NHL to Implement Coaches Challenge Replay System

[Stoner]

I am going to sneak into the HHOF and engrave one for 1999.

 

The Sabres' Cup, just so you know, would also have had one.

[Eleven]

The Sabres' Cup, just so you know, would also have had one.

 

Why?

[qwksndmonster]

I like the idea of a review system, but I know the NHL is going to mess it up terribly somehow.

[Trettioåtta]

A team brings a puck in off-side and cycles it for 2 minutes. Finally, when fatigue sets into their opponents legs, an opening appears and they score. Goal or no goal?

 

Hockey is an interesting game to bring this into. I'm not against it. But it is very fast flowing

 

Team A brings the puck in off-side. Team B strips them of the puck and goes on an odd-man rush 2 on 1 and scores. Can team A point out the missed offside?

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

Properly applied, I like the idea. And by properly applied, I don't want it to slow down the game to see if a faceoff should be inside or outside the blue line. I'd want it to be able to negate goals that shouldn't stand or call or reverse black and white penalty calls. Another fun application would be too many men on the ice as well.

 

As for the penalty idea, I think it would only work to be able to call or nullify delay of game or point out a gross misconduct type of play. Lucic spearing Dekeyser should be the type of thing that can be reviewed....if missed by the ref behind the play, they can consult the tape and give that 5 and a game. But I think roughing, tripping, diving etc is impossible to properly call with this type of system.

[26CornerBlitz]

@FriedgeHNIC ·

 

Competition Committee met for five hours today...

 

You can tell there is a real concern about opening video review to goaltender interference. Too much interpretation.

 

Coaches challenge: only if coach still has his timeout. Can't do it if don't have it. That is what is being recommended.

 

Could apply to pucks over glass, if goalie touches puck in trapezoid (but only if penalty called), if play was offsides, although...

 

It is still TBD how long after an offside occurs that a missed call is relevant.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I am going to sneak into the HHOF and engrave one for 1999.

 

I will help you with that.

 

Although, I hate the thought of having to go back to Toronto.

 

The Sabres' Cup, just so you know, would also have had one.

 

Don't you mean the *Sabres' Cusp*?

[Stoner]

Don't you mean the *Sabres' Cusp*?

 

Of course. Good call.

 

Why?

 

Don't get me wrong. The two asterisks would not be the same. But don't you think, had Hull's goal been taken back and the Sabres had won the Cup, we'd still be hearing something along the lines of: *"yeah, but, you won it because a goal that would have counted for generations and would be counted for generations after was wiped out by that stupid crease rule"? (I will ask that any resident proofreader, wordsmith or doctorate in English please back me up on how to punctuate that asterisk.

 

Now, speaking of punctuating asterisks, it's almost 7 and the coffee is starting to work. Per-cu-la-she-own.

[Kristian]

Honestly, if the NHL would just be a little less inconsistent and bush-league in the way they officiate the game, and discipline it's players and coaches, this debate never takes place.

[shrader]

A couple scenarios come to mind right away:

 

1. There is no way that the goal from Detroit earlier this year where the puck hit the protective netting should be allowed to stand. They better be able to review something like that. It's just like the Sabres-Flyers goal from 2000 or so that Taro mentioned.

 

2. Reviews for the sake of penalties are a slippery slope, but I would hope they'd be able to look at something objective like sticks to the face. How many times have we seen those go uncalled? Then there is the rare version where it is actually a teammate's stick that makes contact yet someone still gets a penalty. That stuff needs to go.

[Stoner]

A couple scenarios come to mind right away:

 

1. There is no way that the goal from Detroit earlier this year where the puck hit the protective netting should be allowed to stand. They better be able to review something like that. It's just like the Sabres-Flyers goal from 2000 or so that Taro mentioned.

 

2. Reviews for the sake of penalties are a slippery slope, but I would hope they'd be able to look at something objective like sticks to the face. How many times have we seen those go uncalled? Then there is the rare version where it is actually a teammate's stick that makes contact yet someone still gets a penalty. That stuff needs to go.

 

It's too messy. How is a coach going to know a replay is available that shows a stick did or did not hit someone above the shoulder? Then we get into the inequity of the camera angles available in Montreal on a Saturday night vs. Florida on, uh, any night.

 

How many challenges is a coach going to get? I can't see wasting one for the sake of a power play.

