'Common Sense' Ruling by Video Referee

1865

Alpha Couturier
Feb 28, 2005
16,839
5,603
Chester, UK
I was listening to a podcast recently that sparked an old idea i'd had for fixing the irritating little issues the NHL is seeing with decision making lately.

The quick whistle no-goal in the Philly-Pitt game recently would be a classic example of a situation heavily benefited by an extra set of eyes, an in-house third referee with video access. They could come back and make a quick judgement call on whether a change should be made on situations such as quick whistles, high sticks etc... a common sense review to see the right thing is being done.

These plays are too quick for any on-ice official to get right 100% of the time, so a common sense approach to fixing incorrect decisions with the benefit of hindsight can fix these calls and seems like a relatively low-cost and low-risk way of improving the game.
 

The Hanging Jowl

Registered User
Apr 2, 2017
10,307
11,418
The thing that irks me about quick whistles is the ref always claims they are obligated to blow the play dead once they lose sight of the puck. Then inevitably a play follows where someone digs a puck out from under a goalie's pads, or similar, proving it's a complete lie that they need to blow it dead as soon as they lose sight of the puck. They should just admit they got jittery and blew the whistle too soon.
 

1865

Alpha Couturier
Feb 28, 2005
16,839
5,603
Chester, UK
while in some instances I could see this as useful it would not be useful for "quick whistles". once the whistle blows you stop playing so even if it's a "quick whistle" and then the opposing team shoots the puck in you can't overturn that. ever.

In the case of the Patrick goal you can. The puck was basically in by the time the whistle was incorrectly blown. If it’s seconds later then sure, but in split second issues like that then it absolutely can and should be overturned.
 

Uncle Scrooge

Hockey Bettor
Nov 14, 2011
13,479
8,022
Helsinki
I like it.

The wording could be something like "if a referee feels like he made the wrong call in blowing a play dead OR by letting the play go on, right before the puck enters the net, he can enforce a common sense rule and make a decision based on a video review".

This would mean the Preds goal in 16-17 playoffs stands (ref blew it dead when he thought goalie had the puck as he was standing behind the goal line"). And last night's Boston goal wouldn't stand. Since the ref could enforce common sense and say it was a high stick.

I mean it really doesn't even slow the game down tbh. When stuff like this happens the refs always gather up, have to explain it to the coaches, spend a minute listening to their bitching etc. anyway. Instead of all that bs they can just check it on video and make a decision most people should agree with.

On top of this, coaches wouldn't be the ones to challenge. Only refs themselves if they feel like they messed up.

We have video challenge for offside. Goalie interference. They want to "get it right". It makes no sense whatsoever that stuff like this, that are arguably even worse than offside or goalie interference, are non-reviewable.
 

shoeshine boy

Registered User
Aug 14, 2008
756
123
In the case of the Patrick goal you can. The puck was basically in by the time the whistle was incorrectly blown. If it’s seconds later then sure, but in split second issues like that then it absolutely can and should be overturned.

this isn't basketball. it's either across the line (100% all the way) when the whistle blows or it's not.
 

1865

Alpha Couturier
Feb 28, 2005
16,839
5,603
Chester, UK
this isn't basketball. it's either across the line (100% all the way) when the whistle blows or it's not.

The point I was making is that the puck was virtually in by the time the whistle went. Therefore the whistle blowing didn’t affect the players on the ice and their effort levels. A lot of the time it will, therefore wouldn’t be right to pull it back. But when you’re talking split seconds and crucial goals, it counts.
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,365
122,631
The Predators win the Cup in 2016 if not for that terrible whistle taking a goal away from them. It's time to stop letting refs decide games with mistakes.
 

Bruckuss

FML & FCF
Apr 1, 2012
776
1,302
Not Toronto
I like this, provided it is only reviewable (by challenge) in the case of a disallowed goal (see the Pitt/Flyers game last week), or a missed major penalty (Mantha shoving Giroux face first into the boards Sat).

TL/DR - maybe I just hate the refs this year lol
 

HTFN

Registered User
Feb 8, 2009
12,173
10,703
Been advocating for a third off-ice official for years, to call penalties committed away from the play, but I'm not sure how you could define "common sense" in a way that pleases enough people to be a hard and fast rule.
 

Oak

Registered User
Apr 22, 2012
3,931
691
MA
Anything that can help the refs do their job is fine by me, and they need all the help they can get.
 

shoeshine boy

Registered User
Aug 14, 2008
756
123
The point I was making is that the puck was virtually in by the time the whistle went. Therefore the whistle blowing didn’t affect the players on the ice and their effort levels. A lot of the time it will, therefore wouldn’t be right to pull it back. But when you’re talking split seconds and crucial goals, it counts.

right now it's pretty much black and white. why make it harder to determine if the goal should've counted with questions such as, "how long after the whistle did the puck go in? was it shot after the whistle? or just crossed the line after the whistle?"?
IMO folks around here need to stop trying to invent the wheel.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->