Current coach's challenge and video review format

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Offside is the worst though. It makes no sense that a goal can be called off because the linesman incorrectly calls a play onside yet there is nothing that can be done if a linesman takes away a scoring chance by incorrectly calling a play offside.

This paragraph almost made me change my tune. I'm a proponent of the challenege, but agree it's implimentation hasn't been great. But, like you said, why should these plays be not allowed to be missed above anything else? So crazy idea time (actually this is what I've always thought):

Make it eligble for every rule. If you think a ref missed an egregious penalty and you want to use your challenge on it, go for it. If you think a penalty should actually be a penalty shot, use it. Think that should have been icing? Have at it. Etc.. I think this way the coaches would likely end up using it on something else, to get a different advantage than just having a goal called back, and the use of it for minor offisides and the like would decrease just because there are more options to use it. Give the ref another 30 seconds to review the replays and make the call.
I also don't mind the delay of game penalty for being wrong.

[codynw]

Offside is intended to prevent cherry picking. It's ridiculous that they can call off a goal because a guy was a fraction of an inch ahead of his teammate on a rush. Get rid of it altogether.

Goalie interference is fine the way it is. I guess they could send the reviews to Toronto instead of just looking at them on a little tablet.

[FireGilbert]

Also, why are the refs watching the replays on a tiny little tablet? Every rink has a massive video screen at centre ice, just play the replays on that! It also adds some accountability to the replay process as fans get to see the same views the ref has.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

This paragraph almost made me change my tune. I'm a proponent of the challenege, but agree it's implimentation hasn't been great. But, like you said, why should these plays be not allowed to be missed above anything else? So crazy idea time (actually this is what I've always thought):

Make it eligble for every rule. If you think a ref missed an egregious penalty and you want to use your challenge on it, go for it. If you think a penalty should actually be a penalty shot, use it. Think that should have been icing? Have at it. Etc.. I think this way the coaches would likely end up using it on something else, to get a different advantage than just having a goal called back, and the use of it for minor offisides and the like would decrease just because there are more options to use it. Give the ref another 30 seconds to review the replays and make the call.
I also don't mind the delay of game penalty for being wrong.

Oh god no. That would literally destroy any flow to the game. I can live with penalty calls being missed sometimes because it usually evens out. I couldn't stomach every possible play being under review.

[flamesfan1297]

^pretty sure he meant you would still only get 1 review per game, but it could be used on any call

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

^pretty sure he meant you would still only get 1 review per game, but it could be used on any call

I know, but then we get into an endless abyss of interpretation of what is a penalty and what isn't, and using review rooms in Toronto to give an unbiased view since the referee is unlikely to overturn their own call.

It's just not a good idea to go down that road.

[_Q_]

What makes football utterly unwatchable for me is the constant over-scrutinizing of the game. "Well.... see if his right foot is behind the line of scrimmage before he throws the ball, then that's a good call.... but the question is, does he let go of the ball before contact or is this play dead? See from this angle, it looks like it's his left foot that actually touches the line of scrimmage.... boy it's gonna be a tough call...."

This is what the NHL is turning into and it's horrible.

[You Need a Thneed]

For offside calls, a coach should have to "throw a challenge flag" within 10 seconds of it happening. Play can continue after that, but play will only be reviewed if a goal is scored prior to the puck leaving the zone AND the flag having been thrown within 10 seconds of the puck crossing the blue line. The team throwing the challenge would lose their time out if the play was onside, no matter whether a goal was scored or not.

That should eliminate the challenge being thrown for all but the obviously wrong ones, or where being slightly offside leads directly to the goal.

[Frequitude]

I like it. All these called back offside goals mean is that staying onside has been cheated on by inches for a long time. Not quite to the level of travelling in the NBA but in that direction.

[White Out 403]

the offside challenges are the dumbest thing ive seen in hockey since the crease rule. hands down. its being used as a hail mary greasy ambulance chaser style last ditch effort to get a goal called off.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I like it. All these called back offside goals mean is that staying onside has been cheated on by inches for a long time. Not quite to the level of travelling in the NBA but in that direction.

Well so what? Even inches is a stretch, it's microscopic at times.

[Erick Estrada]

Good idea but the guys in Toronto need to get their act together as from what I have seen they are just as likely to get the call wrong much like CFL replay which kind of defeats the purpose of using replay to get it right.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Fire

Keep the offsides reviews but have them reviewed in Toronto and not by linesmen with tiny tablets. Also if it has been more than 15 seconds since they entered the offensive zone a goal shouldn't be called back by being offside.

this, I agree if its a play off the rush but a goal after the puck has been in the zone a minute and the opposing team has turned the puck over 5 times they can't call it back

[Frequitude]

LOL at an empty netter getting called back for offside.

