Replay needs a time limit

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I'm 100% in favor of putting a time limit on the review.

If the time runs out and they don't have a definitive answer, the call on the ice stands and there is no penalty.

If the call is conclusively correct, award the penalty.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I know I'm in the minority, but I really don't care about replays taking longer as long as the end result is making the correct call. The most important thing to me is getting the call right the highest % of the time possible. If that takes a few extra minutes then I'm honestly okay with it. The school of thought that says "well, if it's too close to call it quickly then just forget it and move on" is just insane to me.

I'd prefer to spend a few more minutes each time and get more correct calls rather than force the officials and Toronto to rush themselves to make game-altering decisions in an arbitrary time limit. In a perfect world even an offside/high stick/GI would be correct 100% of the time, even if it's by a fraction of an inch. I'd like to get as close to that as possible, so if it takes a few extra minutes here and there I don't really care personally.

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.

As long as you're fine with the alternative being goals like this happening at really important points in playoff games. There's a short thread on these boards from a few years ago that details a list of big goals that would have been overturned if review existed prior and that barely scratches the surface.

 

[haseoke39]

I know I'm in the minority, but I really don't care about replays taking longer as long as the end result is making the correct call. The most important thing to me is getting the call right the highest % of the time possible. If that takes a few extra minutes then I'm honestly okay with it. The school of thought that says "well, if it's too close to call it quickly then just forget it and move on" is just insane to me.

I'd prefer to spend a few more minutes each time and get more correct calls rather than force the officials and Toronto to rush themselves to make game-altering decisions in an arbitrary time limit. In a perfect world even an offside/high stick/GI would be correct 100% of the time, even if it's by a fraction of an inch. I'd like to get as close to that as possible, so if it takes a few extra minutes here and there I don't really care personally.


View attachment 555365
As long as you're fine with the alternative being goals like this happening at really important points in playoff games. There's a short thread on these boards from a few years ago that details a list of big goals that would have been overturned if review existed prior and that barely scratches the surface.

I'm more than fine with goals like that happening. More. Than. Fine. Would far prefer it to the garbage we have now. Because the rule book has lots of little garbage in it that is blatantly violated all the time. And offside is one of the least meaningful rules to enforce to the letter. It's like going back to review the faceoff with slowmo to see if guys had their sticks down correctly before you decide if anything that happened in the ensuing minutes of play was real.

The only reason offside exists is to keep teams from cherrypicking all game. The existence of the rule and two linesmen accomplishes everything you could desire. Guys play as a unit instead of spreading the ice. Done. We're already living the ideal. In fact, if we ditched the offside rule altogether, would it result in worse hockey? I'm not even sure of that.

If guys are as much as five feet or two seconds off, it doesn't really matter. For principles of encouraging good, competitive hockey, we're already there. That picture you posted? If the player's skate touched the line, or the puck was a foot ahead, would it have made any f***ing difference to the outcome of the play? Almost certainly not. So stop whining over it like the real purpose of hockey is to tap blue lines.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

I know I'm in the minority, but I really don't care about replays taking longer as long as the end result is making the correct call. The most important thing to me is getting the call right the highest % of the time possible. If that takes a few extra minutes then I'm honestly okay with it. The school of thought that says "well, if it's too close to call it quickly then just forget it and move on" is just insane to me.

I'd prefer to spend a few more minutes each time and get more correct calls rather than force the officials and Toronto to rush themselves to make game-altering decisions in an arbitrary time limit. In a perfect world even an offside/high stick/GI would be correct 100% of the time, even if it's by a fraction of an inch. I'd like to get as close to that as possible, so if it takes a few extra minutes here and there I don't really care personally.


View attachment 555365
As long as you're fine with the alternative being goals like this happening at really important points in playoff games. There's a short thread on these boards from a few years ago that details a list of big goals that would have been overturned if review existed prior and that barely scratches the surface.

How long do you imagine would it take a professional to determine if that was offside?

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I'm more than fine with goals like that happening. More. Than. Fine. Would far prefer it to the garbage we have now. Because the rule book has lots of little garbage in it that is blatantly violated all the time. And offside is one of the least meaningful rules to enforce to the letter. It's like going back to review the faceoff with slowmo to see if guys had their sticks down correctly before you decide if anything that happened in the ensuing minutes of play was real.

The only reason offside exists is to keep teams from cherrypicking all game. The existence of the rule and two linesmen accomplishes everything you could desire. Guys play as a unit instead of spreading the ice. Done. We're already living the ideal.

If guys are as much as five feet or two seconds off, it doesn't really matter. For principles of encouraging good, competitive hockey, we're already there. That picture you posted? If the player's skate touched the line, or the puck was a foot ahead, would it have made any f***ing difference to the outcome of the play? Almost certainly not. So stop whining over it like the real purpose of hockey is to tap blue lines.

