Lose the challenge, lose the game.

[Hoss]

The question is how many outcomes would have been changed had a goal not been overturned.

That's something I don't think we can realistically determine outside of ones in the final seconds. I believe there have only been two coach's challenges in the finals seconds. One last night that Boston lost which upheld a goal that led to a Calgary OT win and one where a team scored late but was still down by multiple goals.

[LGR4GM]

I hated the HCDB challenged that gaol in the Arizona game. It was a nickel n dime infraction in a rugged game. It changed the the whole complexion of the game. Arizona had momentum and it was a one goal game. It got ruined. It's happen to the Sabres and I hated it, it happened to turn out in our favor this time and I still hate it.

Yes. All of this. I hated even though it helped us. The challenge rule needs major changes

[rakish]

As Swamp says, the lost goal when losing a challenged goal, and the goal added when winning a no-goal challenge, throws the odds of the result.

 

using my fingers, I get

games where a challenged goal was lost, teams were 11-21, which isn't too far from my guess on how much a goal is worth, but it's totally a guess

games were a challenged goal was won, teams were 10-9, almost exactly even

games were a no-goal challenge was lost, teams were 5-6, almost exactly even

the only surprising number is that the only two teams that won their no-goal challenge, lost the game

 

thanks Hoss for finding the data, I was thinking about looking into this, it would have taken some time

[SwampD]

That's something I don't think we can realistically determine outside of ones in the final seconds. I believe there have only been two coach's challenges in the finals seconds. One last night that Boston lost which upheld a goal that led to a Calgary OT win and one where a team scored late but was still down by multiple goals.

We were taking over that first Ottawa game. I think we at least come away with at least one point in that game, if not two, but you're right, there is absolutely no way of knowing. I still like the rule.

[Stoner]

I hated the HCDB challenged that gaol in the Arizona game. It was a nickel n dime infraction in a rugged game. It changed the the whole complexion of the game. Arizona had momentum and it was a one goal game. It got ruined. It's happen to the Sabres and I hated it, it happened to turn out in our favor this time and I still hate it. 

I make a firm distinction between the offside and interference components of the challenge. Interference, such as slashing a goalie's glove twice, once while the puck was on its way and once when it was near the glove, is not nickel and dime. It directly impacted the scoring of the goal, unlike ticky tacky offside calls. I have no problem with the challenge here. I don't see why they don't let Toronto handle it; had Byslma used his timeout earlier after an icing or something, the Sabres would have been up Crick without a paddle.

[sabresouth]

The high stick (that wasn't called) taking our player down contributed alot to that goal being scored. Unlike an offsides by an inch that probably doesn't affect a goal at all.

[Ottosmagic13]

I posted in either a game-day thread or the coaches challenge thread that I agree with posters above that separate offside and goalie interference. By definition goalie interference directly influences the goal being allowed or disallowed, offsides does not. 

 

The referee has multiple things to watch for when the puck is near the net; for example, a referee looking through the back of the net to see if a puck crosses the line might not see the goalie get interfered with. I have no problem with that being subject to review, especially so if it is handle by Toronto. Signal down to the ice and have the referee immediately announce "the (call on the ice of goal/no-goal) is under review for (reason)" and spend no more than a TV timeout reviewing the call and then get on with the game.  

 

However, the linesmen has one job on the zone entry. If he cannot determine the play in real time, then so be it. There is absolutely ZERO reason that the following situation could occur: as it's stands a team can enter the zone, cycle the puck, change lines, recover the puck from the defense before it leaves the zone, cycle it more, change lines again, get a delayed penalty in their favor and then score a goal only to have that goal called back due to offsides on the entry. 

 

As it is, the coaches challenge ruins the entertainment value (and in my opinion the integrity) of the game more-so than ANY missed call. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Ottosmagic13

[woods-racer]

I make a firm distinction between the offside and interference components of the challenge. Interference, such as slashing a goalie's glove twice, once while the puck was on its way and once when it was near the glove, is not nickel and dime. It directly impacted the scoring of the goal, unlike ticky tacky offside calls. I have no problem with the challenge here. I don't see why they don't let Toronto handle it; had Byslma used his timeout earlier after an icing or something, the Sabres would have been up ###### Crick without a paddle.

 

I believe that Johnson never saw the puck. The fact that an Arizona forward touched his glove before the shot in no way stopped him from trying to catch the puck. His hand never flinched, his catching mitt webbing never wavered as the puck went by. Patty cake has more forceful touching than in that interference, the reason I believe the officials during real time never called it. His Statue of Liberty goalie poise was never broken till the goal light went on. Nichol n dime all the way.

 

As far as the high stick, on the broadcast Rob Ray explained that the official came over and talked with HCDB. The Ref explained the high stick was not called because the Arizona forward was in the act of shooting, therefore negating the high sticking penalty. I believe rendering it non review-able also. 

 

Look whats happened to the NFL.... now where on or way baby to the great commercial fest of reviews. My tin foil hat of conspiracy theories. What better way to increase revenue that to garruntee (for you WC) 5 more minutes of commercials. WOOOO HOOO!

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[Stoner]

Penalties are not reviewable.

[sabresouth]

And yet penalties are far more likely to affect a goal than an offsides.

[MODO Hockey]

And yet penalties are far more likely to affect a goal than an offsides.

 

+1