HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Florida GM officially proposes "Coach's challenge"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-05-2010, 10:30 AM
  #1
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Florida GM officially proposes "Coach's challenge"

Not sure if this deserves its own thread, but I found it an interesting concept. If a mod feels so, just merge it into the Miscellaneous thread.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=339890

Quote:
NHL general managers will meet Tuesday in Toronto, and at least one key hot-button topic is expected to be on the agenda: Florida Panthers GM Dale Tallon tells TSN he has officially submitted a proposal for a "coach's challenge".

Tallon says he forwarded his request to NHL Senior VP and Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell, and hopes the concept can and will be fully explored. Tallon adds he hasn't spent a great deal of time lobbying his fellow managers for support.

The introductory criteria for Tallon's proposal for a coach's challenge are as follows:

> Applies only to goal-related plays

> Challenge must be issued within prescribed time limit

> Team must have timeout left to issue challenge

> Unsuccessful challenge results in loss of timeout

> Successful challenge results in no loss of timeout

> One challenge per team per game
Only thing left is if they throw a flag or something. I think each team should choose a symbol of something to throw for a challenge.

Red Wings throw an octopus, Panthers throw a rubber rat, Flyers throw the severed head of Chris Chelios (care of Ron Hextall).

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 10:55 AM
  #2
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
I don't know how I feel about this. Football has begun to annoy me because of the constant reviews and all that. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd like this.

__________________
"Help was not promised, lovely girl. Only death."
JDinkalage Morgoone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:03 AM
  #3
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
They should actually look at changing the rule that reviews goals before they do this. To see the puck in the glove of the keeper, which is 3 foot into the net still isn't classed as a goal.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:13 AM
  #4
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
They should actually look at changing the rule that reviews goals before they do this. To see the puck in the glove of the keeper, which is 3 foot into the net still isn't classed as a goal.
Here's what I want to know... remember when FOX used the dreaded glowing puck? Remember when the puck was along the near boards, the broadcast superimposed the puck in the crowd? Why can't they use that same technology in the overhead goal cam to determine the location of the puck under bodies, etc?

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:19 AM
  #5
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hextall89 View Post
I don't know how I feel about this. Football has begun to annoy me because of the constant reviews and all that. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd like this.
I agree, but bet this will just be an impetus to reform the scope of the review process. While I understand they are "judgment" calls on the ice, there's no reason an official looking at a questionable goal after the fact cannot look into goalie interference and that type of stuff.

I do not, however, want the on-ice officials to be the ones looking at replays... simply because that will drag the process out more than it needs to (some writer noted that an official wanted that ability).

Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
Here's what I want to know... remember when FOX used the dreaded glowing puck? Remember when the puck was along the near boards, the broadcast superimposed the puck in the crowd? Why can't they use that same technology in the overhead goal cam to determine the location of the puck under bodies, etc?
I doubt that technology was THAT accurate. However, they could easily set up a system with more recent stuff that could accurately determine the position of the puck on the ice surface at this point if they invested in it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:22 AM
  #6
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,517
vCash: 50
They already review pretty much every questionable call. It's not that they don't review it, it's that they don't always get it right when it's reviewed.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:24 AM
  #7
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I agree, but bet this will just be an impetus to reform the scope of the review process. While I understand they are "judgment" calls on the ice, there's no reason an official looking at a questionable goal after the fact cannot look into goalie interference and that type of stuff.

I do not, however, want the on-ice officials to be the ones looking at replays... simply because that will drag the process out more than it needs to (some writer noted that an official wanted that ability). Players also complained about the feel of the puck much like the NBA did when they went with an artificial leather.



I doubt that technology was THAT accurate. However, they could easily set up a system with more recent stuff that could accurately determine the position of the puck on the ice surface at this point if they invested in it.
That could easily be done, and they should.

As for the glow pucks, they were expensive as all hell. Unless they impose a "throw the puck back" policy for the crowd, we'll never see it again.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:27 AM
  #8
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
This could've been used for the Wellwood incident last night?

Or would that still not have been reviewable?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:29 AM
  #9
six sigma
Seahawks/Flyers
 
six sigma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hextall89 View Post
I don't know how I feel about this. Football has begun to annoy me because of the constant reviews and all that. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd like this.
Even if only because hockey is a faster game; I think the NFL has really benefited from challenges and reviews...but it's a game that stops/starts after every play anyway.

six sigma is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:33 AM
  #10
JojoTheWhale
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 151
vCash: 500
Like GKJ said, they already review basically everything that's borderline. Usually when they don't review something questionable, it's because someone blew a whistle, which they can't exactly review anyway, so I'm not really sure what this accomplishes.

But if it's only one per team per game, that can't really add that much time to the game and at least gives them a chance to get it right.

JojoTheWhale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:33 AM
  #11
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
That could easily be done, and they should.

As for the glow pucks, they were expensive as all hell. Unless they impose a "throw the puck back" policy for the crowd, we'll never see it again.
The cost of that type of technology has plummeted, however. So, they could theoretically pull it off. They also don't lose that many pucks anymore with the netting behind the nets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
This could've been used for the Wellwood incident last night?

Or would that still not have been reviewable?
Did the puck go in the net on that play?

Would depend on the scope they gave to it... that was a rough call on Wellwood.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:34 AM
  #12
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
They already review pretty much every questionable call. It's not that they don't review it, it's that they don't always get it right when it's reviewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JojoTheWhale View Post
Like GKJ said, they already review basically everything that's borderline. Usually when they don't review something questionable, it's because someone blew a whistle, which they can't exactly review anyway, so I'm not really sure what this accomplishes.

