Goose
Registered User
- Apr 18, 2006
- 3,111
- 2,816
I still don't love the new challenge format, and at the risk of making yet another rules suggestion that gets ridiculed , I'm going to take a crack at an alternative.
One thing I don't like about the 2-minute penalty for an unsuccessful review is the fact that I think it may influence ref decision making, especially in marginal, 50/50 type situations. I know if I were a ref, and I were faced with a tough, 50/50 type call late in a game, I wouldn't want to put a team down 2 minutes if there was a legit basis for the challenge. It might be enough in some situations to help me err on the side of green lighting the challenge.
I also feel like the refs may be influenced by factors beyond the specific goal in question as well, and having a neutral perspective might add some value.
Here's my solution: let there be 3 votes counted in deciding coach's challenges.
Each ref gets a vote and the "Situation Room" gets a vote. The refs don't have to be in agreement with one another, they get to call it as they see it. If they're split, the Situation Room tie breaks it.
There are 4 possible outcomes in this situation:
I don't think this will fly because the league probably isn't willing to admit that there's enough subjectivity in video review calls that reasonable professionals can disagree on interpretation, but I think this would be a good way of avoiding punishing challenges on close calls, freeing refs up to call it like they see it individually, and keeping the decision making power in the refs hands while still getting the value of the "neutral" Situation Room.
I'm writing this after the Leafs / Sens game, where a pretty borderline call went against the Leafs, and while I don't like the call, I see where it came from and understand the refs were in a pretty borderline situation there. Going into the video review it felt like a complete toss-up as to how it was going to be called. I would be curious to see how Situation Room would have weighed in on that one.
One thing I don't like about the 2-minute penalty for an unsuccessful review is the fact that I think it may influence ref decision making, especially in marginal, 50/50 type situations. I know if I were a ref, and I were faced with a tough, 50/50 type call late in a game, I wouldn't want to put a team down 2 minutes if there was a legit basis for the challenge. It might be enough in some situations to help me err on the side of green lighting the challenge.
I also feel like the refs may be influenced by factors beyond the specific goal in question as well, and having a neutral perspective might add some value.
Here's my solution: let there be 3 votes counted in deciding coach's challenges.
Each ref gets a vote and the "Situation Room" gets a vote. The refs don't have to be in agreement with one another, they get to call it as they see it. If they're split, the Situation Room tie breaks it.
There are 4 possible outcomes in this situation:
- If all 3 agree to accept the challenge, then so be it, that's easy.
- If all 3 agree to reject the challenge, then a 2-minute minor is applied.
- If 2/3 agree to accept the challenge, the challenge is accepted and it's a flag for the league that this is a situation where further training/ emphasis needs to be placed to get everyone on the same page.
- If 2/3 reject the challenge, it's rejected, but no 2-minute minor is applied.
I don't think this will fly because the league probably isn't willing to admit that there's enough subjectivity in video review calls that reasonable professionals can disagree on interpretation, but I think this would be a good way of avoiding punishing challenges on close calls, freeing refs up to call it like they see it individually, and keeping the decision making power in the refs hands while still getting the value of the "neutral" Situation Room.
I'm writing this after the Leafs / Sens game, where a pretty borderline call went against the Leafs, and while I don't like the call, I see where it came from and understand the refs were in a pretty borderline situation there. Going into the video review it felt like a complete toss-up as to how it was going to be called. I would be curious to see how Situation Room would have weighed in on that one.
