I apologize ahead of time since this thread is probably going to be filled with a lot of sour grapes in light of tonight, but the situation tonight at the end of the game brought about something that's been in the back of my mind for a while.
We've seen our fair share of questionable calls from the NHL refereeing crew this season. How about allowing the coach to challenge a ruling of a goal being called back once a game? Make it simple to be like football. If the replay is sent to Toronto and the decision stands, the team loses their timeout. If they win and the call is overturned, they keep it and have the chance to challenge again.
I think the game, the way it is today, really needs this rule or something like it. I'm prepared to take a lot of flak from the traditionalists on this one though
I apologize ahead of time since this thread is probably going to be filled with a lot of sour grapes in light of tonight, but the situation tonight at the end of the game brought about something that's been in the back of my mind for a while.
We've seen our fair share of questionable calls from the NHL refereeing crew this season. How about allowing the coach to challenge a ruling of a goal being called back once a game? Make it simple to be like football. If the replay is sent to Toronto and the decision stands, the team loses their timeout. If they win and the call is overturned, they keep it and have the chance to challenge again.
I think the game, the way it is today, really needs this rule or something like it. I'm prepared to take a lot of flak from the traditionalists on this one though
I ask this question every week on bettmans corner but it never goes through to him. Ive come to the conclusion that the best way to do this is to do it like this:
Coach challenges
if win:
overturned
if lose:
penalty turns into a major. (if it was a 4 min minor, it would be a 4 min major, and likewise if it was a 2 min minor it would be a 2 min major.)
even if we did have a coaches challenge like football, this ruling would not be overturned.
There is no way there is undisputed proof to overturn the call, maybe the penalty would be overturned, but would highly doubt the goal would be ruled a goal
The vast majority of controversial calls are reviewed. So we're talking a small number of plays that would be challenged. Of those plays that are challenged, how many would be overturned? The call tonight wouldn't be overturned. It was a judgment call that could go either way. We see Gaborik getting pushed, Devils fans see him running Brodeur even if Volchenkov was 10 feet away from him. Nothing would change upon review.
I think the amount of calls that would end up being challenged and overturned would be so insignificant that it's not worth making any type of new procedure.
I don't propose being allowed to review a penalty for any reason.
However with respect to a goal being scored...
A kicking motion is reviewable.
A high stick is reviewable.
A glove pushing the puck in is reviewable.
Why is incidental contact not reviewable in the event of a goal?
The vast majority of controversial calls are reviewed. So we're talking a small number of plays that would be challenged. Of those plays that are challenged, how many would be overturned? The call tonight wouldn't be overturned. It was a judgment call that could go either way. We see Gaborik getting pushed, Devils fans see him running Brodeur even if Volchenkov was 10 feet away from him. Nothing would change upon review.
I think the amount of calls that would end up being challenged and overturned would be so insignificant that it's not worth making any type of new procedure.
The same thing could have been said about the touching the puck with a high stick for a goal. I can think of maybe 1 or 2. None the less it can change the out come of a game. What if that was game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals? Would your mindset still be the same?
The vast majority of controversial calls are reviewed. So we're talking a small number of plays that would be challenged. Of those plays that are challenged, how many would be overturned? The call tonight wouldn't be overturned. It was a judgment call that could go either way. We see Gaborik getting pushed, Devils fans see him running Brodeur even if Volchenkov was 10 feet away from him. Nothing would change upon review.
I think the amount of calls that would end up being challenged and overturned would be so insignificant that it's not worth making any type of new procedure.
Disagree.
If the ability to "challenge" calls leads to A SINGLE GOAL being corrected and allowed to stand over the course of a season, then it's worth it.
What about this blown call 3 weeks ago that went against San Jose?
Refs made a terrible call and it wasn't reviewable. San Jose went on to win the game in a shootout still, but it would have been brutal to lose a potential point on a call like that. The standings are so close that 1 point could decide if you're in or out of the playoffs, or home-ice in the first round - which affects a potential game 7 at home and loss/gain of millions of dollars in revenue.