[shrader]

It's too messy. How is a coach going to know a replay is available that shows a stick did or did not hit someone above the shoulder? Then we get into the inequity of the camera angles available in Montreal on a Saturday night vs. Florida on, uh, any night.

 

Generally they know right away. Your guy is down in the corner with blood pouring out of his face, but no call was made. If the bench didn't see it themselves, they'll have more than enough time for someone in the press box to check it out while the player is being checked on by the trainer.

 

As for the camera issue, that's something I'm sure I've mentioned plenty of times over the years. They need to standardize the camera shots available at each arena. Even the NFL doesn't seem to get that one right, but if you want to have a serious replay system, the same shots need to be available everywhere. There are some obvious limitations given the layout of certain buildings, but I do think they've improved in this area a bit.

 

How many challenges is a coach going to get? I can't see wasting one for the sake of a power play.

 

Just like in the NFL, it's situational. Depending on the limit, if you're deep in the 3rd period and have the option of a challenge, you're going to make that call.

[X. Benedict]

I just hate this idea. If there is a challenge it should come from the captain. I just hate the idea of inserting coaches into the game.

[MattPie]

I just hate this idea. If there is a challenge it should come from the captain. I just hate the idea of inserting coaches into the game.

 

I don't think I agree with that one, the Captain is even less likely to see something or have access to a replay. How many times do we see players motion that a goal was scored with a kick or high stick when the replay shows it clearly wasn't. I doubt coaches want to blow their only time-out on that.

[shrader]

I don't think I agree with that one, the Captain is even less likely to see something or have access to a replay. How many times do we see players motion that a goal was scored with a kick or high stick when the replay shows it clearly wasn't. I doubt coaches want to blow their only time-out on that.

 

We also need an actual proposal before we can tell whether or not we like it.

[Ottosmagic13]

I voted no, only because there wasn't an "it's way to early to see what they are actually going to do and what calls they will allow a challenge on" option.

 

With that said I can't wait for the first ref to get pegged by an "errant" red flag thrown by a coach. :sarcasmsmiley:

[IKnowPhysics]

I voted no, only because there wasn't an "it's way to early to see what they are actually going to do and what calls they will allow a challenge on" option.

 

I voted yes for this reason. I'm ok with video replay, but it must be executed properly: limited in scope, duration, etc.

[Ottosmagic13]

 

 

I voted yes for this reason. I'm ok with video replay, but it must be executed properly: limited in scope, duration, etc.

 

I like video replay, especially being handled by an neutral element outside of the arena. It's getting the coaches involved beyond skating over to tell them what the call was and it being final that has me on edge.

 

The first time a quick face off win goal is waved because the opposing coach challenged something on the previous play minutia before the puck was dropped I'll be done with this proposed system.

[biodork]

I think if they do it right it would be a good check and balance. But it needs to be very limited use (only 1-2 per coach) to avoid slowing the game too much.

[Taro T]

I think if they do it right it would be a good check and balance. But it needs to be very limited use (only 1-2 per coach) to avoid slowing the game too much.

You add this caveot, about the guys running the NHL no less, and don't see why this is a horrible idea? Seriously?

[MILFHUNTER#518]

 

 

Linesmen miss an offside call that causes the Sabres to lose game 7 of the SCF. You'd be okay with that?

This is where I am. If it is limited like the NFL, to only certain plays I think it could actually enhance the game.

[biodork]

You add this caveot, about the guys running the NHL no less, and don't see why this is a horrible idea? Seriously?

 

As long as its use is restricted, I agree with this:

 

This is where I am. If it is limited like the NFL, to only certain plays I think it could actually enhance the game.

 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

I think if they do it right it would be a good check and balance. But it needs to be very limited use (only 1-2 per coach) to avoid slowing the game too much.

I say if the coach challenges and loses, he and his team gets a bench minor. Also, he would lose the ability to challenge for the rest of the game. Otherwise, unlimited challenges... Similar to the the NFL Edited June 11, 2014 by MILFHUNTER#518

[biodork]

I say if the coach challenges and loses, he and his team gets a bench minor. Also, he would lose the ability to challenge for the rest of the game. Otherwise, unlimited challenges... Similar to the the NFL

 

I don't know about that... I do favor making sure douchebag coaches don't overuse it and needlessly ruin the game, but a bench minor might be too harsh for a lost challenge (especially if the call is subjective).

[X. Benedict]

 

You add this caveot, about the guys running the NHL no less, and don't see why this is a horrible idea? Seriously?

 

Laughing with this pithy quip.