Forward thinking : goal reviews should include oral debate

[3074326]

In all seriousness, the refs should have a public side of the job. They should have press conferences after every game like the coaches do.

Not sure about having debate during the game, but it would undoubtedly be highly entertaining at times.

 

[JustaFinnishGuy]

You want it to take 5 years to reach a conclusion?
If they would ever implement such a feature into the coaches challenge/goal review process, it would be butchered. You remember this is the NHL we're talking about?

 

[Prairie Habs]

All reviews should be limited to 30 seconds. Reviews were brought in the correct egregious errors, not count pixels and ruin the flow of games. If you can't immediately see that the wrong call was made, the call on the ice stands.

 

[Wolf Larsen]

How about, instead, the review is decided on the basis of whatever is preferable for the Penguins.

If the Penguins aren't part of the game, who cares.

So, in other words, status quo.

 

[Wolf Larsen]

In all seriousness, the refs should have a public side of the job. They should have press conferences after every game like the coaches do.

Not sure about having debate during the game, but it would undoubtedly be highly entertaining at times.

I don't think we want to raise the visibility of individual refs. Responses to issues around referee decisions should rightly come from the league office.

The league should continue to work on making the rules as clear as possible from a definition and example perspective and the refereeing itself as free from subjective judgment as possible. Technology can play a role but we, as fans, need to understand that hockey will never be as 'clean', from a rule and judgment perspective, as tennis, for instance. Boarding, tripping, goalie interference and embellishment are just a few instances of penalties that will continue to create an uproar for the foreseeable future.

 

[De Montreal]

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?

Say Team À score a goal and it's the Florida Panthers and the player is Derek McKenzie and he made subtle interference on the goaltender of team B which are the Carolina Hurricanes but it's still Eddie Lack in net for some reason but McKenzie was pushed by Jacob Slavin and ref I dont know who call it a good goal

Coach of Carolina (when they had one) could challenge they play and scream interference to the ref

But before proceeding to the review, the mysterious coach would have 30 seconds to explain on the microphone why he think it's not a good goal because McKenzie didnt let Lack do his job correctly

Then Florida coach I dont know who it is but could also have 30 seconds to make a case and say no no I think McKenzie fell a bit over Lack because Slavin pushed him

30 seconds approx could be more