Regarding Video Review

[Traditional_Ale]

So Big Ern scores a sweet goal on the same sequence of play where earlier the Canes ring one off of both goal posts. After the Big Ern goal, they go back to see if the Canes double-post was in. This drives me nuts.

Consider this:

What if the Big Ern goal was in overtime of game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, and it looks like we just won the cup. But they review the double post from earlier in the sequence and discover that the puck did in fact cross the line. Are they supposed to seriously say "um, yeah, sorry, but that double post goal was actually in so you do not, in fact, win the cup."

BLARGH!!!! If they want to video review a double-post then the play should be whistled dead immediately for said review. Else, if play is allowed to go on, no review should be allowed. Even if it did, in fact, go in.

Sorry, 2004 Flames.

[zamler]

I don't think you've thought out the possible scenarios well enough.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't think you've thought out the possible scenarios well enough.

It's the internet. This is a forum. Feel free to point things out. I didn't start the thread thinking it was bullet-proof.

[GirlySports]

I agree. They should stop play.

[zamler]

It's convoluted but ultimately simple. You can't blow play dead because if team A thinks they scored but didn't (the officials are not sure), and team B goes on to score the Cup winning goal, then they may have been denied a championship because of a bad call/play blown dead. In other words if the play is reviewed (team A) and the puck did not go in the net, then team B wins.

That's why you let the play go until a whistle blows the play dead as per usual. If a goal was scored but missed on the ice then everything after that has to be nullified if the review shows goal.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's convoluted but ultimately simple. You can't blow play dead because if team A thinks they scored but didn't (the officials are not sure), and team B goes on to score the Cup winning goal, then they may have been denied a championship because of a bad call/play blown dead. In other words if the play is reviewed (team A) and the puck did not go in the net, then team B wins.

That's why you let the play go until a whistle blows the play dead as per usual. If a goal was scored but missed on the ice then everything after that has to be nullified if the review shows goal.

I'd rather be in a situation where nobody will ever know what happens after then to take away something that did happen. The chances of something happening right away 200 feet away is quite rare. The problem is play goes on for 2 minutes with teams trading chances back and forth so really the non-goal didn't direct affect play.

It's not like hockey is continuous. There are stoppages for all sorts of things from the puck going over the glass to the puck going down someone's pants. It's a low scoring game and reviews don't happen often so just stop the play.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I agree. They should stop play.

The only issue I have with this is what if no one saw it go in and they didn't whistle it down? Would that goal not count once Toronto saw it?


Secondly, with today's technology, quarterbacks can talk to their coach without going to the sidelines, we can mic up any player and I can post this from a small handheld device.

Why is there a phone with a coiled cited in the penalty box? Could they not be taking to the Refs throughout the game?

"Hey ref, that call when Burrows feel was a dive, so watch out for it"

"That wasn't in ref, keep the play going"

"After looking at it, the puck went off the glass before going out of play"


Why stop and use a rotary dial phone first? Weird

[zamler]

There is no downside to the way it's handled now. They let play go, review the 1st play that may or may not have been a goal. If it's a good goal, everything after that is wiped and the clock is reset to the time of the goal.

If it's not a good goal and the other team goes on to score, then no problem that goal counts. Otherwise you would essentially be saying, well the 1st disputed play was actually a goal, but too bad the whistle didn't blow so tough luck. That doesn't make sense.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by zamler

There is no downside to the way it's handled now. They let play go, review the 1st play that may or may not have been a goal. If it's a good goal, everything after that is wiped and the clock is reset to the time of the goal.

If it's not a good goal and the other team goes on to score, then no problem that goal counts. Otherwise you would essentially be saying, well the 1st disputed play was actually a goal, but too bad the whistle didn't blow so tough luck. That doesn't make sense.

My issue is when a Stanley Cup is awarded like that. Both teams, waiting to face-off, and the ref just says "oh yeah, that double-post that happened three minutes ago was actually in, so we don't need to drop the puck, and uh, you win."

Who the hell would want to win like that?

