at the break had quickly been extended to 6-3 and the visitors were the proud owners of the last five records – and all the momentum in the world. A frustrated Torey Krug brought Nick Suzuki into the gang, checked the Canadiens’ captain and washed his face long after the puck was gone.

Referees Jon McIsaac (a 10-year NHL-level veteran) and Brandon Schrader (who made his debut in 2019) called Krug for review. Amazingly, they also dragged Suzuki to the penalty box for the serious offense of smiling at Krug’s abuse and getting the St. Louis defender to remove one of his gloves.

Welcome to the game administration.

The logic of the officials was understandable for experienced NHL fans. Put simply, giving another power play to a team with a three-goal lead would “affect the outcome.” The specter of a blowout could lead to physical retaliation and even physical violence. The “best” decision was therefore to take one player from each team and play with the same strength. That would make it “fair”.

Obviously, none of our Saturday night officials remember the Edmonton Oilers of the 1980’s. The Oilers’ offense was so severe that the team deliberately took random minors to give Wayne Gretzky and co. more leeway. The “Gretzky Rule” was instituted in the summer of 1985 to prevent the Oilers from exploiting this loophole and was not reversed until the 1992-93 season.

Where am I going with this?

Well, the officials, in their eagerness to do nothing, had just created an offensive situation (which favors underperforming teams) while also removing Montreal’s best offensive player off the ice. The St. Louis Blues, of course, benefited as Vladimir Tarasenko cut the lead to two goals just 13 seconds after play restarted. That goal set off another cascade of Blues pressure for the rest of the season, with Nathan Walker and Robert Thomas both visibly looking up at the sky after missing golden chances. A 6-3 game could easily have turned into a 6-6 Scheunbrenner and it all would have started with the decision not to make a decision by Messrs. McIsaac and Messrs. Schrader.

“Wait,” many will say, pointing to Kaiden Guhle’s turnover as proof that the Habs were the instruments of their own troubles. But that shouldn’t invalidate the fact that Guhle should never have been in this situation. As an exaggerated example, three mistaken penalty calls should not be excused just because the goalkeeper stopped them all. Indeed, dismissing officials as just another obstacle, an attitude embraced by hockey purists and players alike, simply enables a culture in which officials can evade any responsibility – and consequence – for their decision-making.

Look, when Grady Jarrett gets tagged for attacking Tom Brady, the narrative isn’t “Jarrett should have attacked him more gently” or “the game didn’t end on that play”. The narrative rightly focuses on the officiating subjectivity when it comes to roughing up the passer-by. When officials in other sports make mistakes, they are punished, often in a public way, creating a meritocracy that, while not blameless, ostensibly ensures that the best officials officiate at the most important games.

This system does not exist publicly in ice hockey. Instead, reigning mediocrity is promoted by a culture that insists it’s up to the players and coaches to overcome any obstacles they can imagine. A culture in which even “external” reasons for failure are considered is an admission of weakness. Ironically, we only hear excuses when someone tries to spotlight official standards.

“The game is too fast.”

“I did not see it.”

“It is human nature to make mistakes.”

True, but think of the reaction if a player would have said the same things when faced with a play-cost turnover or a multi-game dip? This player would be laughed out of the league, asked to form (quickly) or go to the minors. Perhaps it’s time the same standard applied to officers – to the calls they make and the calls they don’t.

There’s a saying that ends with “…or get out of the pot”. Wise advice not to reveal what they are full of.