Do you call for review of these plays?

[tarheelhockey]

You’ve been appointed as the sole authority over the NHL rulebook. Your word is law.

In your world, which if any of the following scenarios would include the option for replay reviews?

Click to read more...

 

[dabeechman]

Officiating has been horrendous for awhile now. As much as I hate reviews, the officials have proven that they can't keep up with the pace of the game and/or enforce the rules objectively.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

only the first two. Third one is relatively rare, fourth one would probably result in every other goal being called back, the rest fall under the threshold of not worth stopping the game after each one.

 

[Evergreen]

Only the first two. Video replay should be used to determine when and whether the puck crossed the line. Aside from that, it does more harm than good.

 

[norrisnick]

All of them. No point in calling anything if you aren't willing to get it right.

 

[dirtydanglez]

only plays that led to a goal

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Review by league. Not by challenge.

 

[tarheelhockey]

only the first two. Third one is relatively rare, fourth one would probably result in every other goal being called back, the rest fall under the threshold of not worth stopping the game after each one.

Only the first two. Video replay should be used to determine when and whether the puck crossed the line. Aside from that, it does more harm than good.

This is my position as well. It’s rare to see a review for whether the puck crossed the line completely and inside of the time limit. But when those reviews do happen, they’re hugely consequential and they always directly relate to the literal question of whether a goal was scored. There’s no reason not to take the extra couple of minutes to get that call right, and it’s exceedingly rare for the decision to create a controversy.

In all of the other scenarios, the reviews churn up additional controversy and degrade the entertainment value of the event.

 

[SillyRabbit]

I voted all of them.

I know that it would slow down the game a lot.

But I also believe that getting calls wrong or missing them entirely hurts the game in a different, yet equally (or possibly more) impactful way.

I also think that if the refs knew that almost all of their calls would be reviewed, they'd get better at making the right call the first time.

As it stands right now, the refs seem to have zero accountability.

 

[Albatros]

The first five, the rest would depend on implementation.

 

[bobholly39]

You’ve been appointed as the sole authority over the NHL rulebook. Your word is law.

In your world, which if any of the following scenarios would include the option for replay reviews?

Fun poll - I only voted for 3 - but I will also add a 4th of my own choice:

1. Puck over goal line before time expires
2. Puck fully over goal line or not

The first 2 are obvious. When chosing between a good goal or not - by all means go ahead with review, and get the right call. This is easy, and they usually get it right too.

3. Offside prior to goal. Same idea as the first two, about getting a call right where there's a goal, BUT - there has to be a time limit....5 seconds or so, maybe 10. But it has to be an offside that leads directly to a goal (ie a 2 on 1 rush where they score, and one guy was offside). If it's offside and they enter the zone....and stay there for like 37 seconds before getting a goal, too bad time expired, goal counts.

The 4th choice I would add is dealer's choice - referees can choose to subjectively review any play they want. When there's an extremely egregious penalty missed (be it a high stick, or an injury, or goalie interference), they can chose to review, and still give a penalty. Pros and cons with this one. Cons is - if you give referee too much power to subjectively determine when he can review, people will complain - but the pro is simply not to miss any overtly egregious calls. I think this just helps the game. ie - the other day with Marchand faking an injury on the wrong leg after a slash to get a penalty? If a 5th ref was reviewing plays - he 100% gets an embelishment call.


I don't care about any of the others:

1. Kicking motion? I never had an issue with that...if it's not overtly blatent to be caught by ref, it's fine for me...
2. Goalie interefernce. Same as above - if it's not overtly obvious, too bad.
3. I don't care about hand passes. If you get away with it with ref not seeing - cool, good for you. No need to review anything
4. Icing - nope. Refs do a fairly good job at it, but they're human, and you have to account for some close calls both ways. Deal with it
5. Objective or subjective penalties - no. But - refer to my "dealers choice". Maybe insert a 5th referee in the video room, and his job is to call out extreme egregious plays. So it's not about catching every single hooking or high sticking call possible - but the really bad ones, he calls those out.

 

[MikeyMike01]

The current rules, plus objective penalties.

It’s really strange that you can’t review high sticking and puck over glass.

The NFL allows you to review objective penalties, including illegal forward pass and 12 men on the field. Their foray into subjective penalty reviews was a joke, and abandoned after one year.

 

[weaponomega]

The first 3. And reviewing 5 min majors.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Just the first three goal ones. The fewer reviews the better. Could also include stick above the crossbar in the kicking category, since it's essentially the same situation.

 

[DaveG]

only question I have here is are we talking league-mandated review, or are we talking things that should be covered by coaches challenges, as I have different answers for both.

Coaches challenge? all but the subjective penalties should be able to be challenged.

Required review? The first 3, as well as missed stoppage, and should only be reviewable for goals. Hand pass gets missed and 20 seconds later someone takes a penalty? Sorry, shit happens.

Would have no problem if they decided to institute some sort of VAR for objective penalties only (eg: high sticking)