You'd be 'more than fine' with an egregious missed call like that directly leading to the Game 7 overtime Stanley Cup winning goal against your favorite team, or between any two teams for that matter? Because without the option of overturning offsides calls this is absolutely a real and reasonable possibility.

Sometimes with an offside zone entry where the team spends a lot of time in the O-zone it may ultimately seem like the entry didn't really make a difference, and I can see people proposing a time limit for how long after zone entry an offside review can happen. But a play like the screenshot I posted is an offside that directly led to a breakaway goal, so I don't see how that type of offside play can be considered not 'meaningful' to the play.

It could have possibly made a difference, let's say for discussions sake that yes the extra space created by the offside zone entry did make the difference in the outcome of the play, then what would you have to say about that?

How long do you imagine would it take a professional to determine if that was offside?

A play like that specific play would be pretty quick, 30 seconds or less I'd imagine. But not everything is as cut and dry as the blatant screenshot I posted.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

A play like that specific play would be pretty quick, 30 seconds or less I'd imagine. But not everything is as cut and dry as the blatant screenshot I posted.

Then why are we reviewing it?

It’s ridiculous to ask a linesman to do a job in real time and then spend ten minutes trying to figure out if he made a mistake with a magic camera angle zoomed in 100x.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Then why are we reviewing it?

It’s ridiculous to ask a linesman to do a job in real time and then spend ten minutes trying to figure out if he made a mistake with a magic camera angle zoomed in 100x.

It's just a difference in opinion, I suppose. I don't mind waiting the extra time if it can help get more right calls and not let the more egregious calls slip through the cracks. 10 minutes is a bit too long, but reviews normally don't take quite *that* long. A lot of people prefer to just keep the game moving and are fine with missed calls here and there.

If an extra few minutes here and there eliminate the possibility of a blatant offside being a cup-deciding goal, then I'm willing to take that trade-off, to be honest with ya.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

Ideally, 30 seconds. 1 minute max.

If you can’t tell in 60 seconds what the correct call is with multiple angles and HD video, then the call on the ice is obviously correct.

Nobody would be bothered about that Makar goal if the game didn’t grind to a halt for ten minutes while we all got out our microscopes and PDFs of the rule book.

Offside is only challengeable in the first place because Matt Duchene was 30 feet offside one time and there was no way to rectify the obvious error.

Why spend 10 minutes of real time reviewing something if you’re going to come to the wrong decision anyway.

If you have a minute, you can double check, say “yes, that’s good” or “no, we f***ed up”.

Anything longer, and all you’re going to do is outthink yourself.

Carry on.

It doesn't need this either, putting a time limit on just makes things worse.

What they really need is another linesman and official, but from off ice/remote location with easy video replay available to them like rugby. They should be able to radio the referees on the ice, blow a play dead, etc... but then that would mean establishing actual standards of officiating that don't vary so wildly between regular season and postseason.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean an extra ref/linesman per game, watching live or via direct feed.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

It takes time for the different camera angles to be made available. It's a commercial break, really don't understand the issue people have with a 5 minute challenge when they are willing to watch panelists for 40 minutes between game time.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

If they have television time outs they can take as long as they need to review and make the correct call.

 

[JianYang]

Before that Matt Duchene goal, we barely heard about offside complaints because most people didn't care unless it was really egregious.

Now I surprise myself looking at goals in the past because I'm pre-programmed to micro analyze the entry at the Blue line.

This is one example where I feel video technology has actually hurt the game.

I also feel like the league is so wildly inconsistent with goalie interference challenges that you might as well not have video review and go with the ref's call on the ice.

 

[TominNC]

I'm for two changes. A time limit on how long you can go back to check an offside. Do some research, pick a reasonable time - 15, 20, 30 seconds and don't allow review afterwards. 2nd, reviews must be completed in a minute. If it takes longer then the call on ice stands.

 

[Taluss]

Regular season sure, playoffs no

 

[gary69]

It's just a difference in opinion, I suppose. I don't mind waiting the extra time if it can help get more right calls and not let the more egregious calls slip through the cracks. 10 minutes is a bit too long, but reviews normally don't take quite *that* long. A lot of people prefer to just keep the game moving and are fine with missed calls here and there.

If an extra few minutes here and there eliminate the possibility of a blatant offside being a cup-deciding goal, then I'm willing to take that trade-off, to be honest with ya.

If it takes minutes to decide, it isn't blatant, or clear and obvious (the terminology they use in soccer).

 

[haseoke39]

It could have possibly made a difference, let's say for discussions sake that yes the extra space created by the offside zone entry did make the difference in the outcome of the play, then what would you have to say about that?

I'd say, hallelujah they got rid of that moronic offside review. Because even so, even if God herself came down and said, hey, if it wasn't for that six inches, a defenseman would've barely gotten a stick on that player, just enough to disrupt their concentration so that the goal never happens, IDGAF because I live in a universe full of acceptable errors.

