Coach's Challenge

[Brown Dog]

If I could work my will, the goalie interference and offside challenges would be history.

Goalie interference is way too subjective (there's a reason pass interference isn't reviewable in the NFL).

And the offside one is dumb too. A handful of goals are scored off rushes that are very slightly offside. But so many other things have to happen for that goal to be scored.

And what about the onside plays that get blown down incorrectly? Or missed hand passes or high sticks that happen before a goal? Or all the penalties that get missed? Some stuff just gets missed by officials and I can live with that without reviewing every little thing.

 

[tmlms13]

The first goal of Game 1 in the playoffs last year was clearly offside and Babcock didn't challenge.

Says a lot

 

[diehardleafsfan9878]

I think it's because replay technology is better than it's ever been therefore the league probably would catch **** from a fan base or possibly even management of a team that found a "bad goal" ended up counting in an important game, even if it's down to the millisecond. It's far from an ideal system but I kind of get the idea of challenges from the league's point of view.

There is still a better way for offsides though. They need to implement 4 more off ice officials who sit on each side of the blueline. That way offside review can only be used if any 1 of the 3 officials believe the play was offside. A point has been made about how many plays get blown dead for offside when it's not actually offside. This would allow for human error still but keep the flow much better.

 

[OddyOh]

I agree, it drained the energy from the leafs. If a body part is over the blueline then it shouldn’t be offsides. Who cares if the foot is not touching. This isn’t football, it’s not like there is any out of bounds regions like in football and basketball.

Bad for the game for a beautiful goal like that one to be called back... just because a foot was hovering over the blue line, but it physically was not passed it. The fact that the skate was above the ice, instead of touching it did not give the leafs any unfair advantage on that play.

Agreed. I don’t understand why the foot has to be physically on the ice, but a puck can be in the air across the goal line. Why is one line more important than another? I think we’d see less goals called back if this rule was written properly.

 

[cookie]

I never understood the significance of where the skate is on the ice as being the determinant for an offside... when did that start and why was that put in place? The spirit of the rule is to prevent cherry-picking but most of these challenges are based on either, a lateral pass that is an inch or two off, or a skate that may or may not be in the air. The linesmen do a good enough job in determining an offside, and something as egregious as the Duchene incident don't happen too often. The fact these challenges are used as a means of getting an extended timeout do nothing but sully the flow of the game, emphasizing the fact these reviews take too long, and that the league cares little about the fan experience. There are enough grey areas in the game, such at a ref's discretion, like calling and not calling penalties, that the offside challenge seems out of place. Either improve the flow of the game and get rid of challenges by relying on the linesmen, or base the challenge not on where the skate meets the ice but the vertical plane the skater is in, like they do with races.

 

[OddyOh]

Further to that, what if the puck was in the air in the corner of the rink (where the goalie can’t play it) but somehow the goalie swung his stick over the trapezoid line and knocked it to his player...penalty or not? It crossed the vertical plane, but his stick wasn’t on the ice. What’s the call, NHL?

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

Using the plane of the skate or whether or not it is touching the ice to determine offside?

If you changed from one to the other, you're just changing what is looked at in a replay, and that doesn't really change much at all. BUT.... in every other sport, they don't use the plane of the foot to determine when a player is out, they use.... when the foot touches the ground. Imagine NFL or NBA calling the play dead because the player's foot swung out over the line but he brought it back down in bounds. That would never happen.

Having said that, I'd prefer to let the refs' calls on the ice stand. They'll get it right most of the time, and the errors will balance out across the league. Reviews just kill the flow and momentum of the game for both players and for us watching. I kinda like keeping human error and judgement as part of sports. As others have mentioned, it's already part of the sport in the opposite situation where an offside is called when it shouldn't have been.

As for the Leafs losing momentum and giving up after a valid challenge and a correct ruling? They've got to show a little more heart than that or they're not going anywhere this year.

 

[Matthews34]

I didn't say that they change a rule because the Leafs lost, it needs to be changed because it's a cheap and seems a bit unfair. Similarly the goaltender interference challenge, there's too much inconsistency at times that it looks like the officials don't know what to call.

Not mention it strips the human element from the game. The more the game is micro managed the greater the loss of entertainment value. That goal against the lsles would have changed the dynamic of that game for the better entertainment was instead it was a blowout and sucked all the life out of that game. Getting it right shouldn't trump the entertainment value when at the end of day sports is entertainment. I actually don't mind the '93 Gilmour missed call because a fan I get to cling to that excuse on why we lost. If everything is accurate then to you have to accept that your team wasn't as good. Which is better?

