The "Intent to blow the whistle" rule in the NHL is a idiotic rule.
You know what is always a little awkward and surprising? When you're watching a hockey game (or any sporting event, for that matter) and something happens in the game, and you see a call made by an official that you did not know was a rule. One of the best examples I have come across in my hockey fandom was a couple seasons ago. My dad and I were at the Columbus Blue Jackets game, and a Blue Jackets player got a breakaway going into an empty net of the opposing team (who had pulled their goalie for an extra skater in hopes that the extra attacker would help them score a goal). On the way to the net, a player from the opposing team tripped the Blue Jacket before he had a chance to shoot the puck into the open net. The Blue Jackets were awarded a goal, because technically the player with the breakaway would have been awarded a penalty shot. However, since the goaltender for the opposing team had been pulled, the penalty shot would have been on an open net, and the assumption is that the player would be able to put the puck into the open net. So instead of wasting time, the Blue Jackets, in this case, were awarded a goal. Many of us in the arena (my father and I included) had never seen this situation before, so we were all a little confused and surprised (albeit thrilled) at the announcement of a goal. That was an example of a pleasant way to find out a rule. However, it does not always work out in your team's favor. The Blue Jackets faithful found this out the hard way earlier this week.
Have you ever heard of the "Intent to blow the whistle" rule? The intent to blow the whistle rule (rule 32.2 in the rulebook) states the following: "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." Also, in the section of the rulebook regarding goals that may be disallowed (rule 78.5), it says that a goal may be disallowed "when the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle." If you had never heard of this rule, don't feel bad - you aren't the only one!
At this past Tuesday's game against the Calgary Flames, the Blue Jackets were winning by a score of 2-1 with a little less than 15 minutes to go in the game. Blue Jackets forward R.J. Umberger skated into the Blue Jackets offensive zone, and he took a shot on the Flames goaltender Miikka Kiprusoff. The puck bounced off of Kiprusoff, and Blue Jackets center Antoine Vermette got the rebound and chipped the puck into the net. The whistle blows, and the referee is raising his arms to signal they play is dead, while the fans are celebrating the goal that they have just witnessed. Maybe it's just easier if you watch the whole thing for yourself.
The reason the referee was able to wave the goal off is because of this "Intent to blow the whistle" rule. As you watch the different angles that the video provides, you can see in at least one of them that the referee may have been screened when the shot went off of Kiprusoff. The referee probably assumed that Kiprusoff made the routine save ("Don't you know what you do when you assume?") and was going to blow the play dead. However, Vermette was able to put the puck in the net before the whistle blew, but since the referee intended to blow the play dead (even though that would have been the wrong call since Kiprusoff did not have possession of the puck), it IS dead.
I mean, honestly, they make it sound like these referee's move at the speed of snails and can't possibly get their whistles to their mouths in time.
Now, I don't know about you, but the whole concept of this rule is a little hinky if you ask me. One of my biggest problems with the rule is the lack of a specified time for this delay for the human factor. The wording used in the rule is slightly prior - what is that exactly? Slightly prior can be several different things to several different people. Also, how long does it take for one to get their hand to their mouth and blow a whistle? I mean, honestly, they make it sound like these referee's move at the speed of snails and can't possibly get their whistles to their mouths in time. The whole rule sounds like a big cop-out if you ask me. If it were my call, if it happens before the whistle, it's good. If it happens after the whistle, it's not good. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me. Of course the National Hockey League has to make everything more complicated than it actually is, but I digress...
I think the thing that irked me the most in the situation is that they would not review the non-goal. I guess they couldn't technically, because the referee's call was that it didn't exist. If it were up to me, this whole intent to blow the whistle crap would no longer exist. It's absolutely ludacris that the play is actually dead in the referee's mind before anyone else on the ice knows it. These players are very athletically gifted, but expecting them to be mindreaders too is demading a little much if you ask me.