But if it's only one per team per game, that can't really add that much time to the game and at least gives them a chance to get it right.
Actually, you're completely missing the point here. The booth DOES NOT have the power to do anything about a Goalie Interference call... which is the type of stuff they want to have the power to change.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:40 AM
  #13
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,517
vCash: 50
If you start that then, will people want to be going to reviews for headshots, delay of game, major penalties, etc?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:41 AM
  #14
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
No need for a coach's challenge. Goals are already reviewed with enough coverage, the rules of what can and can't be reviewed may need an update.

As for the FoxTrax pucks and such, apparently players complained that the puck handled differently and was bouncier (which I doubt).

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:41 AM
  #15
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
If you start that then, will people want to be going to reviews for headshots, delay of game, major penalties, etc?
...yeah, that's why you create explicit rules for when and where it can and cannot be used.

Slippery slope arguments have a place, but this ain't one of 'em. You vote on what makes sense, and take it from there.

They already "review" headshots and major penalties for further punishment.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:45 AM
  #16
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,759
vCash: 500
I agree that they should just expand the review process to include things like when the whistle was blown, goalie interference.

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:48 AM
  #17
JojoTheWhale
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Actually, you're completely missing the point here. The booth DOES NOT have the power to do anything about a Goalie Interference call... which is the type of stuff they want to have the power to change.
Ah yeah, I see that now. I didn't read the full link, just the synopsis.

I'm in favor of getting the call right whenever possible, but once you get into reviewing penalties, man is that a slippery slope.

Can't they just add goalie interference to the current replay system and accomplish their goal more thoroughly? I don't understand why they'd set up a system where their goal is to get the right call, yet have it be contingent upon a coach thinking it needs to be reviewed and not having used his timeout yet.

JojoTheWhale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:48 AM
  #18
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,977
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Dislike.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:53 AM
  #19
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,072
vCash: 500
Florida want's this because of the incident where Orr tackled Vokoun(however it's spelled), and the goal was allowed. It was a horrible missed call, and might have completely changed the outcome of the game.

I'm of the opinion that if a review system is implemented, it should be:

--for questions of goal legitimacy
--for goalie interference in those situations
--when determining if the goalie was interfered with, there must be indisputable evidence that the goalie was hindered from making the save. no doubt at all.
--Other calls the ref might have missed that were involved with putting the puck in the net, specifically, if it was hit in by a high stick that was missed.

for everything else that happens, **** that. I don't believe there is any point reviewing non-called goals either, because toronto already does that, and they've always been good about making sure the puck wasn't batted in by a hand or kicked in.

here's the Florida incident, and this is the exact situation i mean:



oops. it's clemonsson, not vokoun

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 11:58 AM
  #20
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,517
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...yeah, that's why you create explicit rules for when and where it can and cannot be used.

Slippery slope arguments have a place, but this ain't one of 'em. You vote on what makes sense, and take it from there.

They already "review" headshots and major penalties for further punishment.
I don't think taking a goal off the board because of goaltender interference happens enough to warrant having to challenge the play. Just review it if you want to open that can of worms.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 12:21 PM
  #21
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't think taking a goal off the board because of goaltender interference happens enough to warrant having to challenge the play. Just review it if you want to open that can of worms.
...well that's why there are two paths to the same goal, and I would wager they end up taking the expanded review process over coach's challenge. However, it is important to note that expanding replay could lead to MORE reviews, not less.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 12:22 PM
  #22
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...yeah, that's why you create explicit rules for when and where it can and cannot be used.

Slippery slope arguments have a place, but this ain't one of 'em. You vote on what makes sense, and take it from there.

They already "review" headshots and major penalties for further punishment.


There's where your slope gets slippery.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 12:31 PM
  #23
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post


There's where your slope gets slippery.
Not necessarily. There are OBVIOUS problems -- both from a flow of the game, as well as the role of the official -- to expanding review of on-ice calls very far.

Have a little bit of faith... especially if you're going to bring up headshots and major penalties, since there is already a review process for those penalties, they just happen after the fact between games.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 12:52 PM
  #24
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not necessarily. There are OBVIOUS problems -- both from a flow of the game, as well as the role of the official -- to expanding review of on-ice calls very far.

Have a little bit of faith... especially if you're going to bring up headshots and major penalties, since there is already a review process for those penalties, they just happen after the fact between games.
Yes, I agree. The problem is 'what makes sense'; what makes sense to you might be significantly different than what makes sense to me. That's all I was getting at.

I was just picking on the phrase.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2010, 01:00 PM
  #25
glucker
Registered User
 
glucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London, ON
Posts: 4,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
Here's what I want to know... remember when FOX used the dreaded glowing puck? Remember when the puck was along the near boards, the broadcast superimposed the puck in the crowd? Why can't they use that same technology in the overhead goal cam to determine the location of the puck under bodies, etc?
I've been saying they should do this for a bit. The problem back then was the tech was pretty fragile, but now-adays it's far more feasible.

Put a small radio transmitter inside, have several recievers set up around the rink, and have it constantly ping them. You can triangluate the position, and determine the location of the puck in 3d space. Add in a digital layout of the rink, and you virtually eliminate the need for linesmen(actually, you'd need to put similar transmitters in the players equipment to fully eliminate linesmen).

With this you can instantly tell whether the puck is in the net or not, even if you can't see it, and you can tell if it was knocked in with a high-stick or not.

Put the transmiters in a player's shoulderpads and skates and you can determine whether a puck is knocked down with a highstick anywhere on the ice, or if a play is off-side.

add those recievers to a player's helmet and you can tell right away if there was a hit to the head.

the tech is so cheap, and so easily implimented that there is absolutely no reason for the NHL not to have it.

glucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.