Speculation: Red flag replay?

[Larrybiv]

What do you guys think about something "obvious" in regard to a missed call like Zbad's 4 minute penalty?

Now mind you......i don't like many stoppages (albeit necessary) so, what i am saying is......if there can be "TV timeouts" that are mandatory.......then why cant there be a timeout, to investigate an egregious "error" of refs not seeing a play like that, in which its such a tough call, (granted) as plays happen lightning fast. Human error, but......something that imo, "should be" allowed as a "red flag" like they do in football.
Could be a simple as the player telling coach "it wasnt my stick".

Im very torn here, because I KNOW this could open a whole bag or worms, but if simplified, something like that ghost of a 4 min. penalty wouldnt have had the chance to change momentum and possible goals. Thoughts?

Forgive me if this is somewhere in the forum already.

Click to read more...

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

That would be nice, but can we make it a red puck which the coach then tosses onto the ice?

 

[nyr2k2]

Offsides resulting in goals and questionable goals/no goals. That's all we need to review IMO. Otherwise I'm fine with the human element of reffing.

EDIT: And as we've seen in football, soccer and baseball, challenges often times still seem wrong in the end and also often just cause more controversy. Like, VAR in soccer is terrible. I think hockey shares more in common with soccer than the other sports. I'm just not interested in an expansion.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Offsides resulting in goals and questionable goals/no goals. That's all we need to review IMO. Otherwise I'm fine with the human element of reffing.

EDIT: And as we've seen in football, soccer and baseball, challenges often times still seem wrong in the end and also often just cause more controversy. Like, VAR in soccer is terrible. I think hockey shares more in common with soccer than the other sports. I'm just not interested in an expansion.

I don't think VAR is the correct comparison. I think a more accurate comparison would be TMO in rugby. We already have officials reviewing goals in Toronto. What needs to be determined is how far a potential review can go. In rugby, they experiment with new rules from time to time, in 1 league. In 2008, they had the ELV (Experimental Law Variation) and it was a success because they were able to test it over the course of a full season.

If they are going to review things in hockey, it has to be limited to things that are clear cut on review, so no judgement calls (i.e. interference). What happened in our most recent game should be reviewable, because it was simply not a Rangers stick hitting their player in the face. That's different from detemining whether or not it was a high stick offense.

 

[Inferno]

Too much down time for reviews as it is. I'd remove replay stuff rather than add it in.

Ppl make mistakes. We as fans need to suck it up.

 

[SA16]

It should, at the least, obviously be subject to change when it comes directly before a TV timeout. Why leave the call wrong when everyone at home, in the stands, on the ice knows it is wrong?

I can understand not wanting to allow challenges in other situations since they would delay the game but allowing changes to be made if it becomes before a TV (or regular) timeout does not delay the game whatsoever and fixes blatantly incorrect rulings.

 

[nyr2k2]

I don't think VAR is the correct comparison. I think a more accurate comparison would be TMO in rugby. We already have officials reviewing goals in Toronto. What needs to be determined is how far a potential review can go. In rugby, they experiment with new rules from time to time, in 1 league. In 2008, they had the ELV (Experimental Law Variation) and it was a success because they were able to test it over the course of a full season.

If they are going to review things in hockey, it has to be limited to things that are clear cut on review, so no judgement calls (i.e. interference). What happened in our most recent game should be reviewable, because it was simply not a Rangers stick hitting their player in the face. That's different from detemining whether or not it was a high stick offense.

I have no idea what TMO is and will go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people here also have no idea. LOL. I stuck to comparisons that North American fans will be able to relate to.

The point of the VAR comparison wasn't based on anything structural. It's just the idea that adding replay doesn't necessarily clarify things or make them more clear-cut or less controversial. Like Perisic's handball, go look at Twitter, there were a dozen opinions on it, it was hugely controversial and remained so after replay. This happens in American football all the time as well, where we do have challenge flags.

It just boils down to the fact that replay DOES help correct certain things, but can often just muck things up even more or even be administered flat-out wrong. So I don't necessarily think an expansion in hockey really will do anything other than put every call under more of a spotlight and lead to more controversy.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

How would the league create the excitement it does for the national audience by evening everything up and letting those with the best endorsement deal get away with murder if everyone could see how bullshit the calls are?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Make it challengeable and if you're wrong on a high-stick or delay of game, you get a minor penalty as opposed to just losing your timeout, like in offside reviews.

Would deter pointless challenges intended to waste time as a longer timeout like you sometimes see with goalie interference challenges while getting bad calls reversed.

Give the coach a 30 seconds or so to get word from video crew as to whether it will be challenged....

 

[CasusBelli]

Penalties should definitely be reviewable — especially double-minors and majors.

 

[NCRanger]

I have no idea what TMO is and will go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people here also have no idea. LOL. I stuck to comparisons that North American fans will be able to relate to.

The point of the VAR comparison wasn't based on anything structural. It's just the idea that adding replay doesn't necessarily clarify things or make them more clear-cut or less controversial. Like Perisic's handball, go look at Twitter, there were a dozen opinions on it, it was hugely controversial and remained so after replay. This happens in American football all the time as well, where we do have challenge flags.

It just boils down to the fact that replay DOES help correct certain things, but can often just muck things up even more or even be administered flat-out wrong. So I don't necessarily think an expansion in hockey really will do anything other than put every call under more of a spotlight and lead to more controversy.

Agree. While I don't think VAR is as bad as it could be, it doesn't make things any clearer, due to the interpretation of the laws of the game. What's handling? Some say almost everything, some try to interpret intent, and neither call is wrong, or necessarily correct. Same with offside. Liverpool had a goal taken away a few weeks ago on an offside call. I'm a Liverpool fan, and thought it was offside...I didn't think a player could be played onside by the ball, especially if that player was involved in initial play as the intended recipient of a pass, but the player who actually did get the ball WAS onside, and then have that action (a rebound off the crossbar put in by the originally offside player) considered a secondary action to the initial play. And I have officiated youth soccer matches. I thought it a clear offside. The PL referee's association reviewed it after the fact and said the goal should have stood, as it should have been deemed a secondary action. There is no way that VAR allowing that goal would have made anything clearer.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Not a fan of more stoppages. Some go your way some don't, that's hockey, let the game flow.

 

[pld459666]

What do you guys think about something "obvious" in regard to a missed call like Zbad's 4 minute penalty?

Now mind you......i don't like many stoppages (albeit necessary) so, what i am saying is......if there can be "TV timeouts" that are mandatory.......then why cant there be a timeout, to investigate an egregious "error" of refs not seeing a play like that, in which its such a tough call, (granted) as plays happen lightning fast. Human error, but......something that imo, "should be" allowed as a "red flag" like they do in football.
Could be a simple as the player telling coach "it wasnt my stick".

Im very torn here, because I KNOW this could open a whole bag or worms, but if simplified, something like that ghost of a 4 min. penalty wouldnt have had the chance to change momentum and possible goals. Thoughts?

Forgive me if this is somewhere in the forum already.

I hope not.

I'm perfectly fine with the human element of officiating in all sports.

Sometimes these things go your way, sometimes they don't.

I'm good with it

 

[SA16]

Not a fan of intentionally keeping incorrect calls incorrect when everyone knows they are wrong. Fix the blatant mistakes. The whole crowd knows immediately on the first replay. It wouldn't delay the game at all. If you need to spend 3 mins to figure out if the call is correct or not then it is obviously so close that you can just stick with the initial call to not waste time.

 

[TheTakedown]

Not a fan of intentionally keeping incorrect calls incorrect when everyone knows they are wrong. Fix the blatant mistakes. The whole crowd knows immediately on the first replay. It wouldn't delay the game at all. If you need to spend 3 mins to figure out if the call is correct or not then it is obviously so close that you can just stick with the initial call to not waste time.

All they need to be able to do is call back the penalty. That's really the problem. Referee calls are taken as if they are signed contracts--once they are called they are final unless there is a very specific situation where another body of authority can overrule said referees. They need to allow the refs to be overridden. Toronto needs a department monitoring all penalties during games and deciding when to call back certain penalties. It shouldn't be that hard

It doesn't have to be that way. It's the same as a cop taking the wrong action against a citizen. Eventually it gets sent up for review and overturned.

 

[nyr2k2]

Not a fan of intentionally keeping incorrect calls incorrect when everyone knows they are wrong. Fix the blatant mistakes. The whole crowd knows immediately on the first replay. It wouldn't delay the game at all. If you need to spend 3 mins to figure out if the call is correct or not then it is obviously so close that you can just stick with the initial call to not waste time.

How do you limit reviews to "obviously incorrect penalties" though? That's the whole point. Some are obviously incorrect but the majority aren't obvious and take a lot of time to review. Or, something might be "obviously wrong" to me and my fellow fans, but not obvious to others. That shit happens all the time.

Sorry to stray into politics, but it's like when people say, "Capital punishment should only be used when a guy is clearly guilty." Well, that's the whole point of the trial, to determine if a guy is clearly guilty. So by that logic, it should be used any time it could be applied, even though we know there are instances were guys that are clearly guilty aren't actually clearly guilty. So then the response is, "Well I'm talking about guys that do things in public." Fine--write me that law, let me see how that reads. This is the same principle--what's the policy on reviews and challenges that only allows for review on calls that are obviously wrong? Because things that are obviously wrong on first, second, and third look, sometimes aren't wrong on the fourth look.

IDK, I just don't see enough of a problem to institute any type of new procedure.

All they need to be able to do is call back the penalty. That's really the problem. Referee calls are taken as if they are signed contracts--once they are called they are final unless there is a very specific situation where another body of authority can overrule said referees. They need to allow the refs to be overridden. Toronto needs a department monitoring all penalties during games and deciding when to call back certain penalties. It shouldn't be that hard

It doesn't have to be that way. It's the same as a cop taking the wrong action against a citizen. Eventually it gets sent up for review and overturned.

Yeah but we see goal/no goal calls from Toronto that cause outrage all the time. The same in football. Just because a second set of eyes or a higher body gets to review a call doesn't mean it's going to be correct (the NFL acknowledges bad review decisions all the time, and so do baseball and soccer). I just don't understand the expectation that video review will fix things. It will correct some calls but will mess up others and just lead to even more frustration and outrage.

 

[SA16]

How do you limit reviews to "obviously incorrect penalties" though? That's the whole point. Some are obviously incorrect but the majority aren't obvious and take a lot of time to review. Or, something might be "obviously wrong" to me and my fellow fans, but not obvious to others. That **** happens all the time.

Sorry to stray into politics, but it's like when people say, "Capital punishment should only be used when a guy is clearly guilty." Well, that's the whole point of the trial, to determine if a guy is clearly guilty. So by that logic, it should be used any time it could be applied, even though we know there are instances were guys that are clearly guilty aren't actually clearly guilty. So then the response is, "Well I'm talking about guys that do things in public." Fine--write me that law, let me see how that reads. This is the same principle--what's the policy on reviews and challenges that only allows for review on calls that are obviously wrong? Because things that are obviously wrong on first, second, and third look, sometimes aren't wrong on the fourth look.

IDK, I just don't see enough of a problem to institute any type of new procedure.


Yeah but we see goal/no goal calls from Toronto that cause outrage all the time. The same in football. Just because a second set of eyes or a higher body gets to review a call doesn't mean it's going to be correct (the NFL acknowledges bad review decisions all the time, and so do baseball and soccer). I just don't understand the expectation that video review will fix things. It will correct some calls but will mess up others and just lead to even more frustration and outrage.

I mean on these high sticking plays a lot of the times all the refs/linesman huddle up and discuss it before making a call anyway. That takes no less time than it would to fix it on replay which is being shown on the scoreboard at the same time anyway.

At the least you can make a rule that anything that is a double minor or a major is subject to review because that can have a MAJOR impact if it's incorrect.

 

[nyr2k2]

I would be fine with double majors and majors being reviewed. But just regular stick infractions, they happen too often.

 

[Kane One]

That would be nice, but can we make it a red puck which the coach then tosses onto the ice?

I’d prefer a gun and you just shoot the ref, but to each his own.

 

[Tawnos]

Most things are too subjective to be reviewable. Whose stick it was that got a player up high? Not subjective at all. This kind of thing is about as far as I'd go.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Watch an NBA game where there are non-stop video reviews at the end of games. It's unwatchable.