NHLPA recommends Coach's Challenge & faceoff changes. No decision on OT changes

[sureLoss]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=769919&cmpid=nhl-twt

Expanded Video Review: Coach's Challenge - The Committee recommends that a Coach's Challenge be adopted for expanded video review for goals that may have resulted from (1) goaltender interference and (2) offside plays. The video review process and all decisions on goals where goaltender interference may have occurred will be the responsibility of the Referees at ice level, in consultation with the NHL's Situation Room in Toronto; similarly, goals that may have resulted from an offside play will be reviewed and determined by the on-ice officials, in consultation with the NHL's Situation Room in Toronto. In order for a coach to make a challenge, the team must have its timeout available.

Face-Offs - The Committee recommends a change to the face-off rule, whereby, for all face-offs in the defensive zone, the player from the defensive zone team must put down his stick first. For face-offs at center ice, the rule will remain the same, requiring that the visiting team player put his stick down first.

Overtime - There was considerable discussion of changing the current overtime format but no consensus was reached. The NHLPA and NHL will continue discussions in the coming weeks on potential changes with the intention for the Committee to make a decision on overtime later this month. There will be no changes to the shootout format.

The new rules recommendations still require approval by the NHLPA's Executive Board and the NHL's Board of Governors, at which point the language of the rules will be formalized.

[Rollin22x]

I wonder what the reasoning was to tie the coaches challenge to the availability of a time-out?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rollin22x

I wonder what the reasoning was to tie the coaches challenge to the availability of a time-out?

Maybe you lose the timeout if you lose the challenge, like football.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Maybe you lose the timeout if you lose the challenge, like football.

Only thing I can think of...

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Rollin22x

I wonder what the reasoning was to tie the coaches challenge to the availability of a time-out?

If you lose the challenge you lose the time-out. Should prevent coaches from demanding a review on every goal.

[Finger Cookin]

What the coach's challenge needs is a system that prevents teams from delaying things while its own staff reviews replay angles, decides its worth challenging , and then causes the officials to do their own review.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If you lose the challenge you lose the time-out. Should prevent coaches from demanding a review on every goal.

Or using a challenge like a timeout when you've already used it.

[Oil Stain]

Why not just have the war room automatically review every goal for things like: Offsides, goalie interference, too many men on the ice, puck leaving play, etc.

Most of the time it would take two seconds to determine whether something fishy was going on and they could call down to the refs to hold off on the faceoff for a minute.

This would barely disrupt the play. The war room has gotten pretty fast at reviewing goals since the inception of the service. I don't see a big problem in that aspect and it would improve the integrity of the game.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

What the coach's challenge needs is a system that prevents teams from delaying things while its own staff reviews replay angles, decides its worth challenging , and then causes the officials to do their own review.

I like the measuring the stick rule. If you are wrong 2 minor for delay of game.

[albertGQ]

I'm not sure how the offside review will work.

Let's say the Flames enter the offensive zone at 5:00 of the period. The play continues without a stoppage for over 3 minutes (or any arbitrary time frame).

Then a goal is scored. Doesn't matter if it's the Flames or the opposing team. What if it's determined that the Flames were offside at the 5:00 mark. With no stoppage of play since then, can that goal be disallowed?

I guess it will depend on how they word that rule.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Mccree

I like the measuring the stick rule. If you are wrong 2 minor for delay of game.

Good call. That makes way more sense than the timeout. So if you've used your timeout you can't challenge an obvious offside goal that the linesmen missed? That's stupid.

The timeout thing makes much more sense in football where you get as many as 6.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Why not just have the war room automatically review every goal for things like: Offsides, goalie interference, too many men on the ice, puck leaving play, etc.

Most of the time it would take two seconds to determine whether something fishy was going on and they could call down to the refs to hold off on the faceoff for a minute.

This would barely disrupt the play. The war room has gotten pretty fast at reviewing goals since the inception of the service. I don't see a big problem in that aspect and it would improve the integrity of the game.

Because there are as many as 15 games being played on any given night and you are asking them to review multiple camera angles for multiple events that occur over a lengthy period of time, relative to a goal-scoring play. It's not feasible.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Why not just have the war room automatically review every goal for things like: Offsides, goalie interference, too many men on the ice, puck leaving play, etc.

Most of the time it would take two seconds to determine whether something fishy was going on and they could call down to the refs to hold off on the faceoff for a minute.

