[Rumour] McKenzie: Coach's challenge could be instituted next year

[CaptainYooh]

I like the idea of coach's challenges provided that it's managed to limit nuisance calls. Perhaps, one "free" challenge per game and then either a meaningful financial penalty or, literally, an on-ice 2 minute penalty for all other unsuccessful challenges. This would prevent spiteful and silly challenges delaying the game flow unnecessarily.

[Parallex]

What would be reviewable? If goaltender interference isn't reviewable (and everything else that's already reviewable says so) what's left? The only things I can think of are puck out of play calls (the freak goal where the puck went off the netting, and over the glass delay of game calls).

[JBR]

Expanded replay should only be applied to plays that result in a goal, much like it does now (across the line or not, high stick or not etc.) Missed offside, or maybe icing that resulted in a goal. Good interference. The only exception is puck over the glass, which should be reviewable anytime. Also, ditch the intent to blow the whistle rule. If the replay shows a loose puck, then it goes in, it should be a goal. I don't want to have games stalled as replay officials determine if a non-scoring play is icing or offside. I don't mind expanding replay because it doesn't take away from the spirit of the game. Not the case with baseball. Replay sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It doesn't need to be a judgement call. Did a player prevent the goalie from moving within the crease? Interference.

Your second point is a good one though. What happens if an offside is missed, a team scores and then it is reviewed? Does the clock get turned back and anything that happened during the rest of the play get nixed (goals, penalties, etc..)?

That's a judgement call, how do you know if the goalie really couldn't make it over there. How do you know if the player was or was not pushed in.

The Tampa Bay incident in Game 3 looked obvious to most of us but even in the CBC studio there was debate so it's too judgemental. How can you rule definitively if Price embellished it or not?

[Neeper]

About time the league did this. In this day and age with technology and and the angles we can see, there's no excuse to not use it and make the right call.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's a judgement call, how do you know if the goalie really couldn't make it over there. How do you know if the player was or was not pushed in.

The Tampa Bay incident in Game 3 looked obvious to most of us but even in the CBC studio there was debate so it's too judgemental. How can you rule definitively if Price embellished it or not?

I don't think those are subjective at all.

For example, the non-call Saturday, its very clear in the instant replay that Lunqvist is pushing across to try and make the save but his skate hits King's skate and thus, he can't extend.

As for pushed in vs not. Yea that can be tough I guess, but again, things get pretty clear on a slow-mo replay, which is the point of all this. Of course it's difficult to tell at full game speed when the ref could be looking elsewhere. Also, it's up to the attacking player to avoid contact. Yes, they can end up being pushed, but if people are worried about dmen pushing opposing players on top of their own goalie to draw a penalty or negate a goal, well that defenseman is a moron.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Being able to call out divers would be beautiful.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

People always talk about how scoring needs to increase to appeal to a larger american audience, but I do not think that is true. I think changes like this to make the application of the rules more consistent, predictable and easier to understand will have a bigger impact on hockey's appeal.

Purely anecdotal but most americans I meet do not like sports they do not understand. Not having well defined rules and their enforcement are a big part of that. When I talk to people hate soccer and dig into why I get to reasons like: "I don't understand extra time, how do I know exactly what how long is left?", "Why was that guy carded but not the other?", or "Players are cheating by diving and there is no enough getting caught".

[Bezer]

I am pretty happy with this. I think getting the right call is paramount in professional sport.

As for the NFL, the reviewing process is the least of its worries. It's all the commercials. I cant even watch NFL anymore and I love football.

As far as whats reviewable I know that penalties in football are not reviewable but in the NHL with something like goalie interference it would have to be reviewable but not a penalty for the interference.

So as an example, no penalty on the play when a goal is scored but a coach thinks his goalie was interfered with, so he throws his flag or whatever. The refs then review the play to see if it was a clean goal with no goalie interference, if so good goal.. if there was goalie interference then no goal and no penalty.

Its similar to the having a hooking penalty and also a diving penalty at the same time..

It will probably be completely different lol, but that is my guess in reference to goalie interference.

[Igottago]

I'm okay with reviewing questionable goals as they do now, but everything else should be off limits. Video reviewing offside or penalty calls just doesn't seem right to me. Hockey is a fluid and fast game, it doesnt need more artificial slowdowns. Just live with the fact there will be occassional mistakes.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I'm okay with reviewing questionable goals as they do now, but everything else should be off limits. Video reviewing offside or penalty calls just doesn't seem right to me. Hockey is a fluid and fast game, it doesnt need more artificial slowdowns. Just live with the fact there will be occassional mistakes.

