CantLoseWithMatthews
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2015
- 49,709
- 59,435
You could be issued a penalty if you lose a challenge
- Thread starter hockeykicker
- Start date
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 36,144
- 16,603
Get rid of "the call on the ice." It's just a cop out. When there is a coach's challenge, Toronto should make the call based on their camera angles. Forget what the ref's initial call was. They don't have the camera angles and can't slow down footage, etc
darcyRegier
Registered User
- Mar 27, 2017
- 2,401
- 1,244
How does this affect scoring?? Along with this and slashing penalties, will we have more than one 100 point scorer next year?
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
At first I thought this was a terrible idea that failed to acknowledge the subjective nature of these calls, but now that I think about it, the objective here is clear, and this solution would absolutely address it.
It seems like the aim is similar to the aim of the puck over the glass rule. On the surface, it looks like it's a rule meant to punish players purposefully putting the puck over the glass, but in reality it's just meant to discourage the play that leads to that outcome.
Similarly, here, it appears on the surface that this would be a rule designed to punish coaches for nuisance challenges, but the real goal here would be to discourage close/contentious challenges, thereby removing the problem of lengthy delays. And while some people might have an issue with a step back from the sentiment of "getting it right," this really is more in-keeping with the spirit of the challenge when it was brought in. It's meant to be about the Duchene goal, not the "did he lift his skate off the ice a millisecond before the edge of the puck crossed the blue line?" goal. And a rule such as this would ensure that the only challenges would be plays where they already know it's going to be overturned, and quickly, which is exactly the category that the Duchene goal fits into.
So, for offside challenges, I like the idea.
For goaltender interference, however, I think it would be a big mistake. It's not black and white like offside, and there have been instances where many fans think a call should obviously be overturned, but it isn't.
It seems like the aim is similar to the aim of the puck over the glass rule. On the surface, it looks like it's a rule meant to punish players purposefully putting the puck over the glass, but in reality it's just meant to discourage the play that leads to that outcome.
Similarly, here, it appears on the surface that this would be a rule designed to punish coaches for nuisance challenges, but the real goal here would be to discourage close/contentious challenges, thereby removing the problem of lengthy delays. And while some people might have an issue with a step back from the sentiment of "getting it right," this really is more in-keeping with the spirit of the challenge when it was brought in. It's meant to be about the Duchene goal, not the "did he lift his skate off the ice a millisecond before the edge of the puck crossed the blue line?" goal. And a rule such as this would ensure that the only challenges would be plays where they already know it's going to be overturned, and quickly, which is exactly the category that the Duchene goal fits into.
So, for offside challenges, I like the idea.
For goaltender interference, however, I think it would be a big mistake. It's not black and white like offside, and there have been instances where many fans think a call should obviously be overturned, but it isn't.
Kudo Shinichi
Registered User
- Apr 20, 2012
- 20,547
- 26,634
Unlimited Chequing
Christian Yellow
In principle I like the idea since it's meant to cut down on the BS challenges that coaches use to give their players a rest.
In practice, this will screw a lot of teams because the ruling is so inconsistent (or consistently bad, if you will).
And for those who aren't aware, Colin Campbell has stated this is only for the off-side challenge, not the goaltending interference challenge.
In practice, this will screw a lot of teams because the ruling is so inconsistent (or consistently bad, if you will).
And for those who aren't aware, Colin Campbell has stated this is only for the off-side challenge, not the goaltending interference challenge.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
In that case, I'm on board. What you say is correct, and because even if you think you're right, you could be wrong, this would eliminate all but the most obvious challenges.
Nalens Oga
Registered User
Is this idea coming from Colin Campbell? The fact that this guy still has a say in the game is quite concerning.
Classic Devil
Spirit of 1988
Just make offsides non-reviewable. The handful of times it's so close that the linesmen get it wrong are not a big deal.
Eastopia
Custom Title User
- May 26, 2012
- 1,906
- 41
That would be an improvement over what we have now but it would be even better if they just got rid of the challenge completely. What does it matter if a guy is an inch into the zone too early? Who cares if the guy's skate is on the ice or not? If they couldn't catch it in real time chances are it didn't make a difference anyway. This is not what they had in mind when they wrote the offside rule.
Anything to discourage these challenges is a welcome development for me. I'd rather have all bad calls stand than have to watch another Hail Mary thrown out there.
Anything to discourage these challenges is a welcome development for me. I'd rather have all bad calls stand than have to watch another Hail Mary thrown out there.
CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
If it's just for offside and if it's determined by Toronto, I think it would be ok. I'd still worry that it would be used to favor certain teams but I don't mind a rule that encourages coaches to only challenge offside calls when they're clearly wrong.
