Forward thinking : goal reviews should include oral debate

[De Montreal]

Watching overtime between Washington and Jackets right now, I cant help but envision a scenario in which a controversial goal is being reviewed in an overtime period of a game 7. Just imagine if this were to happen... in a Stanley Cup Final!

Ever since it was put in place, the goal review system is taking more and more place. I dont think it is fair for the fan not to know what are the arguments from each side while the referee are debatting in silence. Also, I think each coach should have the chance to make a case before the referee make a decision. I propose when a coach ask for a review, they have to explain why in a 30 secondes monologue. Then, opponent coach can do the same.

A while ago, NHL put microphone on referee for the benefit of the fans and it did wonder. Wether it's for the entertainment value, or because it's a good informative tool, I think an oral debate should be held every time there is a goal review. It's innoative, it's fun and it's a good way to teach the nation kids about civilized debate.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[ediger]

like, with podiums and microphones?

 

[Quiet Jack]

I love this

 

[Common Sense]

When there's a goal review, I think both teams should send their captains out to settle it with a single hand of blackjack.

 

[Armourboy]

I wouldn't mind the NHL putting out an explanation to the media, but we dont need speeches by the coaches and refs dragging this out even more.

 

[holy]

As a jock, I just can't cosign this kind of nerdy behaviour. It's a no from me.

 

[NeelyWasAWarrior]

rock, paper, scissors

 

[DearDiary]

Teach kids civilized debate? Have you ever been to a hockey game before? Coach's aren't saying nice things and certainly not things one would called civilized

 

[liljegren beast]

Wasn't 4/20 yesterday?

 

[NyQuil]

 

[HTFN]

Instead they should shove the glass partition between benches for 30 seconds, and whichever coach is weaker loses the challenge.

 

[NyQuil]

Instead they should shove the glass partition between benches for 30 seconds, and whichever coach is weaker loses the challenge.

 

[204hockey]

i am always up for oral. i concur with thread starter!

 

[TB12]

"What will I tell Corey?"

 

[ottawa]

It's not summer yet, well I guess it is for habs fans. I'll give this one a pass

 

[OVrocks]

I think they should set up a podium and have the coaches debate with the linesman serving as the moderator.

 

[Kitsune]

If they want to fix goal reviews - they need to copy an Australian Rugby League's (aka NRL) approach to video review. Heres how it works:

Referee indiactes by drawing a box in the air and then contacting the central review office straight from there normal mic, no need to go to the side. TV viewers are allowed to listen in. The ref indicates whether its was a Try (rugby's major score) or not. It then goes live to the video review bunker where the TV viewer gets to see and hear everything from the central review office as well as any communication to the Ref. Once a decision is made - the video review office states decision going to the board, the boarding being essentially a giant ad with a bar on the bottom that slowly indicates whether or not it counts. Something like this in hockey would be great.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Brilliant, let's delay the game even longer than these stupid reviews already do.

 

[The Red Line]

When there's a goal review, I think both teams should send their captains out to settle it with a single hand of blackjack.

The Golden Knights would have an unfair advantage. Perhaps Connect-4 instead?

 

[Rich Nixon]

Goal disputes will be decided by a fistfight between coaches in the area between the benches, with the ice-level commentator wearing a GoPro to film the action. Can't wait to see a Laviolette-Tortorella free-for-all with Pierre just inches away.

 

[SotasicA]

like, with podiums and microphones?

And lawyers.

Review then takes 4 years, a decade with the appeals.

 

[cactusjack]

i think the ref could explain a bit more. Hearing "after video review we have a good goal" is meaninless, just make the arm signal and shut up. They could elaborate with things like the puck was kicked, the goalie was pushed etc. Sometimes it's not obvious what the thinking process was.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Shut up nerd.

 

[islesfan186]

Wait, I'm not getting what you're advocating for. Are you advocating for refs to give a reason for why a goal was called off?

I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but when a goal is waved off, don't they normally give an oral explanation as to why? "Puck did not fully cross the line, knocked down with a high stick, kicked in" etc. do I really need to know that the puck only 3/4 crosses the line or that the stick was 6 inches above he crossbar?

Or are you talking more specifically about goalie interference goals/no goals?

 

[Hobble]

As long as it doesn't take time away from the swimsuit segment.