[News] GMs agree to recommend 3v3 OT & coaches' challenge for goalie interference

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What about close offsides (there's usually at least a couple in the playoffs that get missed on stretch passes and turn to goals)? Or close icings (famously discretionary on behalf of the linesmen when players are within a few feet of the line. But if I was a coach in the dying minutes of a close game, you bet I'd be screaming for a faceoff in the o-zone for a close icing)?

Friedman is only referring to the coaches challenge. The idea being that the coach doesn't burn out a challenge in the final two minutes because it's automatically reviewed like in the NFL. Even in the NFL, only things reviewable by coaches challenge get reviewed automatically.

I think the "everything" part in his tweet confused that

Edit: and so far, only goalie interference and pick over glass are being considered as reviewable by challenge as I read it

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Good Point:

Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
One problem with coach's challenge for goalie interference: If I know my opponent has called his timeout, I'll be more aggressive in crease.

Maybe. But you can still got called for a penalty. So I don't know if that's really a valid concern.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Good Point:

Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
One problem with coach's challenge for goalie interference: If I know my opponent has called his timeout, I'll be more aggressive in crease.

I don't really buy that. It's not like the refs will be throwing away their whistles.

[Hemi-Cuda]

One thing this will change is coaches ever really calling their timeouts. They're already pretty stingy with them as it is, but now to lose the ability to challenge a controversial goal call if you've already used your timeout early in the game? They'll never use them

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Good Point:

Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
One problem with coach's challenge for goalie interference: If I know my opponent has called his timeout, I'll be more aggressive in crease.

Worst case the opponent has burned their timeout/challenge and things become back to being like they have been forever, which, as mentioned, doesn't turn things into the wild west.

[stemit14]

3 vs. 3 is going to play right into the hands of this team. Tons of space and time for Gaudreau, Monohan, hudler, Bennett, Brodie, giordano, poirier, etc.... Yes please!

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Good Point:

Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
One problem with coach's challenge for goalie interference: If I know my opponent has called his timeout, I'll be more aggressive in crease.

It may make sense to increase the number of timeouts teams have to use in a game. The different uses of a timeout could create more scoring...if a team uses the timeout to appeal a call and lose the timeout, the team would not be able to call a timeout to rest players on an icing call. The potential of a tired line being trapped in its zone would probably raise scoring chances.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Good Point:

Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
One problem with coach's challenge for goalie interference: If I know my opponent has called his timeout, I'll be more aggressive in crease.

Not necessarily, as the refs should still call it, and you could be inviting penalties against. How many times do they really screw up goalie interference?

[getbak]

I don't like the coach's challenge being tied to timeouts in a game like hockey where they only get one timeout per game. In the NFL, where teams have 3 timeouts per half, it's not as big a deal.

If it's an obvious error that can be easily corrected by watching a replay for 30 seconds, it should be corrected whether a team has a timeout left or not.

I understand the logic is that it forces a team to be almost 100% positive the call will go in their favour before using the challenge, so it's good in that way, but I'd like there to be an alternate way to ensure the right call is made.

Perhaps, they could institute a 1 minute minor penalty for delay of game if the challenge is wrong, and the coach could choose to either burn his time out (if he still has it) or take the penalty if the challenge fails.

[getbak]

With regards to 3-on-3 OT, the AHL posted this graphic on Twitter yesterday (spoiler for size)...

Spoiler!

I don't know if just going to 3-on-3 will really make a significant impact. When you look at the goals per minute of play, it seems like the biggest difference is just the extended OT in general.

There have been 171 OT goals scored, with 98 coming at 4-on-4, which is 57.3% of the total. 4-on-4 OT is played for the first 4 minutes(ish) of OT with 3-on-3 for the remainder. 4 minutes is 57.1% of 7 minute OT. It doesn't appear (at first glance) that 3-on-3 is really having a big impact on scoring.


