Reviewing a Goal Twice

[The Jones Zone]

Dale Weise scores a goal tonight

Refs went to review to check if it crossed the red line as they did not originally rule it a goal. Ref announces puck crossed line...good goal

John Cooper then calls the Ref over, He challenges goalie interference on the play. So the refs review the same play again, but determine no interference goal stands.

My issue is, why did Cooper in this instance have to use his challenge? If the refs went and reviewed the play shouldn't they have reviewed for any interference the first time?

Look at it this way. The ref had already pointed and indicated goal after reviewing the play. How stupid would they look to then come say....ohhh wait a minute after a second replay now it's no goal.

This replay system was poorly thought out, it's become a total joke

Click to read more...

 

[CorgisPer60]

When they reviewed the goal, they only review whether the puck crossed the line or not. They don't review goalie interference or offsides when ruling a good goal unless someone specifically challenges it, which Cooper did.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

When they reviewed the goal, they only review whether the puck crossed the line or not. They don't review goalie interference or offsides when ruling a good goal unless someone specifically challenges it, which Cooper did.

Why not just review for everything at once and make one definitive call?

 

[Fugu]

Why not just review for everything at once and make one definitive call?

That would be too efficient.


I suppose part of the answer is that they don't really want to review things unless they're forced to do so, as it would require them to overturn on-ice calls.

 

[Paper]

Why not just review for everything at once and make one definitive call?

Things like crossing the line, high sticking, kicking motion have been reviewed like this for awhile.

The new rule, the coach's challenge, allows further review of offside and goaltender interference. A team must have a time-out, and if the goal call stands the time-out is forfeited.

Cooper had to make the decision if he wanted to risk his time-out. It would be unfair to tell him whether the goal would stand or not.

 

[Playmaker09]

My question is why don't we still get a powerplay?

Weise scored, play continued for like a minute, and then Tampa took a penalty.

It's not a delayed penalty as the goal came before the infraction even happened.

So why don't we get the powerplay as well?

Does that mean that if after Weise had scored, we could have started taking baseball swings at Tampa players while play continued, knowing full well that the consequences would be wiped away with the confirmation of the goal?

 

[Paper]

My question is why don't we still get a powerplay?

Weise scored, play continued for like a minute, and then Tampa took a penalty.

It's not a delayed penalty as the goal came before the infraction even happened.

So why don't we get the powerplay as well?

Does that mean that if after Weise had scored, we could have started taking baseball swings at Tampa players while play continued, knowing full well that the consequences would be wiped away with the confirmation of the goal?

It's Rule 78.6

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the
apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the
normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the
team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.
Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first
stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the
whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal
manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal
Judge"

 

[GoCaps2004]

It's Rule 78.6

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the
apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the
normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the
team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.
Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first
stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the
whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal
manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal
Judge"

what happens if there are matching minors for roughing or something like that? does that mean only one of those penalties counts?

 

[Playmaker09]

It's Rule 78.6

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the
apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the
normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the
team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.
Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first
stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the
whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal
manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal
Judge"

So if a Tampa player decides to intentionally give a two-handed slash to a Hab and injures them it's OK?

Strange rule.

 

[Paper]

So if a Tampa player decides to intentionally give a two-handed slash to a Hab and injures them it's OK?

Strange rule.

That would be a major.

 

[Playmaker09]

That would be a major.

When's the last time you saw a slashing major? Kessel vs John Scott is the last I remember.

There are a lot of 2 minute penalties that can cause serious injury. It's very weird that the NHL has a rule in place that can negate those consequences entirely.

 

[Paper]

When's the last time you saw a slashing major? Kessel vs John Scott is the last I remember.

There are a lot of 2 minute penalties that can cause serious injury. It's very weird that the NHL has a rule in place that can negate those consequences entirely.

Subban on Stone?

There's a lot of non penalties that cause injuries too. If the ref thinks a player is intentionally trying to injure a player because it's a "freebie" I guarantee you he will call the major.

When was the last time you recall a player getting injured intentionally after a goal, but before it was concluded a goal, with no consequence? Never. Okay then.

 

[Mr Positive]

If they are already reviewing a goal for a non-coach challenge reason, they should check for everything. I never get it when they say "they can't check for time, because they are looking for this". Just tell us if it is good or not for whatever reason, know the reasons before hand, and don't review a goal twice.

 

[Playmaker09]

Subban on Stone?

There's a lot of non penalties that cause injuries too. If the ref thinks a player is intentionally trying to injure a player because it's a "freebie" I guarantee you he will call the major.

When was the last time you recall a player getting injured intentionally after a goal, but before it was concluded a goal, with no consequence? Never. Okay then.

The point is it's a loophole that shouldn't exist. You don't need to wait for something bad to happen to make a judgement on it.

And besides, what reason would there be to waive off the penalty in the first place? I get that with a delayed penalty, a team can take advantage of it to pull the goalie and score a goal. But in this case MTL received no advantage. Are we now worrying that too many goals might be scored?

 

[Paper]

The point is it's a loophole that shouldn't exist. You don't need to wait for something bad to happen to make a judgement on it.

And besides, what reason would there be to waive off the penalty in the first place? I get that with a delayed penalty, a team can take advantage of it to pull the goalie and score a goal. But in this case MTL received no advantage. Are we now worrying that too many goals might be scored?

There's no loophole. A player could slash a player at anytime to intentionally hurt them if they wanted. It doesn't have to be during this very specific event. We've seen it with Subban. Of course he'll get called a major and put his team at a disadvantage, but a penalty call is not a complete deterrent.