And that error is, overall, one of the least likely to effect the outcome of a game. I'm more concerned about whether we do video review of every face-off to see who cheats. I'm more concerned about whether we check every stick for illegal curve. I'm more concerned about whether every guy has their mouthguard fully in, making them all equally distracted. I'm way, way more concerned about whether every player gets equally close to the bench before their replacement jumps on the ice in a line change. All these things have more impact on the outcomes of games than the inches that linesmen miss. And for that matter, I don't care that much whether offside is dropped altogether as a rule next year. The fact that we overrule goals that owe 0.0005 of their outcome to the accident of a missed offside makes me sick and despair at the competitive legitimacy of the game. The exact opposite of how you interpret that rule.

The game is called put the puck in the net. The only thing acceptable to measure in inches is whether the puck was in the net. It's not called touch the line with your skate. Every time a goal gets called back because a skate missed the line, the game is deligitimized, whether the call is technically correct or not. It's, as a category error, always "getting it wrong."

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I'd say, hallelujah they got rid of that moronic offside review. Because even so, even if God herself came down and said, hey, if it wasn't for that six inches, a defenseman would've barely gotten a stick on that player, just enough to disrupt their concentration so that the goal never happens, IDGAF because I live in a universe full of acceptable errors.

And that error is, overall, one of the least likely to effect the outcome of a game. I'm more concerned about whether we do video review of every face-off to see who cheats. I'm more concerned about whether we check every stick for illegal curve. I'm more concerned about whether every guy has their mouthguard fully in, making them all equally distracted. I'm way, way more concerned about whether every player gets equally close to the bench before their replacement jumps on the ice in a line change. All these things have more impact on the outcomes of games than the inches that linesmen miss. And for that matter, I don't care that much whether offside is dropped altogether as a rule next year. The fact that we overrule goals that owe 0.0005 of their outcome to the accident of a missed offside makes me sick and despair at the competitive legitimacy of the game. The exact opposite of how you interpret that rule.

The game is called put the puck in the net. The only thing acceptable to measure in inches is whether the puck was in the net. It's not called touch the line with your skate. Every time a goal gets called back because a skate missed the line, the game is deligitimized, whether the call is technically correct or not. It's, as a category error, always "getting it wrong."

It seems that it's just really comes down to a difference of opinion. It's cliché sounding, but hockey (and all sports really) is a game of inches, every little bit of ice counts and I want the game to be called the way the rules are written. The blue line is essentially useless if you're going to pick and choose where you want to enforce it because 'well it wouldn't really matter'.

You're basically just wanting to disregard the rules of the game, which I find kind of comical that you're talking about the real correct call being made is 'delegitimizing' the game, but somehow your strange world where the rulebook is just disregarded is somehow the actual 'legitimate' game. That's impressive mental gymnastics there, my man.

The debate to remove offside altogether is another discussion, but purposely trying to call the game against the way the rules are written is just crazy.

If it takes minutes to decide, it isn't blatant, or clear and obvious (the terminology they use in soccer).

Like I said, I'm fine with taking some extra time. Sports are essentially a timesink anyway, so a few extra minutes here and there aren't a dealbreaker for me if it ultimately results in more correct calls. Football reviews are just as long, if not longer than the average hockey challenge.

 

[haseoke39]

It seems that it's just really comes down to a difference of opinion. It's cliché sounding, but hockey (and all sports really) is a game of inches, every little bit of ice counts and I want the game to be called the way the rules are written. The blue line is essentially useless if you're going to pick and choose where you want to enforce it because 'well it wouldn't really matter'.

You're basically just wanting to disregard the rules of the game, which I find kind of comical that you're talking about the real correct call being made is 'delegitimizing' the game, but somehow your strange world where the rulebook is just disregarded is somehow the actual 'legitimate' game. That's impressive mental gymnastics there, my man.

The debate to remove offside altogether is another discussion, but purposely trying to call the game against the way the rules are written is just crazy.

Well, that's the difference between appreciating rules for their own sake and appreciating the purpose that each rule serves. If we enforced every rule perfectly, we'd play no hockey at all. It's a balance.

This rule serves a purpose. But that purpose is better advanced by letting play continue if the linesmen miss a call, because it's a lesser-order purpose than what you lose by enforcing it beyond the error of human eyesight in real time.

We could enforce shift changes with the same zeal and break the game even more. We could enforce faceoffs with the same zeal. We could enforce every questionable contact. This is not the only rule that we could take under the microscope. But every time you choose to do that, you unplay some important hockey that really should count. The feeling of seeing a close zone entry and thinking, for the next thirty seconds, that none of this hockey might count is an absurd outcome, for the purpose of honoring a rule that does not, at this scale, impact the competitive balance of play at all.

If you enjoy litigating rules for their own sake, then maybe this is better than just playing hockey. But why stop here? There are way more important rules you could go bananas over.