Home >  Sports >  Notebooks

Sunday, March 30, 2003

By Dejan Kovacevic, Post-Gazette Sports Writer

Back in September, NHL officials conducted an unprecedented blitz to convince players, coaches, general managers and fans they were serious about cracking down on obstruction and interference.

Today, those officials insist that their effort did not go to waste. They give it credit for better flow through the neutral zone, greater emphasis on forechecking and more scoring chances.

The league has believers and doubters on the subject, to be sure. And given the ambiguous nature of such aspects of the game, it is difficult to develop a firm stance.

What is not vague in the slightest is that the crackdown has done nothing to increase scoring.

Last season, goals per game dropped to 5.24, a 54-year low. The game’s leading minds have varied theories for why this has happened, and obstruction was at or near the top of most lists, so the league chose to focus on that.

In October, it worked to near perfection. Power plays were up, as referees aggressively called any infraction in which a player was slowed by an opponent’s arm or stick, and goals per game made a modest but promising jump to 5.58. As players adjusted to the new rule standards, power plays went down in November, as did goals to 5.39, but the general play still was open.

Then came December. Goals plummeted to 5.09, obstruction penalties to 0.6 per game, and the statistics have yet to recover. This month, goals are at 5.24 -- same as last season -- and obstruction calls remain at 0.6. Thursday night, there were eight games in the NHL. Of the 16 teams that played, only four scored more than two goals. Five scored a goal or less.

What went wrong?

Again, there are many possible explanations, but here is one that seems most plausible:

The original, stated intent of the crackdown was on interference against players without the puck, with the aims of making it easier to forecheck and to minimize the effect of the neutral-zone trap.

Still, for most of the first two months, players behaved as if it applied to all interference. Even the referees seemed to take on that stance, calling every violation they spotted anywhere on the ice.

But when December came and scoring started to dip, alarm began to build that the crackdown was slipping. That prompted Andy van Hellemond, the NHL’s director of officiating, to publicly, emphatically and repeatedly declare that the crackdown never was intended to protect the player with the puck. He stressed that the league still wanted to see “one-on-one battles” between the puck-carrier and the defender, that it feared taking the physical element out of the game.

That did it.

Give a defender an opening to cheat, and he will take it. Give a referee a reason not to make a call, and he will embrace it like a long-lost child.

So, forechecking continues to be smoother than it was, and there remains an improved element of speed to the game, especially in the neutral zone. But there also remains stagnant scoring, largely because, once a player gets the puck, it’s still open season on him.

Imagine explaining that to a friend who is primarily a football fan but attending a hockey game for the first time.

You: It’s OK to hook and hold the guy with the puck. But if you do it to someone else, it’s a penalty.

Friend: Oh, so it’s like if an NFL referee calls pass interference only when it’s committed against a receiver nowhere near the ball?

You: Well, uh, yeah.

The NHL nearly stumbled upon the answer to obstruction early this season, when players blissfully misinterpreted and misapplied the new standard and allowed the game’s greatest talents to operate -- with the puck -- freely.

Too bad it was inadvertent.