HFBoards

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

Coach's Challenge Rule Proposition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2012, 12:07 PM
  #26
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,598
vCash: 500
Well, I guess the idea here is that the penalty nullified the goal before the puck left Anisimov's stick, therefore the goal never happened.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2012, 10:29 PM
  #27
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,959
vCash: 1647
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387268

Apparently former referee Kerry Fraiser agrees that this type of call needs to be reviewable and this is coming from someone who has 20+ years of NHL officiating experience.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2012, 10:43 PM
  #28
KingWantsCup
Super Saiyan Hank
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,429
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion Boy View Post
How about that all scoring plays are reviewable. When the puck goes into the net, the refs can review the play via video at the time keepers table. Doesn't seem that hard.

No need to review every penalty, just potential goals.
This. What is so difficult about this concept for the league to accept?

KingWantsCup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 01:09 AM
  #29
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,350
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
I mean come on, am I the only one who thinks it is beyond preposterous this coaches challenge thing that's been going around the league for months now? The amount of unintended consequences that would come from a coach being able to challenge penalties far outweighs the benefit.

Regarding specifically what the OP wrote: Every goal in Toronto is reviewed. They can easily the widen the scope to include looking at every scenario (aside from penalties) that surrounded the play from the time the puck was dropped previously, but I think that's ridiculous, anyway. Can you imagine one of these reviews: "after video review, a hand pass was undetected in the defensive zone three minutes and 39 seconds ago, therefore it's no goal."

Additionally, refs can take a look at every "incidental contact" call that results in a goal.

There's zero that can and will ever be done about last nights scenario. The idiot called a penalty.

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 08:45 AM
  #30
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,959
vCash: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmessier011 View Post
I mean come on, am I the only one who thinks it is beyond preposterous this coaches challenge thing that's been going around the league for months now? The amount of unintended consequences that would come from a coach being able to challenge penalties far outweighs the benefit.

Regarding specifically what the OP wrote: Every goal in Toronto is reviewed. They can easily the widen the scope to include looking at every scenario (aside from penalties) that surrounded the play from the time the puck was dropped previously, but I think that's ridiculous, anyway. Can you imagine one of these reviews: "after video review, a hand pass was undetected in the defensive zone three minutes and 39 seconds ago, therefore it's no goal."

Additionally, refs can take a look at every "incidental contact" call that results in a goal.

There's zero that can and will ever be done about last nights scenario. The idiot called a penalty.
Really. Are you apart of the NHLPA or a former NHL Ref? Maybe you should read the article I posted above where former Ref Kerry Fraiser said he has been and still is advocating for exactly what some of us are calling for: not a coaches challenge, but a review of incidental contact with the goaltender.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 09:16 AM
  #31
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
If anything, it's more fair to the refs to allow them to review the play afterwards instead of having to make the call on the spot.

The refs would look much better if they took the time to get the call right. On Tuesday if the refs took 5 minutes to watch the play on a TV monitor and STILL decided that the goal was no good, they wouldn't have been pelted with beer bottles I think.

The fans are mad because it was a snap judgement at a crucial point of the game.

Onion Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 09:49 AM
  #32
BenedictGomez
#FireDeboer
 
BenedictGomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PRNJ
Country: United States
Posts: 26,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion Boy View Post
If anything, it's more fair to the refs to allow them to review the play afterwards instead of having to make the call on the spot.

The refs would look much better if they took the time to get the call right. On Tuesday if the refs took 5 minutes to watch the play on a TV monitor and STILL decided that the goal was no good, they wouldn't have been pelted with beer bottles I think.

The fans are mad because it was a snap judgement at a crucial point of the game.
This has been said about 1000 times by fans of both teams at this point, but "on Tuesday" it wouldn't have mattered, because a penalty was called, which means that a goal could never have been scored, whether you think "the call" was correct or incorrect. In other words, replay would not apply in this situation.

BenedictGomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 09:52 AM
  #33
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
This has been said about 1000 times by fans of both teams at this point, but "on Tuesday" it wouldn't have mattered, because a penalty was called, which means that a goal could never have been scored, whether you think "the call" was correct or incorrect. In other words, replay would not apply in this situation.
That goalie interference call was BS, and you know it.

Rangers Fail is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:09 AM
  #34
skroob**
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henriks Broadway Hat View Post
That goalie interference call was BS, and you know it.
Of course he does. Their own player even admitted he made contact with Gaborik. Thats how Anton's stick ended up locked into Gaboriks skate.

skroob** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:03 AM
  #35
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,959
vCash: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
This has been said about 1000 times by fans of both teams at this point, but "on Tuesday" it wouldn't have mattered, because a penalty was called, which means that a goal could never have been scored, whether you think "the call" was correct or incorrect. In other words, replay would not apply in this situation.
This is exactly the situation where replay would apply. Any goal that is scored where goalie interference is called would be reviewable.

On the flip side any goalie interference where no goal is scored would not be reviewable.

Try to use a little less of the debbie bias.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:16 AM
  #36
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
This is exactly the situation where replay would apply. Any goal that is scored where goalie interference is called would be reviewable.

On the flip side any goalie interference where no goal is scored would not be reviewable.

Try to use a little less of the debbie bias.
I understand what hes trying to get at. When the penalty is called the play is dead the second the Rangers touch the puck, hence anything after that in theory wouldnt have happened. Having said that lets not pretend that the whistle blew and the Rangers scored because the Devils stopped playing. The play happened so fast that the ref didnt blow the whistle or have his arm up before the puck was in the net. (watch the replay)

JoeRangers 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 10:15 AM.

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.