A 2018 inductee into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games. Today’s topic: Shootouts.
Something unusual happened in the Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh game last night. At the end of overtime, there was a mass scrum. Every player on the ice received 10-minute misconducts. They were all disqualified from the shootout. However, Evgeni Malkin of the Pittsburgh Penguins — who was serving a minor penalty as time expired — was allowed to take a turn in the shootout.
All of these were the correct rulings, although Pittsburgh should only have had three skates on the ice. Sidney Crosby came off the bench and got physically involved. That’s a whole other can of worms. We can save that for another time, but he got a 10-minute misconduct, too.
Now this part will take some by surprise. There’s a precedent for these rules that actually PREDATES the NHL’s adoption of the shootout in 2005. I know. I had this very situation when I worked in the American Hockey League before my NHL promotion.
The shootout before NHL adopted shootouts
Back in the mid-1980s, the American Hockey League experimented briefly with a form of the shootout. I think I may have been a small part of the reason why it was short-lived in that era.
I refereed a game between the Adirondack Red Wings and Baltimore Skipjacks that went to a shootout. The Skipjacks had a player who was serving a penalty as time expired. Baltimore wanted him to be one of their shooters. I allowed it, to the dismay of Adirondack coach Bill Dineen.
“Stewy, he can’t be the on the ice,” Dineen protested. “The game is still going because of this shootout thing, and his penalty still has time.”
“Yeah, but this is a different situation, Foxy. Now it’s just shooter vs. goalie. There is no rule I’ve been instructed about that a penalty carries over into a shootout, unless it’s a misconduct. So, yes, he can shoot.”
Billy wasn’t happy. However, he realized he wasn’t going to win the debate with me in this instance. Afterwards, he went to the league for clarification.
I heard about it from my bosses afterwards.
“Technically, Paul, you were right. There’s no penalty carryover rule, one way or the other, except with a misconduct. But when Bill Dineen talks, you listen. When Scotty Bowman talks, you listen. Other coaches, maybe not,” I was told.
After the experiment ended, the shootout wasn’t heard from again in North American pro hockey for two decades. I don’t think the Adirondack protest was the main cause, but it did underscore the fact that the idea needed to considered more thoroughly. However, to this day, a player serving anything other than a misconduct or match penalty at the expiration of overtime is still eligible to take a turn in the shootout.
Fast forward a few decades. What happened last night is far from common. However, the NHL rule today is pretty much the same as it was during the AHL experiment. If you’re not serving a misconduct and haven’t been tossed out for 10 or the game, you can shoot.
Since 2005: Shootout Rule Changes
By this point, the shootout has been around for so long that I doubt they’ll go away entirely. In watching NHL games in recent years, most shooters lack in creativity. Even things like the “Forsberg move” are no longer surprises to goalies because they’ve seen it all before.
One rule that has changed since the early years of NHL shootouts: It used to be permitted to do spin-o-ramas or to stop skating and then restart. Those strategies were both later abolished.
However, the current fad technique is to come in with speed. The shooter then slows to nearly — but not entirely — a stop. From there, he creeps across ever so slowly until the goalie (in many cases) is off his angle. Then the guy shoots. It’s worked more than half the time. It’s legal but, shall we say, BARELY legal. It depends on the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the rule.
Specialized coaches abound, but not for shootouts
There is so much specialized coaching in the NHL today. There’s a defense and PK coach. There’s a forwards and power play coach. There’s a prescout and eye-in-the-sky coach. There’s a video coach. There’s, of course, a goalie coach. Many teams employ a part-time or full-time skating coach. The current rage is to hire a skills coach. There are developmental coaches who work exclusively with junior, European League and minor league prospects.
One thing that I have NOT seen: a dedicated shootout coach. Why not? In a league where there are so many three-point games and such tightly packed standings as a result, why not have a coach who deals solely with shootout strategies.
The deadliest shooter I ever saw
When I played, I was a hell of a lot better at hitting 200-pound opponents with my fists than hitting the net with my shot.
Rick “Nifty” Middleton was just the opposite. He could make the puck dance the can-can if he wanted it to. Middleton only needed a puck-sized opening to put it in the net. Most guys just shoot for a general area. He could target — and hit — a specific spot.
Years later, I asked Nifty, “How did you do it?”
He proceeded to give me crystal-clear explanations of what he looked for when one-on-one with the goalie, and exactly what he did from a technical standpoint. It was incredible: far and away the best information I’ve ever been imparted on purely offensive-minded hockey plays.
Apart from Middleton, I think Pavel Bure would make one hell of a shootout coach. So would Jaromir Jagr, if he ever actually retires as a player (keep it up, Jaromir!). So would Danny Briere. All of these guys had a definite game-plan around every breakaway, every penalty shot and, within the shootout era, each shootout attempt.
Too many coaches over-teach structure
In general, teams’ systems focus on defensive play, breakouts, offensive zone and neutral zone forecheck plus special teams. Everything is so damn structured to the Nth degree. It results in robotic, and frankly boring, hockey.
One thing that is NOT coached enough is actual offense. That’s something I always liked about Peter Laviolette as a coach. . Lavy actually coached the attack. As long as he has the horses to play at the tempo he wants, and the skill to finish, his teams are exciting to watch and can go a long way.
The lack of shootout coaching, to me, is part and parcel of the general tendency to coach everything BUT the actual attack with the puck. We can do better.
An enema for overly conservative hockey
It’s just a thought. However, I really think that shootout creativity is at its lowest ebb since the skills competition — because that’s what it actually is — was adopted.
If we’re going to keep the shootout in the game, give it an enema of sorts so it can get going again. Hire a shootout coach who excelled in one-on-one duels from the mental standpoint as well as the physical abilities of speed and stickhandling.