If there is only one challenge per game, the artificial slow-down will be non-existent, and mistakes will still happen. This gives the coach the opportunity to see something that has gone against them unfairly, changed, which is better IMO.

Would it not have been better for AV to be able to challenge the goal from Saturday, they take a look at it and decide not to count it? How much extra time could it have seriously taken?

[Stay Golden]

Excludes goal interference huh. Too bad that could correct several poor calls that result in waving off a goal or flat out ignoring goalie interference.
It is unfortunate that the NHL is leaving this off the table.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

Purely anecdotal but most americans I meet do not like sports they do not understand. Not having well defined rules and their enforcement are a big part of that. When I talk to people hate soccer and dig into why I get to reasons like: "I don't understand extra time, how do I know exactly what how long is left?", "Why was that guy carded but not the other?", or "Players are cheating by diving and there is no enough getting caught".

Okay, can we get some answers please!

[Galakanokis]

I hate the coaches challenge. It should just be a booth review with no punishment to the teams. Basically a video official which every team already has. Replays are available within seconds of a play happening and can be reviewed a few times in a 30 second span. Enough time for the ref to skate over to the scorers box and get the info of good or bad.

Never understood punishing a team for a refs mistake. You get one wrong and then you can't dispute any others in the game? Nonsense.

Plus how do the teams get the replays to know whether or not to challenge the call? Scoreboard? Someone watching on a PVR in the coaches both. As the home team you will have access to way more camera angles than the away team. I could stream 3 or 4 different angles to an ipad within a a few seconds right on the bench. Unfair advantage?

Leave it on the ice.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

People always talk about how scoring needs to increase to appeal to a larger american audience, but I do not think that is true. I think changes like this to make the application of the rules more consistent, predictable and easier to understand will have a bigger impact on hockey's appeal.

Purely anecdotal but most americans I meet do not like sports they do not understand. Not having well defined rules and their enforcement are a big part of that. When I talk to people hate soccer and dig into why I get to reasons like: "I don't understand extra time, how do I know exactly what how long is left?", "Why was that guy carded but not the other?", or "Players are cheating by diving and there is no enough getting caught".

I agree somewhat but then why isnt pass interference reviewable?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I agree somewhat but then why isnt pass interference reviewable?

Starting this season, it will be, in the CFL: http://cfl.ca/article/board-of-gover...l-rule-changes

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Parallex

What would be reviewable? If goaltender interference isn't reviewable (and everything else that's already reviewable says so) what's left? The only things I can think of are puck out of play calls (the freak goal where the puck went off the netting, and over the glass delay of game calls).

Being able to get the random "was the puck in" or "was the puck out" plays right would be a good starting point for this system to cut its teeth on. This would apply to whether the puck was in/out of the net, the zone, the rink and the officials missed the call.

Right now we can challenge a lot of the situations where the ref might have made the wrong call but there is no system that allows the teams to challenge when a ref misses the play altogether. That right there would solve a lot of human error that damages a game for no reason other than the ref or linesman was out of position or having an off day.

[DoubleF]

I think the coaches challenge should be like, you get unlimited challenges, but once you have 2 (arbitrarily instead of 3 in tennis) wrong challenges, you lose the ability to challenge.

Furthermore, if you fail a challenge, you should receive a delay of game penalty 2 minutes. This penalty is waived if the resolution of the challenge is completed in more than 2 minutes (IMO, constitutes a decent use of the challenge). You still lose your challenge though to make a challenge a unique strategic aspect of the game (This will be furthermore exemplified if the below is somehow incorporated).

Another potential aspect is the same as the first paragraph but instead with (arbitrarily) 3 challenges. A coach who fails 3 challenges should be ejected from the game. Potentially, certain "events" could also revoke challenges for coaches (ie: Line brawls, game ejection hits etc.). Once the coach is ejected, the remaining group would be in charge with no challenges.

What do you guys think?

My belief is that the challenge system should have both benefit and risk at the same time.

[sureLoss]

Chris Johnston
@reporterchris
It sounds like the NHL's general managers have agreed on allowing a coach's challenge. Won't be implemented next season though.

[sureLoss]

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Increased video review and Coach's Challenge did not make it through GMs, just like they didn't make it through the Competition Committee