 

[Matthews34]

Using the plane of the skate or whether or not it is touching the ice to determine offside?

If you changed from one to the other, you're just changing what is looked at in a replay, and that doesn't really change much at all. BUT.... in every other sport, they don't use the plane of the foot to determine when a player is out, they use.... when the foot touches the ground. Imagine NFL or NBA calling the play dead because the player's foot swung out over the line but he brought it back down in bounds. That would never happen.

Having said that, I'd prefer to let the refs' calls on the ice stand. They'll get it right most of the time, and the errors will balance out across the league. Reviews just kill the flow and momentum of the game for both players and for us watching. I kinda like keeping human error and judgement as part of sports. As others have mentioned, it's already part of the sport in the opposite situation where an offside is called when it shouldn't have been.

As for the Leafs losing momentum and giving up after a valid challenge and a correct ruling? They've got to show a little more heart than that or they're not going anywhere this year.

This comment right here shows you've never played sports at a high level. Where the pressure is so intense that one sharp turn in momentum can be something that is impossible to recover from because it zaps all confidence in a 60 minute game with even the best players are on the ice for a 1/3 of that.

 

[Seath The Scaleless]

why is a play that was offside and therefore the goal if the play was called properly never would have been scored in the first place considered to be unfair and cheap? if the play is off side it should never count. we shouldn't just randomly count goals or not call offside because it's a close call. the right call should be made 100% of the time. however humans are human's they make mistakes and if a play was offside that resulted in a goal I see no reason it should be a goal.

If we are going to keep the coach's challenge, then open the door to botched penalty calls. Phantom high sticks, dives, puck over glass, etc. By your logic, if it's not a penalty, then it shouldn't be called.

Mistakes happen. How often does that Duchene goal, which basically forced the NHL to introduce this rule, occur? The league keeps trying to find ways to increase scoring and yet, it implemented a rule that does the complete opposite.

 

[deletethis]

I haven't agreed with some of these recent offside challenge rulings based on the supposed rulebook but I would like to see the NHL change to an official policy of leaning in favour of more ways to legally in the offensive zone:

1. No longer call offsides when a teammate is pushed offside.
2. No longer call offsides if the player would have entered onside if he wasn't encountered by a defender. This would diminish the value of that suffocating tactic of "standing up" to a puck carrier at the blue line.

 

[zeke]

Now that they're using the replay, they should change the rule so that the skate no longer has to be on the ice to be onside. Should be like a touchdown in football. Though I guess arms shouldn't be included in that rule.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

This is a much broader topic than the Leafs. And that is ok.

I read on a hockey site in States that based on simple video reviews with regular cameras there have been over 25 goals scored this season on icings that were missed by the linesmen. Now traditionally the NHL has viewed icings if player shoots puck from within a couple foot of red line as ok. No icing call was made. This has been done traditionally to speed up play. Now by guess is that number is probably a little low if we relied on cameras. I am basing this on the blue line cameras since 2015.

But my thinking is lets go all out with technology and put the extra cameras on the red line too. And lets give coaches a challenge for missed icings which should be over turned if it was a missed icing by linesmen if a goal results. Again same rules as off side you must have a time out to do it.

But again where does this stop. All these additional rules and challenges will slow the game down NOT speed it up. So I look at this off side challenge as one as an over reaction to the Duchene goal which is NOT the norm.

But there are many other rules which get missed in a game. I am only pointing out 1 of them above which is not fair either technically.

Bottom line is the hockey gods even out all this stuff over the course of a season and wish we would go back to game the way it is drawn up and played for many years before Bettman. Bettman sucks and blows at same time. On 1 side he wants to speed up game to 2 hours for his TV contract which has never arrived. On other hand he has picked 1 rule off sides to get technical with and slow game down.

Food for thought!

 

[deletethis]

It's underrated how much positive impact some of the recent rule changes have been.

The puck over the glass is a great rule despite the protests. It forced defensemen to play hockey instead of being stoppage in play machines. The few calls this now generates is absolutely worth it.

The no-touch icings should have been around years ago. It's great for player safety and speed of play.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

It's underrated how much positive impact some of the recent rule changes have been.

The puck over the glass is a great rule despite the protests. It forced defensemen to play hockey instead of being stoppage in play machines. The few calls this now generates is absolutely worth it.

The no-touch icings should have been around years ago. It's great for player safety and speed of play.

