Coaches challenge...good idea?

[Sabre fan]

It seems that what started as a good idea has blown up in the NHL's face. The coach's challenge has led to long delays, and  calls being made when they are thought or appear to be the opposite. The funny thing is that the coach's voted it in but now seem to be regretting that decision. Do you like it or hate it? I think the natural ebb and flow of the game has been lost by calls being challenged now that would have gone forward in the "old" game. yes there were offside goals but did they not even themselves out? Interesting read anyways...

 

http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/bettman-coachs-challenge-working-exactly-they-were-intended

[bob_sauve28]

I hate it. It's just a game we don't need a full court hearing to decide a stupid call. To error is human, let's keep it a human game

[LGR4GM]

Good thread. I hate the offsides challenge because the way the offsides rule is written is atrocious

[Winston]

The offside rule is in place to keep players from cherry picking. If the offsides isn't evident to the human eye, then it isn't a substantial enough advantage to be worth reviewing IMO. It's just not what the rule is written for. It's obnoxiously stupid to halt a game and wipe a highlight goal off the board over something that didn't actually impact the outcome of the play. My two cents, anyways. I like the blueline and offsides and having to clear the zone, etc. That's hockey. Scrutinizing a players' toes on an ipad when he didn't even impact the play, that isn't hockey.

 

Goaltender interference, now that's a worthy infraction to review. Get more angles, see if the goalie was really impeded. Those challenged are out of legit belief that your goalie was interfered with.

 

The offside challenge is more like, "oh , we got scored on, let's get off on a technicality."

[bob_sauve28]

The offside rule is in place to keep players from cherry picking. If the offsides isn't evident to the human eye, then it isn't a substantial enough advantage to be worth reviewing IMO. It's just not what the rule is written for. It's obnoxiously stupid to halt a game and wipe a highlight goal off the board over something that didn't actually impact the outcome of the play. My two cents, anyways. I like the blueline and offsides and having to clear the zone, etc. That's hockey. Scrutinizing a players' toes on an ipad when he didn't even impact the play, that isn't hockey.

Goaltender interference, now that's a worthy infraction to review. Get more angles, see if the goalie was really impeded. Those challenged are out of legit belief that your goalie was interfered with.

The offside challenge is more like, "oh ######, we got scored on, let's get off on a technicality."

 

I agree with all this except the offsides. I'd like to see no offsides, no icing just to see what it would be like. It might be better. It might be worse but I don't think anyone knows until they see it. It would be different

[Beer]

The reversal last night was brutal. I was so angry I nearly shut off the game. The Preds got hosed. They need to get rid of the offsides challenge immediately. I don't trust Toronto to be impartial, especial if it involves the Leafs.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Beer

[inkman]

That call may have cost the Preds the series

[Randall Flagg]

It seemed like a valid reaction to the Briere and Colorado goals at the time for me, but when I routinely see icings get let go because players "basically" came within 4 feet of the red line before shooting it in, I have to wonder why one line infraction is super special and the other isn't.

 

If I were forced to make an immediate decision with a gun to my head, I'd keep the goalie interference challenge and dump the offsides one, and have a group in Toronto check the goals rather than the officials who made the original call, and rewrite the rules to make it completely clear what constitutes goalie interference so we don't see the wild inconsistency that we have with the call so far.

[dudacek]

The offsides review is a terrible rule.

 

Traditionalists will choke because of the cherry picking stigma, but opening up the ice by eliminating offside would be the best thing to happen to the entertainment value of modern hockey.

Edited May 31, 2017 by dudacek

[ubkev]

The offsides review is a terrible rule.

 

Traditionalists will choke because of the cherry picking stigma, but opening up the ice by eliminating offside would be the best thing to happen to the entertainment value of modern hockey.

Word! If they want to cherry pick, let em.

[TrueBlueGED]

The coach's challenge remains a good idea with terrible execution. The good news is it's incredibly easy to fix. The bad news is, as they say, the first step is admitting you have a problem...which the league is loathe to do.

[North Buffalo]

I thought it might be good, but not for offsides.

[SwampD]

I don't mind it. The whole ebb and flow thing is misguided, I think. To my eye, there are just less offside whistles during a game, which are WAY more disruptive to the ebb and flow of a game than one reviewed goal call every 5(?) games.

 

There was a stretch in Pitt/Ott game 7 (I think) that went 8+ minutes without a whistle. No way that happens without that rule and guys being extra careful to not be the one who costs them a goal.

 

I think as more and more players live with the rule it will be less of an issue going forward

[Sabre1974]

it does my head in to be honest

[PromoTheRobot]

It's a bad idea...until the Sabres get jobbed by a call. 

[GoPre]

Watched this video for the first time today.  Funny stuff.

 

 

 

And no, I do not support the coaches challenge.  Dump it. 

[darksabre]

It's a bad idea...until the Sabres get jobbed by a call.

We already got jobbed. Until every team in the league loses in the Cup Finals to a goal that shouldn't have counted, I will call the replay system BS. Let everyone suffer like we did, then we can talk.