Unauthorized video review results in a Penalty. Minny vs Van

[deckercky]

Shocking, so the OP made a big commotion of nothing with assumptions

@DownGoesMcDavid

I believe it was actually reported as a video review without explanation at the time, so it was a reasonable assumption.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I believe it was actually reported as a video review without explanation at the time, so it was a reasonable assumption.

Not really because you know that is not reviewable so i wouldnt have made that assumption.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I believe it was actually reported as a video review without explanation at the time, so it was a reasonable assumption.

He mentions Friedman in the OP, and the OP was 3+hours after Friedman had reported from the NHL that he was just trying to get the number.

 

[deckercky]

Given the fact that the actual review conducted was also not technically reviewable (there were very clear guidelines for what is reviewable provided by the NHL), I'm not sure what the issue is with making that assumption.

 

[North Cole]

As mentioned a number of times in this thread, per the NHL via Freidman the Ref saw the penalty but missed the number, he conferred with the scorekeeper to try get the correct number, who called Toronto to verify.

The penalty was already called. Wild's coaches had nothing to do with. The review did not cause the penalty to be called, just got the right person in the box.

So the OP is totally incorrect and misleading.

While it's nice to get the correct story, it doesn't change my response to the person I was replying to.

If this isn't what happened in this game, then it doesn't apply to what either of us are saying. Obviously if he's just getting the number and not wasting 2 minutes, then it's totally fine. What's not fine is Refs using video review to create calls, which is what the other guy is alluding to.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

It's not that it isnt fair. It's that you cant spend 2-10 minutes appeasing coaches via review, everytime they feel the refs screwed something up. The NHL would be slower than the NFL if they started allowing this stuff

Again you're missing the point.

If they can speed this up, it can be a very useful, massively game changing way of getting better officiating that also minimizes the issues with player safety when players know they will definitely get caught and could screw their team. This took a while, yes, but there could be ways to make it quicker.

If I can send my niece stupid voice messages me of as an Animoji, there's technology there that can make it so there's an algorithm that can also detect penalties and then you watch what was flagged at the same time to see what was missed. Also, you tack on the same issues with video review for goals, etc...you waste time, you better get that penalty killing unit out when you're wrong.

 

[SJGoalie32]

And thats fine. Set a rule limiting how many times it can be done and move forward. The game is better if the calls are correct.

But they DID set a limit for reviews.

They said it would be only for reviewing goals and certain infractions that led directly to goals. That was the limit. Now you are arguing they should ignore the codified limits in order to get the call right.

If the league wants to expand replay to increase reviews and is willing to endure the extra delays to get more calls right, then that is a fair discussion to have and the rules/limits on reviews can be amended as such during the offseason so that everyone knows what to expect and the reviews can be applied as fairly and even-handedly as possible

But here you are arguing that the refs should both have limits on what can be reviewed AND that such limits on reviews should be ignored to get the call "right."

You can't have that both ways. You have to pick one.

Either you accept an unlimited number of lengthy delays to review all officiating calls missed and made in the name of total accuracy, or you have to accept that some minor degree of inaccuracy is the price of keeping the game from being bogged down with video reviews of potential hooks and holds and slashes at every whistle.

It's fine to draw a line somewhere in the middle, but then you have to actually accept that line and adhere to that limit, and that the limit will necessitate letting some "wrong" calls go.

 

[Rebels57]

Well, NHL officials are complete morons, so this is not surprising.

 

[SJGoalie32]

Again you're missing the point.

If they can speed this up, it can be a very useful, massively game changing way of getting better officiating that also minimizes the issues with player safety when players know they will definitely get caught and could screw their team. This took a while, yes, but there could be ways to make it quicker.

If I can send my niece stupid voice messages me of as an Animoji, there's technology there that can make it so there's an algorithm that can also detect penalties and then you watch what was flagged at the same time to see what was missed. Also, you tack on the same issues with video review for goals, etc...you waste time, you better get that penalty killing unit out when you're wrong.

That's not how technology--or logic--works.

If such technology actually existed, it would likely already be in use (if not in the NHL, then any of the other sports leagues where that tech would expedite review processes). Offsides and goals would be the easiest things for this technology to review, and it hasn't been able to do so quickly and accurately yet. So don't hold your breath for instantaneous penalty detecting technology.

If/when that technology exists to render accurate calls instantly, sure, I'll be happy to revisit that element of the technology review discussion. In between seasons.

Until then, it's not a thing. And if it were, then its usage should be codified during off-season rulebook review meetings, not at the discretionary whims of refs in game, in violation of existing review protocols.

 

[Bedards Dad]

But they DID set a limit for reviews.

They said it would be only for reviewing goals and certain infractions that led directly to goals. That was the limit. Now you are arguing they should ignore the codified limits in order to get the call right.