One thing is for sure, replays need to go back to Toronto. Not the refs on tiny tablets. Speed this **** up.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Get rid of he tablets and I love the reviews.

[powderjunkie]

The only good example where offside review would have been reasonable is the Duchene goal a few years ago. Which could/should have been covered by some sort of 'common sense' review rule. In a perfect world, it would be done like Rugby, where the official has instant (and transparently broadcast) discussion with the war-room, and they normally land on a common sense decision within 15 seconds.

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The only good example where offside review would have been reasonable is the Duchene goal a few years ago. Which could/should have been covered by some sort of 'common sense' review rule. In a perfect world, it would be done like Rugby, where the official has instant (and transparently broadcast) discussion with the war-room, and they normally land on a common sense decision within 15 seconds.

.

I was actually just about to bring up rugby. Even though the Video Match Official (VMO) needs some improvement it's a good start. Teams cannot challenge, only the referee can ask the VMO to review something. As you said, the ref channels are also broadcast so you can hear what is happening.

With all of the technology the war room (or a couple officials in the arena) could have people look at plays in real time. They would be looking at each play as it happened (including offsides) and alert the ref to anything.

It wouldn't translate fluidly, but it could be a good start. It would also help sort out scrums and retaliation penalties (if the ref on the ice asked). This also happens in rugby (ex: Ref - I have Six blue for a punch, is that correct? VMO - Yes, 6 blue and 12 red both throwing punches).

For those not familiar, the referee asks the VMO one of two questions - Was a try scored? or Is there any reason that I cannot award the try? In addition to being broadcast the answer is often shown on the big screen (if one is present) as well. The hockey equivalent would be "Did the puck enter the net?" or "Is there any reason that I cannot award a goal?" (offside, interference, etc.)

[calgarybornnraised]

Where is the Linesman's responsibility in all of this. Aren't they supposed to call the lines? And now we have all these reviews.

Maybe they should look at Tennis and Eagle-Eye. There has to be a fix to the technology.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The only good example where offside review would have been reasonable is the Duchene goal a few years ago. Which could/should have been covered by some sort of 'common sense' review rule. In a perfect world, it would be done like Rugby, where the official has instant (and transparently broadcast) discussion with the war-room, and they normally land on a common sense decision within 15 seconds.

Originally Posted by The Coppernian One

.

I was actually just about to bring up rugby. Even though the Video Match Official (VMO) needs some improvement it's a good start. Teams cannot challenge, only the referee can ask the VMO to review something. As you said, the ref channels are also broadcast so you can hear what is happening.

With all of the technology the war room (or a couple officials in the arena) could have people look at plays in real time. They would be looking at each play as it happened (including offsides) and alert the ref to anything.

It wouldn't translate fluidly, but it could be a good start. It would also help sort out scrums and retaliation penalties (if the ref on the ice asked). This also happens in rugby (ex: Ref - I have Six blue for a punch, is that correct? VMO - Yes, 6 blue and 12 red both throwing punches).

For those not familiar, the referee asks the VMO one of two questions - Was a try scored? or Is there any reason that I cannot award the try? In addition to being broadcast the answer is often shown on the big screen (if one is present) as well. The hockey equivalent would be "Did the puck enter the net?" or "Is there any reason that I cannot award a goal?" (offside, interference, etc.)

I thought about bringing up Rugby as well. It is not perfect but, out of all the sports I follow, has by far the best replay system.

I forget the game it occurred in but a recent scenario involved the ref initially wanting to give a red card for what he thought was a dangerous tackle. He requested the off field official show him the replay on the big screen and asked if it justified the red card. After replays from a few angles and a bit of back and forth (all being broadcast to the fans) they reached a consensus that it was only worth a penalty. It was an absolutely perfect use of replay.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I know, but then we get into an endless abyss of interpretation of what is a penalty and what isn't, and using review rooms in Toronto to give an unbiased view since the referee is unlikely to overturn their own call.

It's just not a good idea to go down that road.

It's not always about "overturning" a call. Sometimes a ref just straight up didn't see something. Maybe it's behind the play. If you still only have one challenge per team, and give the refs no more than a minute to review it, and give them the final call, I don't see how it could slow down the game anymore than it is right now. It just wouldn't always be related to goals, which seems to be the big annoyance here.

The refs need to have a little discretion and humility.