[jkflames]

Pretty sure the Flames goal would count. I remember one game the Flames played Phoenix a couple years back, and the Flames thought they scored a goal but the play kept going. Went down to the Flames end and the Yotes scored.

I can't remember if the Flames goal actually went in or not, but the Yotes goal counted and I remember the play-by-play guy saying the Flames goal wouldn't have counted even if it went in.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Who the hell would want to win like that?

Why not? Anticlimactic as it may be, that's the fair way. You'd want to see the wrong team win just because the moment was "ruined"?

Originally Posted by jkflames

I can't remember if the Flames goal actually went in or not, but the Yotes goal counted and I remember the play-by-play guy saying the Flames goal wouldn't have counted even if it went in.

I'm pretty sure they review all plays that may or may not have been a goal.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by jkflames

Pretty sure the Flames goal would count. I remember one game the Flames played Phoenix a couple years back, and the Flames thought they scored a goal but the play kept going. Went down to the Flames end and the Yotes scored.

I can't remember if the Flames goal actually went in or not, but the Yotes goal counted and I remember the play-by-play guy saying the Flames goal wouldn't have counted even if it went in.

if the first goal is in it counts and the 2nd doesnt...play by play guy was an idiot

faceoff at center ice and the clock goes back to the time the first one went in


In the OPs scenario it sounds like overtime...so obviously if the 1st one is in the game is over

[zamler]

Originally Posted by dino7c

In the OPs scenario it sounds like overtime...so obviously if the 1st one is in the game is over

Exactly, don't see what the problem is with how things are handled.

[GirlySports]

yeah but why watch meaningless hockey?

"ping"

"I think that went in"

minutes go by, back and forth action...

"why are we watching this? I think that went in"

CP Exploding

"that was in" x 200

-----

I loved Street Pharmacists idea. We have technology now. Someone should let the ref know in a couple of seconds if it was in or not and he can blow it dead or let them play.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by zamler

Exactly, don't see what the problem is with how things are handled.

Well the other team scored first so why don't they get to "win the cup" they might be a little bummed if they scored first yet the other team gets the win lol. I am agreeing by the way its handled properly

seriously guys, try not to lose any sleep over this

[zamler]

The last thing we need is the officials being distracted by someone yakking to them while the game is going on. You think there are missed calls now...

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I loved Street Pharmacists idea. We have technology now. Someone should let the ref know in a couple of seconds if it was in or not and he can blow it dead or let them play.

What if it takes the video war room 10 minutes? Not every play is clearly a goal or not, that's the whole issue in the first place.

[Freeway]

I'm pretty sure the new review system was put into place because a certain team's ownership huffed and puffed about it during the 2004-05 lockout.

[dying4acup]

I have no problem with the current system. The objective is to get it right.

[stemit14]

I don't understand why so many people and the league make it seem like video review needs to be so time consuming and difficult. It's 2013... All you need is for video feed to be accessible to off-ice officials in Toronto immediately... in real time and if they see something they can look at it immediately from every camera angle. With 3 guys watching the feed, they can determine in less than 10 seconds if a puck went in.

We all watch just on TV and we can tell that quickly when they do replays and there is usually a huge consensus as to whether or not a goal was in. With HD video and TV's, it's pretty clear. The waste of time is the time it takes for refs to skate to the penalty box, fiddle with the uncomfortable headset, have a long conversation with Toronto, and then awkwardly announcing the call.

If a puck is at all close to going in, the war room should instantly be looking at it from all angles to check if it went in... Even if a whistle hasn't gone. 10 seconds later, they know for sure. If it is a goal and the play is continuing, they call and tell the timekeepers who can communicate with the officials if they had earpieces.

Every game has to have at least 3 guys devoted to monitoring the play. There is no excuse for it to be so time consuming that it discourages getting the right call and avoids situations where play should have ended earlier.

[Delthefunky]

I don`t think they should blow the play either. If they scored, then that`s it either way. Sure it hurts more if you score right after, and would DEFINITELY hurt a lot in your scenario, but still, they scored first, so your goal shouldn`t even have happened!