If the league wants to expand replay to increase reviews and is willing to endure the extra delays to get more calls right, then that is a fair discussion to have and the rules/limits on reviews can be amended as such during the offseason so that everyone knows what to expect and the reviews can be applied as fairly and even-handedly as possible

But here you are arguing that the refs should both have limits on what can be reviewed AND that such limits on reviews should be ignored to get the call "right."

You can't have that both ways. You have to pick one.

Either you accept an unlimited number of lengthy delays to review all officiating calls missed and made in the name of total accuracy, or you have to accept that some minor degree of inaccuracy is the price of keeping the game from being bogged down with video reviews of potential hooks and holds and slashes at every whistle.

It's fine to draw a line somewhere in the middle, but then you have to actually accept that line and adhere to that limit, and that the limit will necessitate letting some "wrong" calls go.

No I am saying re-write the rule to allow refs to review to ensure they got the right player. That is what happened here. Or I guess we can just put EK in the box for a penalty that Justin Braun took and we are all good. I mean the refs just made a mistake, no sense in getting it right.

 

[North Cole]

Again you're missing the point.

If they can speed this up, it can be a very useful, massively game changing way of getting better officiating that also minimizes the issues with player safety when players know they will definitely get caught and could screw their team. This took a while, yes, but there could be ways to make it quicker.

If I can send my niece stupid voice messages me of as an Animoji, there's technology there that can make it so there's an algorithm that can also detect penalties and then you watch what was flagged at the same time to see what was missed. Also, you tack on the same issues with video review for goals, etc...you waste time, you better get that penalty killing unit out when you're wrong.

But what about in cases like this where you're already going to be short handed? Make it a 5 on 3 for being wrong?

Well, offside reviews arent particularly fast, so you'll have to pardon me for not having faith they could speed up a system like this. The obvious downside is that refs will rarely make any calls because if you have a review when a ref misses a call, you'll have to have one when they get calls wrong. So everything the ref does will be subject to a review, why would he do anything?

Why have refs on the ice, just move the reffing upstairs like this:

He can tell a linesman via earpiece to blow the whistle and award penalties.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

No actually they asked the linemens and then made the correct call which is allowed. You just don't understand what is happening and assume it was him starring up at the jumbotron.

I understand perfectly. I was bringing up a slightly different event. Nice try. Oh, the forced outrage.

 

[Anisimovs AK]

Getting the right guy? Ya who wants to get it right, just choose any player on the ice and send them to the box.

Stop being obtuse. The negative precedent people are referring to is unsolicited replay reviews being allowed. The "slippery slope" being too many stoppages because coaches and players want a video review for every minor detail, ruining the pacing of the game

 

[Anisimovs AK]

Save the pearl clutching for clean hits.

Refs got it right by using the tools they have to make sure the right player was punished. Turns out they found more while doing it. Good for them.

If cops review video of a car theft to correctly identify the guy who did it, and the same video shows another guy stealing another car, should they just ignore the second theft because they only intended to ID the first guy?

Should be celebrated for being good at their jobs.

Thats a bad analogy.

The refs apparently broke a rule to bring about justice, so a more apt analogy would be an off duty officer searching a suspects house without a warrant and finding evidence that implicates said suspect. Of course, not having a warrant means that evidence would not be admissible in court so...

 

[Bedards Dad]

Stop being obtuse. The negative precedent people are referring to is unsolicited replay reviews being allowed. The "slippery slope" being too many stoppages because coaches and players want a video review for every minor detail, ruining the pacing of the game

Stop ignoring facts. The ref didn't know which player committed the penalty and used video to confirm. That's what I agree with. I've said nothing about players or coaches. The only one being obtuse here is you.

 

[Anisimovs AK]

Stop ignoring facts. The ref didn't know which player committed the penalty and used video to confirm. That's what I agree with. I've said nothing about players or coaches. The only one being obtuse here is you.

Im not ignoring facts. Im more correctly outlining the opposing viewpoint so you can more adequately respond. And that guy said nothing about getting the right guy, yet that was the point you made anyway

I dont care about the play itself either way, but you arent adressing the issue people are concerned about

 

[Bedards Dad]

Im not ignoring facts. Im more correctly outlining the opposing viewpoint so you can more adequately respond. And that guy said nothing about getting the right guy, yet that was the point you made anyway

I dont care about the play itself either way, but you arent adressing the issue people are concerned about

He was responding to a post I made about getting the right guy and ignoring my stance from the beginning of this thread. If a poster wants to quote me and change the topic in doing so I likely wont continue to stay with them.

