|
|
|
Friday, November 3, 2000
Rule made to be enforced, not broken
By George Johnson
Special to ESPN.com
|
Andy Van Hellemond, drifting back to his refereeing roots, wants the whistle blown on all the hypocrisy.
He's adamant that the outspoken critics of the NHL's crackdown on fouls are at least two lines offside.
|  | | Former official Andy Van Hellemond knows all about what NHL referees are facing. |
"A lot of people are standing on their soap boxes now, saying we're ruining the game with all these penalties and power plays," says the league's new director of officiating. "A lot of them are the same people who were extremely vocal about getting the slashing and high-sticking and other garbage out of the game.
"So you tell me: Are we ruining the game by letting it go or ruining it by calling it?
"I don't know. I'm kind of confused here."
Some players, to the contrary, insist they're the ones confused -- about what is and what isn't permissible on the ice these days. They compare the crackdown edict to a highway patrolman ordered to issue more tickets to meet an imposed quota. They complain that lineups to the hoosegow are longer than queues to buy Springsteen tickets in Jersey. They gripe that all referee discretion has been eliminated.
Everyone has their own take on the manner in which games are being officiated this season.
It has become (since the "Martyr" McSorley sideshow packed up and left Vancouver) the most talked about issue in hockey.
"Before I took this job," sighs Van Hellemond, "I canvassed 11 players on what they felt were the biggest problems in the game. Seven of them said stickwork first. The rest mentioned it. Most talked about a lack of respect by players for other players.
"Clearly, these matters were important to them.
"And isn't the whole point of the exercise to put a better product on the ice?
"You've got to remember, too, that a lot of coaches complaining about the calls being made now have teams going 0-for-8 and 0-for-9 on the power play. They start feeling pressure so they spout off. Everyone has their own agendas.
"It's not as if the power plays are 18 to four any night. I haven't heard a concern yet about consistency, just quantity. Well, we've had some games where there've been only four or five power plays. Why? Not because they're being called any differently but because in those games the teams are playing more within the parameters set out."
In fact, Van Hellemond is willing to pull out tape and show detractors that more room is opening up through the neutral zone as a result of the change. "Players might tug a bit but quickly they're letting go, and they won't whack the way they used to because they're beginning to understand that the call will come if they do."
Not unexpectedly, slashing penalties are through the roof so far, with 101 calls through 39 games as compared to 32 calls during an identical span last year.
Restraining fouls plus obstruction penalties (which are now only called in the neutral zone, whereas last year they were called in all three zones) are up 56 over the same period -- 240 to 188.
Through 39 games this year, teams had 500 power-play chances, compared to 344 last season. Nearly a 33 percent increase.
Among the most vocal critics of the new order are, not surprisingly, Dallas winger Brett Hull and Hockey Night in Canada pundit Don Cherry -- neither of whom are considered particularly shy about voicing their opinions.
"Hull's one to talk," counters Van Hellemond. "Here's a guy who should welcome a crackdown on stickwork and holding up and all that other stuff. Here's a guy who wants to be able to play in the offensive zone.
"And he's complaining? You go figure. But he'd complain until next Thursday if you let him."
Van Hellemond also took exception to a volley of criticism from Cherry on an edition of the immensely popular "Coach's Corner" segment of HNIC.
"He didn't have any statistics," Van Hellemond said. "He hadn't looked at a volume of film. He just talked. So I don't put too much stock in that. He made his comments. He has a forum to do that. He has an opinion like everyone else. But you've got to take them for what they are."
Certainly not all players are reacting negatively to the way games are being officiated. Mike Modano, the type of skilled player these rules were intended to free up, has been very supportive, even grateful, for what's happening. "We've been waiting for this a long time," he said, ironically on the very day teammate Hull fired off his broadside.
Nothing is perfect, of course. The two-referee system is being implemented every game this season to go along with the penalty crackdown. It will undoubtedly take some players longer to buy into the way things are being called now. Some might never catch on.
"With change, any type of change, there's going to be a period of adjustment, for everybody," Van Hellemond says. "We're only 30-some games into the season. We've got 1,200 or to go."
Yes, it does seem a trifle early to be hollering that the sky is falling.
A little short-term pain for long-term gain shouldn't be too much to suffer through, providing the league sticks to its game plan, especially after all the nasal whining these past few years about opening things up and giving the skill players more opportunity to strut their stuff. Previous attempts to curb the extra-curricular nonsense were short-lived, enforcement giving way after a while to more of the same old, same old.
Van Hellemond vows that this time, no matter how much complaining or who complains, the league will not deviate from its path.
"It will not change," he says flatly.
We've heard this before, of course. Far too often. So there's every right to be skeptical. And maybe in the end we'll have been played for suckers again.
Let's hope not.
And for those gesturing wildly and bellyaching about all the penalties and powerplays. Well, tough.
It's a fact of life that there is no cure without taking the treatments.
George Johnson covers the NHL for the Calgary Herald. His NHL column appears every week during the season on ESPN.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
NHL East: Canes rookie to stick
NHL West: Bourque in back seat?
|
|