The reason a minor penalty isn't assessed is because, had the refs done their job properly, the play wouldn't have been going on. The team that got scored on would not only be down a goal, but now taking a penalty when the whistle should have been blown? It's an unneeded double-whammy. They already got scored on, that's enough of a 'punishment.' The thinking is the probability is pretty high that the team that was scored on is taking the minor to prevent the goal that was already scored. It's not to allow them free range to murder someone on the other team or anything.

A team that scores but takes a penalty is assessed a penalty because the other team drew it, they are still awarded the goal.

The league has already assessed this and came up with this rule. You didn't even know the rule and thought players could start taking baseball swings at one another for some reason...

 

[dechire]

Anything after a goal is scored doesn't count. Shots, ice time, hits, everything is erased regardless of how much time passes. In that same vein a minor penalty would no longer exist because the play itself is erased from the game. The only exception is major penalties because no one thinks that trying to hurt someone should get swept aside like a tripping call.

 

[Paper]

Anything after a goal is scored doesn't count. Shots, ice time, hits, everything is erased regardless of how much time passes. In that same vein a minor penalty would no longer exist because the play itself is erased from the game. The only exception is major penalties because no one thinks that trying to hurt someone should get swept aside like a tripping call.

This isn't true. I already pasted the rule, 78.6.

If Team A scores (but play isn't ruled dead) and Team B takes a minor after the goal, the penalty doesn't count.

If Team A scores (but play isn't ruled dead) and Team A takes a minor after the goal, the penalty does count.

 

[Not So Mighty]

I agree in theory but it may have something to do with maintaining the integrity of the call on the ice. If you want to challenge any specific call by the official, you have to sacrifice your T/O, same as the other coach did.

I do like your intentions here but just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Bending and Tending]

That would be too efficient.


I suppose part of the answer is that they don't really want to review things unless they're forced to do so, as it would require them to overturn on-ice calls.

In this instance, yes, but it won't be if every goal is extensively reviewed.

Also, I'm not quite sure what the obsession with requiring "them to overturn on-ice calls" is. I don't hear NFL officials complain about it. Hell, I don't even hear NHL refs complain. Maybe a couple do, but I feel like most care about making the correct call, whether it's right away, or confirming/overturning a call afterwards.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I didn't think there was anything strange in this particular challenge, but what i don't get is why some coaches have challenged calls after refs have gone to Toronto to check the same exact thing.

I recall a Panthers/Wings game earlier this year when Florida scored in the 1st but the Ref immediately went to check it and Toronto ruled it a no goal (ref then said no goal because of goalie interference). After this Gallant immediately challenges the call. Why would you challenge a call they already checked ? Seems like a huge waste of a timeout to me. Needless to say it the call stood. I think i've seen like 3 or 4 of these this season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

what happens if there are matching minors for roughing or something like that? does that mean only one of those penalties counts?

If the minors are coincidental, the goal wouldn't nullify either of them.

Now what could get weird is if:
- Team A "scores", play continues
- Team A player commits a penalty
- Team B player gets angry and retaliates

At the end of the play, Team A would get a goal and a penalty, while Team B's retaliation penalty would be wiped out.

 

[George Binks]

That sounded like a huge waste of time

 

[Anglesmith]

This exact same situation happened earlier in the year (can't remember the teams involved), but the coach did not challenge because as the story goes, he assumed that the refs wouldn't have called it a good goal if they had already reviewed it. Could someone remind me the teams involved in this, because I can't remember for whatever reason.

As it's clearly laid out, however, without a challenge, the only things that are reviewed in Toronto are whether a puck was kicked/directed in by a body part, put in with a high stick or across the goal line at all. To review anything else is a separate process involving the referees reviewing and correcting their calls using the tablet. A second review is necessary in no small part because Toronto isn't allowed to overturn goaltender interference or offside, and the referees aren't allowed to do the video review for the puck crossing the line.

I suspect that soon enough, all reviews will be conducted in the war room. Whether that will be the end of separate reviews is another question though. If it is, I would have to guess that it would also be the end of coaches' challenges.

 

[madhi19]

This exact same situation happened earlier in the year (can't remember the teams involved), but the coach did not challenge because as the story goes, he assumed that the refs wouldn't have called it a good goal if they had already reviewed it. Could someone remind me the teams involved in this, because I can't remember for whatever reason.

As it's clearly laid out, however, without a challenge, the only things that are reviewed in Toronto are whether a puck was kicked/directed in by a body part, put in with a high stick or across the goal line at all. To review anything else is a separate process involving the referees reviewing and correcting their calls using the tablet. A second review is necessary in no small part because Toronto isn't allowed to overturn goaltender interference or offside, and the referees aren't allowed to do the video review for the puck crossing the line.

I suspect that soon enough, all reviews will be conducted in the war room. Whether that will be the end of separate reviews is another question though. If it is, I would have to guess that it would also be the end of coaches' challenges.

Cooper wasted a timeout. Nevermind what they review or not, the moment they look at the replay and decided it a good goal your odds of getting it overturned on a second review are slim to none. It call human nature and confirmation bias, it the reason why challenge should always be sent to the war room. This is not fair to the refs to have them look back at their own work. They take enough heat as it is.

 

[Anglesmith]

Cooper wasted a timeout. Nevermind what they review or not, the moment they look at the replay and decided it a good goal your odds of getting it overturned on a second review are slim to none. It call human nature and confirmation bias, it the reason why challenge should always be sent to the war room. This is not fair to the refs to have them look back at their own work. They take enough heat as it is.

The refs do not actually look at it on the first review, so it's as if it's the first review from their perspective. And the call of "good goal" from Toronto has nothing to do with goalie interference.