OK then lets put every coaches challenge in books for every single mistake in an NHL game. Watch game go back to 3 hours. We could put a high stick missed challenge in too. A too many men challenge for all those missed. An icing challenge for all those mistakes.

Bottom line is it is a game of mistakes by both refs and players. And it evens out over a course of a season.

 

[zeke]

It's underrated how much positive impact some of the recent rule changes have been.

The puck over the glass is a great rule despite the protests. It forced defensemen to play hockey instead of being stoppage in play machines. The few calls this now generates is absolutely worth it.

The no-touch icings should have been around years ago. It's great for player safety and speed of play.

yep and yep.

puck over glass rule was so damn important, and it got the most protest against it.

 

[Spirit of 67]

A couple things.

The offside rule can have some simple tweaks and it would be easy and then the challenge will work the way it should.

Also, officials should only have 30 seconds to judge on any challenge. If you can't figure it out in that time, it's deemed inconclusive. Then the team calling for it can't use it as a prolonged time out.

 

[egd27]

It's underrated how much positive impact some of the recent rule changes have been.

The puck over the glass is a great rule despite the protests. It forced defensemen to play hockey instead of being stoppage in play machines. The few calls this now generates is absolutely worth it.

The no-touch icings should have been around years ago. It's great for player safety and speed of play.

IMO this should be treated the same as an icing. Face off with no change allowed.

I fail to understand why over the glass is a delay of game but an intentional icing isn't.

A couple things.

The offside rule can have some simple tweaks and it would be easy and then the challenge will work the way it should.

Also, officials should only have 30 seconds to judge on any challenge. If you can't figure it out in that time, it's deemed inconclusive. Then the team calling for it can't use it as a prolonged time out.

Agreed, and I would add freeze frames would not be allowed for offside challenges.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

IMO this should be treated the same as an icing. Face off with no change allowed.

I fail to understand why over the glass is a delay of game but an intentional icing isn't.



Agreed, and I would add freeze frames would not be allowed for offside challenges.

What is an intentional icing? This is another very slippery slope. Does a flip out that goes for an icing count? What about a guy who gets close but does not cross the line before the shoot in?

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Do you guys realize there are probably 10-25 errors made over the course of a game? Do you really want to correct every one and make game 1 hour longer?

 

[egd27]

What is an intentional icing? This is another very slippery slope. Does a flip out that goes for an icing count? What about a guy who gets close but does not cross the line before the shoot in?

Perhaps my intent of the term was unclear. I wasn't looking to have anyone determine whether an icing was intentional or not.

I was pointing out if a team is hemmed in, a player can just shoot the puck down the ice and get a face off (granted with no change). If the same player lifts it over the glass, it's a 2 minute penalty. I fail to see why one of these is a punished more harshly when they are both essentially delaying the game by causing a whistle.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Perhaps my intent of the term was unclear. I wasn't looking to have anyone determine whether an icing was intentional or not.

I was pointing out if a team is hemmed in, a player can just shoot the puck down the ice and get a face off (granted with no change). If the same player lifts it over the glass, it's a 2 minute penalty. I fail to see why one of these is a punished more harshly when they are both essentially delaying the game by causing a whistle.

I have always thought the 2 minute penalty rule was absolutely stupid. It is a way to slow the game down. But the penalty just makes the game even longer. But really the NHL is sucking and blowing on the issue of game length. Like I said the game is one of mistakes. By both players and officials.

 

[deletethis]

Totally off topic but another "rule" that makes zero sense to me is wiping out a delayed penalty if the team scores during the delayed penalty call. And stop wiping out the rest of the 2 minute penalty if the team scores. Power plays aren't so dominant that this is a huge concern. The base punishment should be playing short for 2 minutes regardless of whether you're scored against.

Related to this are the penalty shot rules. I think there should be a power play after a penalty shot if the player doesn't score. It's almost like a momentum reward to the wrong team when the goalie stops the penalty shot. The punishment for an infraction on an in-the-clear scoring chance should be designed to discourage the infraction, not make it completely worth the risk.

 

[deletethis]

I have always thought the 2 minute penalty rule was absolutely stupid. It is a way to slow the game down. But the penalty just makes the game even longer. But really the NHL is sucking and blowing on the issue of game length. Like I said the game is one of mistakes. By both players and officials.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. No 2 minute penalties? How do you discourage infractions?

 

[JT AM da real deal]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. No 2 minute penalties? How do you discourage infractions?

There was never a 2 minute penalty when I played junior or minor pro. Do you think hockey the last 10 years is GENIUS? And hockey for past 50+ years was for MORONS? Give that one some thought.