Spezza's infraction: Rule 10.1

by PeterR on Mar 10, 2009 8:00 AM EDT Comment 5 comments

In Monday night's Battle of Ontario, Ron Wilson decided that it wasn't just any regular-season game between two teams fighting for the lottery pick. This one was special. So he challenged the legality of Jason Spezza's stick, and was found to be correct in his challenge. Turns out Spezza's blade, which tapers toward the tip, didn't meet league-minimum width of 2 inches. Must... not... make... stupid... joke...

Here's the league's exact phrasing, direct from the rulebook:

"The blade of the stick shall not be more than three inches (3") in width at any point between the heel and ½" in from the mid-point of the tip of the blade, nor less than two inches (2"). All edges of the blade shall be beveled (see 9.6). The curvature of the blade of the stick shall be restricted in such a way that the distance of a perpendicular line measured from a straight line drawn from any point at the heel to the end of the blade to the point of maximum curvature shall not exceed three-quarters of an inch (3/4")."

Something that's come up is why the league even has these rules. I can understand regulations preventing someone from sharpening their stick-blade into a shiv, which is probably the intention of this particular rule, but the curvature limits should seriously be reconsidered. If banana blades help people score, and the NHL wants more goals, why not change the rule?

On the Team 1200 Senators' post-game show, analyst Mike Eastwood hypothesised that at least one player on each NHL team is likely playing with an "illegal" stick, particulary the better players. If that's the case, then the league needs to make a decision: Change the regulations, or mandate stick-checks before every game. A penalty is only as strong as the degree to which it's enforced, and there's no sense looking past a player's infraction 99 per cent of the time, until they're called on it.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

There is another rule about thickness

The rule you quoted refers back to 9.6 (Dangerous Equipment), which states:

In cases where a stick may have been modified and it is evident that the edges have not been beveled, the Referee shall deem the stick to be dangerous equipment and removed from the game until the edges can be beveled sufficiently. No penalty is to assessed initially unless the player returns to the ice with the unmodified stick, for which he will be assessed a minor penalty for delay of game.

The important part is “No penalty is to [be] assessed initially unless the player returns to the ice with the unmodified stick”.

Grammar aside, it’s pretty clear that the ref didn’t know the rule.

by wprager on Mar 10, 2009 10:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If that's the case, you're right

But that makes me think the penalty was because of the minimum width regulations, rather than that bevel rule.

I wonder, if Wilson challenged the bevel of the stick, and they found the stick was illegal for another reason (like minimum width), if Spezza would get a penalty or if Wilson would get one for delay of game…

www.silversevensens.com

by PeterR on Mar 10, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just to add

I was under the impression that Wilson’s argument was about the sharpness of the stick. Making a blade slightly less than 2" wide doesn’t make it any more dangerous, but Spezza shaves his sticks to make them almost razor-sharp.

by wprager on Mar 10, 2009 10:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My mistake

Sorry, I rewatched and, yep, they were measuring the toe-width. What a weird rule. Why would players want to shave it down? I suppose it cuts down on wind resistance and can improve stick speed, but it hardly makes it any more dangerous than a 3" wide blade.

by wprager on Mar 10, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs