Replay needs a time limit

[Doctyl]

f*** Matt Duchene. That goal was truly offsides and shouldnt count. The stuff now though where a guy skates back and touches up a fraction of a second before they go on a minute long offensive zone possession with 4 shots before scoring...the offsides isnt the reason for the goal. Its irrelevant to the play.

 

[John Mandalorian]

So half of this argument is that the coach has such little time to challenge. But then the complaint becomes that they take too long to review it ( and that's not fair [begin thumbsucking]). If the challenges are so precious, why would you want to limit the time reviewing the play. Daft.

 

[MikeyMike01]

One way to make reviews worse is to arbitrarily get the calls wrong based on time limits.

 

[Doctyl]

So half of this argument is that the coach has such little time to challenge. But then the complaint becomes that they take too long to review it ( and that's not fair [begin thumbsucking]). If the challenges are so precious, why would you want to limit the time reviewing the play. Daft.

because challenges should be for obviously egregious missed calls. Not scrubbing through a replay looking for a puck offside by a pixel 5 minutes before the play after every goal

 

[John Mandalorian]

because challenges should be for obviously egregious missed calls. Not scrubbing through a replay looking for a puck offside by a pixel 5 minutes before the play after every goal

Agreed. Absolutely and completely. I've been screaming this from the highest mountain top.

 

[Rec T]

All reviews are done in real time. Challenging team picks up to three angles to look at. Maximum of two replays per angle (or if less than three angles picked, there can be more than two reviews but a maximum of six total). If the officials can't see a problem at game speed, then it probably wasn't enough to impact play to begin with. Delay of game to the challenging team stays as it's a good deterrent now let alone at game speed reviews.

Studio talking heads are each fitted with a shock collar. If, during intermission, they start whining about how the officials missed the call by an inch or less, the officials are given the option of making the guys in the studio dance for our amusement. Think of the ratings. Think of the side bets on who will make who dance. Win/win for everyone (ok, maybe not the talking heads but then they shouldn't be trying to stir crap up to start with...)

 

[CapsJunkie]

or drop the replay. theres 4 them mf on the ice get it right the first time

 

[JoeSakic13]

That was not even offside.

He’s right you know.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

He’s right you know.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Challenges and reviews are fine. It's kinda cool to see some goals that cross, or don't cross the line in slow mo. Only issue is when the calls are still wrong. Quick time limits will make that even worse.

They really don't take that long most of the time. NHL has more flow than other big leagues.

There's endless commercial breaks, and extended intermissions for panels full of hacks. These have nothing to do with the actual game, if you want less breaks, whine about those.

 

[haseoke39]

That seems awfully effective and transparent, so it’ll of course never happen

Honestly, I bet it's the networks that balk. If the NHL control room highjacks their video feed, it probably makes tv producers go nuts.

 

[ijuka]

He’s right you know.

Has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the interpretation of Nashville knocking the puck down = playing the puck. Even if Duchene was behind the Nashville goal it wouldn't have been offside in that case.

Hence if you were going to make a point against what I said, you could have at least addressed the point of contention rather than something completely irrelevant like whether Duchene entered the zone before the puck. That doesn't matter at all for this interpretation.

 

[Evergreen]

I just think we should do away with the coach’s challenge and allow the referees to make the calls on the ice. It’s exceedingly rare that an egregious call is missed. The challenges ruin the flow of the game and diminish the excitement when a goal is scored because you’re always worried it will be called back. If they are going to retain video review for certain types of calls, there should be a time limit.

 

[HartAU]

I hate how tilted I get when I read "offsides" in moments it should be offside.

And even worse, the frequency at which people refer to it as "offsides" is at a point where people who don't know any better will actually tell you that "either way" is correct. I am triggered.

 

[MikeyMike01]

They really don't take that long most of the time. NHL has more flow than other big leagues.

NFL reviews are much faster. NHL reviews are comically slow in comparison.

 

[SniperHF]

I'd be 100% fine with getting rid of all reviews that are not "did it cross the goal line"

But if we're gonna have other reviews, they should take all the time the officials think it requires. There aren't that many long ones, knee jerk reacting to a few this playoffs isn't helping.

kinda like Knee jerk reacting by adding offside reviews in the first place.

 

[Scema12]

Get rid of offside challenge. I’m fine if they take their time on something like interference. Offside was never meant to be looked at with a microscope.

it is when the linesman have the eyes of a potato apparently.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

it is when the linesman have the eyes of a potato apparently.

It can’t be that when it takes 10 minutes to make a decision while watching and rewatching the play at 1 FPS.

The rule is meant to prevent cherry picking. It does that. The linesman’s job is to make the call.

If you can quickly identify the play as on or off side, you have your answer. The mere act of taking more time to review is losing the forest for the trees.

 

[Scema12]

It can’t be that when it takes 10 minutes to make a decision while watching and rewatching the play at 1 FPS.

The rule is meant to prevent cherry picking. It does that. The linesman’s job is to make the call.

If you can quickly identify the play as on or off side, you have your answer. The mere act of taking more time to review is losing the forest for the trees.

Who knows why the NHL makes these choices. They give them a tiny little IPAD to make their own decision and make the call a choice for themselves. NHL continues to be an embarrassment over and over again with their rules and reasoning

 

[GeeoffBrown]

IMO we should always be leaning toward goals being allowed because goals are exciting and we want more goals, especially if the call on the ice was a goal

 

[jkrdevil]

Offsides doesn’t need to be reviewed.

That said the reason there isn’t a time limit is that it often takes time for them to get all the replay angles.

 

[RC51]

I am old enough to remember the old days of black&white tv and the habs games on tv only near the end of the 1st period. I believe in getting it right, in fact I believe a coach can ask to check the tape ANYTIME. all game long. Even on missed clear ( while the refs not looking) deed. How many time have we seen on tv a player getting away with stuff. Of course if you get the call against you yes you get that 2 min penalty. Players will try to get away with shiiit all day long. If you want to STOP that shiiit put cameras everywhere so the ref can see the replay. a lot of teams still have a few RATS on the ice getting away with stuff. After all if you get caught every time you stop doing it.

 

[Craigo85]

So half of this argument is that the coach has such little time to challenge. But then the complaint becomes that they take too long to review it ( and that's not fair [begin thumbsucking]). If the challenges are so precious, why would you want to limit the time reviewing the play. Daft.

People that don't like the challenges now (ie me) really only want a system that catches the Duchene type problems.

So if thats the goal:
1) penalize coaches for a wrong challenge
2) keep replays super short (like 20-30 seconds screen time max)
3) watch replays in real-time only

the idea is that #2 and #3 mean the refs won't have a chance to over-turn many plays. Its to catch a blatant miss because they were busy blinking/obstructed view/etc.

Because #2 and #3 will result in low chance of over-turning many calls, coaches will not be incentivized to challenge anything besides a "Duchene Goal"

 

[haseoke39]

If there's a Duchenne goal once a year, that's way better than 200 offside reviews a year.

Some of these, recall, happen like 20 passes before the goal gets scored. I've seen it where more than a minute of clean play in the zone was negated for asinine garbage.

Like, why don't you give the Cup to the wrong team based on who kept their mouthguards in better. That's a f***ing rule. So f***ing important.

 

[crosby87]

Yeah that works for goal line challenges, but there are more factors of what makes a good goal or not. I get it, it's frustrating that it takes a while, and if you don't like the call, that makes it worse. But challenges exist because refs are barely capable at their jobs.

well if it takes a long time to review a challenge with all those angles and slow mo etc maybe its a bit harder than you think on some calls for refs. or maybe the people reviewing the play know right away and are just wasting everyones time for fun who knows