They would probably see fewer shootouts by extending 4-on-4 to 7 minutes than by playing 3-on-3 from the beginning for 5 minutes. Extending OT to 10 minutes seems like it would virtually eliminate shootouts entirely (although, those sorts of projections always have their flaws).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by getbak

With regards to 3-on-3 OT, the AHL posted this graphic on Twitter yesterday (spoiler for size)...

Spoiler!

I don't know if just going to 3-on-3 will really make a significant impact. When you look at the goals per minute of play, it seems like the biggest difference is just the extended OT in general.

There have been 171 OT goals scored, with 98 coming at 4-on-4, which is 57.3% of the total. 4-on-4 OT is played for the first 4 minutes(ish) of OT with 3-on-3 for the remainder. 4 minutes is 57.1% of 7 minute OT. It doesn't appear (at first glance) that 3-on-3 is really having a big impact on scoring.


They would probably see fewer shootouts by extending 4-on-4 to 7 minutes than by playing 3-on-3 from the beginning for 5 minutes. Extending OT to 10 minutes seems like it would virtually eliminate shootouts entirely (although, those sorts of projections always have their flaws).

Without having last year's breakdown by minute, we can't really compare.

As for the idea that it's only 2 minutes longer and that's why the extra goals, I think if you look at least year in 5 minutes there were 97 goals, and this year there have been 171 goals. You can't really explain that with the extra 2 minutes.

To me, that either means that as time goes on, more and more goals are scored, or they're are more 4v4 goals scored this year than last.

Also befuddling the math is the effect of switching ends after the third. Statistically, more goals are scored in the second period due to the long change. In a less-than-5v5 environment like OT, that effect would be enhanced. I think we can see that effect moreso than the 3v3 in the numbers

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by RM14

Or if Paul Byron is the shooter

On the other hand, has he scored any goals that were not breakaways?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The cost is too high for pucks into stands and breaking devices. This technology already exists.

The reality is there is maybe 1 meaningful goal a year where this is an issue.

I seriously doubt it's cost that's holding them back on this.

I thought it was that it messes with the integrity of the puck.

[Huntingwhale]

I didn't see this posted anywhere so I'll ask: it states that if a coach uses his challenge and is wrong then he uses up his time-out. So if the challenge is proven right he keeps his time-out and can he make another challenge during the game if another event happens? Or is is strictly limited to 1 challenge per game whether its proven right or wrong?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

One thing this will change is coaches ever really calling their timeouts. They're already pretty stingy with them as it is, but now to lose the ability to challenge a controversial goal call if you've already used your timeout early in the game? They'll never use them

Isn't that a good thing though? Still keeps the pace of the game which (I believe) is what the nhl still wants.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Without having last year's breakdown by minute, we can't really compare.

As for the idea that it's only 2 minutes longer and that's why the extra goals, I think if you look at least year in 5 minutes there were 97 goals, and this year there have been 171 goals. You can't really explain that with the extra 2 minutes.

To me, that either means that as time goes on, more and more goals are scored, or they're are more 4v4 goals scored this year than last.

Also befuddling the math is the effect of switching ends after the third. Statistically, more goals are scored in the second period due to the long change. In a less-than-5v5 environment like OT, that effect would be enhanced. I think we can see that effect moreso than the 3v3 in the numbers

Yeah, I'd say it's still too small a sample size to really know what the most significant factors are.


For example, there was that OT game against the Oilers where Jooris was in the box to start OT and scored on a 2-on-1 that he basically stepped into the middle of when he left the penalty box. If they hadn't switched ends, the Oilers wouldn't have been stuck in an ill-timed line change and Jooris wouldn't have been anywhere close to the Oilers zone when he left the box. That's one goal that can be directly attributed to switching sides after the third.



Another way of looking at the AHL numbers:

224 games have gone to OT in the AHL this season...