This would barely disrupt the play. The war room has gotten pretty fast at reviewing goals since the inception of the service. I don't see a big problem in that aspect and it would improve the integrity of the game.

I think there is something to be said for letting refs do their job. If they don't then it's up to the teams to complain if they think they missed something. Sure, if there is a close call, go to the video. But the vast majority of the time, the zebras get it right so let them keep getting it right. They don't need big brother scrutinizing every single goal.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Why not just have the war room automatically review every goal for things like: Offsides, goalie interference, too many men on the ice, puck leaving play, etc.

Most of the time it would take two seconds to determine whether something fishy was going on and they could call down to the refs to hold off on the faceoff for a minute.

This would barely disrupt the play. The war room has gotten pretty fast at reviewing goals since the inception of the service. I don't see a big problem in that aspect and it would improve the integrity of the game.

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I think there is something to be said for letting refs do their job. If they don't then it's up to the teams to complain if they think they missed something. Sure, if there is a close call, go to the video. But the vast majority of the time, the zebras get it right so let them keep getting it right. They don't need big brother scrutinizing every single goal.

I don't like the coaches challenge because there will still be missed calls if the coach is too late in the challenge or if they are out of challenges or timeouts.

What I would like though is to combine the two ideas above. All calls can be reviewed but it is done by the on ice officials. If there is a controversial goal, or a missed penalty such as a high stick or hit to the head, the officials can request the replay be put on the arena video screens. This allows the calls to be left up to the on ice officials but makes use of video replays to get the calls correct. It also adds some accountability to the review process as fans can see the same replays the officials are and receive an explanation of the call based on the evidence.

[getbak]

I hate the idea of offsides being reviewable.

There is only one goal I can think of where the missed offside was horribly obvious and led directly to a goal (it was a few years ago, and I'm sure you all know which one I'm talking about). All other ones are so close that you can only tell it was offside by slowing the play down frame-by-frame and it's only offside in one single frame (1/30th of a second) of the video.

Offside is something that happens 64 feet away from the goal. Sometimes, the linesman will blow a play dead that wasn't offside, sometimes, they'll let a play go that should have been blown dead. That's life. It's still something that happened 64 feet away from the goal and lots of things still have to happen after a missed offside for a goal to be scored, none of which are affected by whether or not a player lifted his skate off the ice one-thirtieth of a second before the puck was fully across the blueline.


I also hope that in both of these review situations, they can only review alternate views of the play in real time and make their decision based only on real time replays, with no slow-mo or "enhanced" zoom or anything like that. If it's not something that can be easily overturned by looking at a real time replay, you should have to live with the call on the ice and get on with the game.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Mccree

I like the measuring the stick rule. If you are wrong 2 minor for delay of game.

That would still allow many reviews per game, and still not address stalling to let staff review the video before deciding to use a formal challenge.

[Itse]

I have to say I'm not crazy about offsides being reviewable either, as it's just going to create more offsides. After all, if the call was mistakenly called an offside when it wasn't, the game was already stopped and there's nothing that can be done about that. Generally I don't see it as a big issue anyway.


What we need, IMO desperately, are challenges for penalties. I think this would go a long way to bring consistency to refereeing.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because there are as many as 15 games being played on any given night and you are asking them to review multiple camera angles for multiple events that occur over a lengthy period of time, relative to a goal-scoring play. It's not feasible.

They'd just have to hire some more eymployees.

We aren't talking about hundreds of reviews here. We are talking 50 at most on most nights, and the majority are immediately apparent as not needing review.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I think there is something to be said for letting refs do their job. If they don't then it's up to the teams to complain if they think they missed something. Sure, if there is a close call, go to the video. But the vast majority of the time, the zebras get it right so let them keep getting it right. They don't need big brother scrutinizing every single goal.

I think getting it right is more important that managing the egos of the refs.

Goalie interefence calls are ones that seem to get screwed up fairly frequently. If a goalie wasn't even touched then that needs to be immediately corrected. It shouldn't have to go to a challenge.

If the technology is there to get the calls correct, we should be taking advantage of it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Itse

I have to say I'm not crazy about offsides being reviewable either, as it's just going to create more offsides. After all, if the call was mistakenly called an offside when it wasn't, the game was already stopped and there's nothing that can be done about that. Generally I don't see it as a big issue anyway.


What we need, IMO desperately, are challenges for penalties. I think this would go a long way to bring consistency to refereeing.

They are only reviewing if there was an offside before a goal, not every offside.