I don't want them punishing a coach for challenging goalie interference bc the NHL itself is so inconsistent in how it calls GI that I don't think anyone has a clear idea of what exactly counts. Toronto needs to fix that ASAP and long before they punish coaches for bad GI challenges. I agree with whomever said that they should take that away from the on-ice officials and have Toronto automatically review all goals and decide if there was GI or any other infraction (e.g., hitting above the bar).
I don't want them punishing a coach for challenging goalie interference bc the NHL itself is so inconsistent in how it calls GI that I don't think anyone has a clear idea of what exactly counts. Toronto needs to fix that ASAP and long before they punish coaches for bad GI challenges. I agree with whomever said that they should take that away from the on-ice officials and have Toronto automatically review all goals and decide if there was GI or any other infraction (e.g., hitting above the bar).
They were finally on the right track to using one of my ideas but failed in the details, it seems.
Keep it as is - you challenge and lose, your time out goes bye bye. However, if you have NO timeout, you can STILL challenge a play but if you are wrong, THEN you get a penalty. This prevents the embarrassment of an obvious blunder that can't be challenged because the team doesn't have their timeout for whatever reason.
Keep it as is - you challenge and lose, your time out goes bye bye. However, if you have NO timeout, you can STILL challenge a play but if you are wrong, THEN you get a penalty. This prevents the embarrassment of an obvious blunder that can't be challenged because the team doesn't have their timeout for whatever reason.
ZeroPucksGiven
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2017
- 6,338
- 4,275
I'm for this and I'm actually for the linesmen to have a bit more allowance in their subjectivity/judgement in their role of calling offsides:
- Player is doing his best to straddle the line skating parallel to the blue line yet has his front foot in the offensive zone, but his back foot is up. That play should be allowed to continue
- Defensive players interfering/pushing (accidental or otherwise) an offensive guy into the zone before the puck enters- that play should also be permitted
For me it's about the spirit of the rule vs the letter of it. What kind of advantage is being gained in either of those scenarios above?
BoldNewLettuce
Esquire
Yep.
on the topic of the challenge/review....just get rid of them. they're useless if they can't justify the call on the ice. maybe either have refs explain calls after games or have review behind closed doors on serious stuff and leave the coaches out of it.
in my experience review is just aggravating and makes the sport seem unfair at times.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
Then you don't challenge those close calls, and live with whatever happens. Which is what everyone has been complaining about to do.
If the 2 minute penalty doesn't cut down on the challenges, hopefully the league will make it a double minor for a failed challenge. Better yet, make it a 5 minute major. That would seriously cut down on the coaches abusing the technology.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,317
- 2,850
Yes, this will cut down on coaches almost automatically asking for goalie interference review on every goal late in the game..Still, get rid of offside review too, it's not needed.
UnderratedBrooks44
Registered User
I see the logic but it's a bad idea. So you get a goal scored on you where the vast majority of people would say there was goalie interference. The refs/Toronto don't see it that way (as they often do), and not only did you just get scored on but now you have to kill a penalty because you had the audacity to question the call on the ice. A move that is completely within a coach's rights to do could be penalized if the review crew disagrees with them. Nah. This is not the answer.
WAHHHH! I put a stupid rule in place and now guys have found a way to use it to their advantage because of the vague, incomprehensible wording and application.
Now, instead of fixing the problem, I'm going to punish those bad guys who make me look dumb.
And by the way, speaking of the rule book, there is a new rule I want you to enforce. It's called slashing. Oh you mean it's already in the rule book? Well, then for the first 2 months of the season, call it a bunch and then forget about it.
Now, instead of fixing the problem, I'm going to punish those bad guys who make me look dumb.
And by the way, speaking of the rule book, there is a new rule I want you to enforce. It's called slashing. Oh you mean it's already in the rule book? Well, then for the first 2 months of the season, call it a bunch and then forget about it.
Caeldan
Whippet Whisperer
- Jun 21, 2008
- 15,459
- 1,046
Just automatic review all goals in Toronto.
They get a fixed time limit, and if can't determine cause to overturn inside that time limit - call on the ice stands.
You make it 90-120s,and it'll be barely noticeable on game flow. Plus on the vast majority of confirmed good goals, you get double celebration fan reaction.
They get a fixed time limit, and if can't determine cause to overturn inside that time limit - call on the ice stands.
You make it 90-120s,and it'll be barely noticeable on game flow. Plus on the vast majority of confirmed good goals, you get double celebration fan reaction.
PatriceBergeronFan
Registered User
Let's have the NHL get the easy calls correct before punishing coaches for using a tool given to them (that was never needed in the first place). The NHL has such trouble making good decisions.
With how bad the review process has been who is going to risk getting a penalty? I guess really late in the game if it looks like you are going to lose anyways it might be worth the risk but otherwise they might as well have just gotten rid of the challenges entirely.