 

[JerseyMike34]

Friedman tweeted that's what happened,

Can't link to twitter where I am , but his tweet says "According to NHL: Referee was asking for the proper numbers of the players doing the high sticking. No Review"

LMAO.... If you believe that, I have some land to sell you

 

[Bedards Dad]

But what about in cases like this where you're already going to be short handed? Make it a 5 on 3 for being wrong?

Well, offside reviews arent particularly fast, so you'll have to pardon me for not having faith they could speed up a system like this. The obvious downside is that refs will rarely make any calls because if you have a review when a ref misses a call, you'll have to have one when they get calls wrong. So everything the ref does will be subject to a review, why would he do anything?

Why have refs on the ice, just move the reffing upstairs like this:

He can tell a linesman via earpiece to blow the whistle and award penalties.

You are talking about coaches challange, not about getting the right player/call when the ref isn't 100% certain on what happened.

 

[North Cole]

You are talking about coaches challange, not about getting the right player/call when the ref isn't 100% certain on what happened.

So is the person I'm quoting.

 

[lawrence]

You are talking about coaches challange, not about getting the right player/call when the ref isn't 100% certain on what happened.

speaking like you're new to watching the NHL.

Leave Tavares the Noble be guys. He has no clue what the heck we are talking about.

 

[lawrence]

Has this actually been confirmed? I can see this as a possible answer (I hope it is the actual answer) but I've only seen this speculated.

noooope.

What happened was the coach was no impressed that a call was made, and it was unfair that their guy gets penalized for something a Canuck did earlier and bitched about it being missed (as coaches do routinely as they will complain to the referees "why did you call that on my guy when earlier they did the same" type of situation. The dumb ref actually took the words and relied on video review.
video reviews are done in "Toronto"

Reviews on missed calls are never done. People don't actually don't understand this, and it shows in their posts. The only league that does this is the NFL which every penalty is reviewed via video review.

Missed penalty calls are not reviewable at the request of the coach, the thing is the coach didn't actually tell him to go upstairs on a missed call he just bi tched and the refs got pressured into doing it?.Toronto of all places that despises anything Vancouver decided to step in, instead of telling the refs to do their job and make the decision themselves.

Video reviews are done

-when goals or scored,
-coaches challenge
- serious injuries

not because "oh I think missed the penalty" is the ref blind as a bat? If the NHL allows disputes on missed Penalties the Canucks would have won the Stanley cup in 2011.

what happened was there was unnecessary delay for over 10 minutes. 10 minutes of w.t.f is going on here.

Problem is, this is not allowed. If the NHL allows such action they better allow 31 other teams to do it consistently. f***ers from Toronto had too much time in their hand since there was 2 games. I like to see those clowns to their job with non stop requests on video reviews of missed calls.

 

[lawrence]

Was it the ref or the linesman that made the call? Linesmans calls need to be discussed by other refs. If the refs have no clue, they can discuss with the league

the story was Bruce Boudreau was not impressed at the refs making a call against his team for a play that the Canucks got away for. (this part is ok, as refs are use to getting screamed at for the same reasons, the typical, you called that on our guy but not there guy earlier) the refs decided to contact Toronto about it, and Toronto actually ok with helping them with a call against the Vancouver Canucks.

Toronto was suppose to literally hang up and tell them their job is to not review missed penalty calls, but they decided to help them.

 

[2Pair]

noooope.

What happened was the coach was no impressed that a call was made, and it was unfair that their guy gets penalized for something a Canuck did earlier and *****ed about it being missed (as coaches do routinely as they will complain to the referees "why did you call that on my guy when earlier they did the same" type of situation. The dumb ref actually took the words and relied on video review.
video reviews are done in "Toronto"

Reviews on missed calls are never done. People don't actually don't understand this, and it shows in their posts. The only league that does this is the NFL which every penalty is reviewed via video review.

Missed penalty calls are not reviewable at the request of the coach, the thing is the coach didn't actually tell him to go upstairs on a missed call he just bi tched and the refs got pressured into doing it?.Toronto of all places that despises anything Vancouver decided to step in, instead of telling the refs to do their job and make the decision themselves.

Video reviews are done

-when goals or scored,
-coaches challenge
- serious injuries

not because "oh I think missed the penalty" is the ref blind as a bat? If the NHL allows disputes on missed Penalties the Canucks would have won the Stanley cup in 2011.

what happened was there was unnecessary delay for over 10 minutes. 10 minutes of w.t.f is going on here.

Problem is, this is not allowed. If the NHL allows such action they better allow 31 other teams to do it consistently. ****ers from Toronto had too much time in their hand since there was 2 games. I like to see those clowns to their job with non stop requests on video reviews of missed calls.

I don't think that you have even 1 correct statement in this entire post. Holy shit are you lost.

 

[lawrence]

I don't think that you have even 1 correct statement in this entire post. Holy **** are you lost.

which part don't you agree with? I'm ok with a good discussion.