I'd MUCH rather have the head crew in Toronto review these goalie interference calls and thus have CONSISTENCY throughout the league of what is a goal and what is not a goal.
Hockey is such a fast game, these bang-bang plays at the net happen too quick for refs to consistently make the correct call. And what constitutes incidental contact, whether it was a push, etc varies from referee to referee. It's a discretionary call and it shouldn't be. Let the war room in Toronto rule goal or no goal.
At the very least, these plays should be reviewable.
But I am also 100% for an NFL type system where each coach has 1 challenge per game. Only certain things will be able to be challenged, such as plays like tonight or things like a high-stick to the face that causes an injury/blood but is missed by the officials. At the next whistle, the coach can "challenge" it, and the correct 4 minute power play will be rewarded.
I don't think the challenge rule is very plausible.
In football, you have a list of "challenge-able" plays (in football you have catches, ball spots, fumbles, etc.) and "non challenge-able" plays (holding, offsides, etc.)
What could you possibly challenge in hockey? Penalties are judgement calls (which are non-challenge-able in football.) Offsides would have little impact on the game if overturned. The only thing that you could challenge would be goals, which are automatically reviewed anyway.
The fact that it's one of the few sports in the world where each stoppage results in an equal chance for both teams to start with the ball (puck) really inhibits any substantial positive consequence from winning a challenge.
The main issue with reviewing a play like this is that the rule is written in a very ambiguous way. It states that player must make a "reasonable" effort to avoid contact if pushed or shoved into goaltender.
"Reasonable" is a term that can be interpreted differently by different people. Pushed or shoved will also be interpreted differently. It's unlike "Did the puck cross the line" which is clear black and white.
As it relates to last nights game. I think the penalty was wrong, but the waiving off of the goal in my opinion was the right call.
The goalie was interefered with. That much is certain.
There was incidental contact, but the goalie still need to be able to at least TRY to make a save for the goal to count in my opinion. I think that the incidental contact prevented him from attempting a save.
We have seen goals called off for less than that and no penalty called. This is the same situation.
Would have been nice to get the call our way, but I thinkt he right call was made last night.
As it relates to last nights game. I think the penalty was wrong, but the waiving off of the goal in my opinion was the right call.
The goalie was interefered with. That much is certain.
There was incidental contact, but the goalie still need to be able to at least TRY to make a save for the goal to count in my opinion. I think that the incidental contact prevented him from attempting a save.
We have seen goals called off for less than that and no penalty called. This is the same situation.
Would have been nice to get the call our way, but I thinkt he right call was made last night.
Didnt like the call at first because obviously I wanted the Rangers to win but than I thought to myself if it was the other way around I would hate for the Rangers to lose a game that way.
I just want to throw in another point - I think there is NO chance of reviewing such plays, because, like yesterday, the referee blew the whistle 1 or 2 seconds before the the puck crossed the line. Then you have to expect that some players stopped playing because of the whistle and stopped defending. The play was dead at this moment, so everything after the whistle shouldn't count. The only thing you could review then, is if the play was penalty-worthy, but you can't review the goal.
It's going to be hard to challenge the validity of a goal based upon whether or not something is ruled a penalty.
Even if it is not a challenge rule, a goal being disallowed for goaltender interference should be reviewable based on the referees discretion just as a kicking motion, high stick, pushing the puck in with the glove etc... are reviewable.
Thinking about it now I don't know that I am necessarily for a coaches challenge, I just think that goaltender interference should be reviewable. Just like anything else it would need to be conclusive to over turn a goal/no goal.
Even if it is not a challenge rule, a goal being disallowed for goaltender interference should be reviewable based on the referees discretion just as a kicking motion, high stick, pushing the puck in with the glove etc... are reviewable.
The high stick and kicking motion are clearly defined. A penalty involves some level of objectivity and personal interpretation. That's why you can't challenge a penalty call in the NFL.
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.