• 15 (6.7%) ended in the first minute of play.
• 24 of the remaining 209 (11.5%) ended in the second minute of play.
• 28 of the remaining 185 (15.1%) ended in the third minute of play.
• 25 of the remaining 157 (15.9%) ended in the fourth minute of play.
• 28 of the remaining 132 (21.2%) ended in the fifth minute of play.
• 22 of the remaining 104 (21.2%) ended in the sixth minute of play.
• 29 of the remaining 82 (35.4%) ended in the seventh minute of play.

Even though the number of goals per minute is roughly the same, games don't continue past the first goal scored, so a significantly higher percentage of goals are scored in the later minutes. Maybe the 3-on-3 play is a big part of that.

[Street Pharmacist]

Very, very, very good point. I hasn't thought of that.

Also confounding the analysis is that 3v3 only happens at the first whistle after the 3rd minute ends. Most of the games' 4th minutes were likely still played at 4v4 and same with 5th and possibly the 6th. Only real way to compare would be scoring rates per minute 4v4 and 3v3 and we don't have that info

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Ive brought this up before as well. I was told it's much more complicated tahn it seems because the puck is a disk, not a sphere. And depending whether the puck is on edge or lying flat, the distance to cross the line isn't the same.

But I agree, if they could figure out a way to do it, it would be great. And you could have each team's in-house celebration set to go off automatically.

Ideas aside, what I really hope is having a 3rd way to break a stale mate if the ref and video are both inconclusive or have conflicting decisions (currently bypassed by saying review room has final say).

IMO the RFID should be a tool used at the discretion of the review room. Heck, for instance, if you have the puck completely enter the goal, a light goes on for the review panel to immediately flag for video review (ie: Wideman's goal off the camera, not necessarily '04 caught on line level of accuracy yet; and it's not synchronized to the goal light). Otherwise, it's going to open a can of worms into things like whether the puck was in the net while in the goalie's catcher etc. and these things will highly affect the play and style of the game (undesired).

Under the assumption that there can be "false positives" with the RFID, this tool should be used as a last resort only if there are other (ie: Ref and video review) support to go with the RFID tool. (ie: 2 of 3 unanimous support = goal). It's just easier to accept. Heck, do it secretly and use it as part of the "super accurate visual video review lie" and I'm fine too. Video review room and ref combined can over rule the RFID (or whatever tech) too (ie: Puck in catcher not conclusively in the net).

If not this idea, maybe visually invisible beams coming out of the posts (similar in nature to the "line" in Football, but functional). When reviewing video, if a disturbance in the light (the force jokes not withstanding), then it's easier to see exactly where the puck is and determine % crossed etc rather than pure estimation.

And if there's a concern about how costly and expensive this might be for all pucks, use it in playoff pucks only. Or if issue with integrity of puck, as highlighted above, create a system not limited solely to the pucks, again used solely in playoffs.


Just an overly perused idea... sorry.

[Jacks]

Tying challenges to time outs makes no sense to me.

Close to what getbak said they should tie it to penalties. Let the coach challenge as often as they want but if the challenge fails then they get a 2 minute delay of game penalty. That will keep the challenges to a minimum. There would have to also be a provision that a challenge can't be made while already serving a penalty for a missed challenge to keep a coach from wasting time in the last 2 minutes of a game with multiple long shot challenges. Problem solved.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

IMO the RFID should be a tool used at the discretion of the review room. Heck, for instance, if you have the puck completely enter the goal, a light goes on for the review panel to immediately flag for video review (ie: Wideman's goal off the camera, not necessarily '04 caught on line level of accuracy yet; and it's not synchronized to the goal light). Otherwise, it's going to open a can of worms into things like whether the puck was in the net while in the goalie's catcher etc. and these things will highly affect the play and style of the game (undesired).

This is the type of stuff I want to see done more accurately. Unless something has changed, this situation should be a goal. The same as if a goalie stops a shot but then slides in the net. It will get things like if the puck is underneath the goalie but the camera can't see it cross the line.