This league kind of sucks..

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

I don't fault the Leafs for taking advantage of an ambiguous rule, Flames would have done the same. My issue is that this is happening in the first place.

Agreed. The issue is fixing the rules, not the perceived bias towards the Leafs.
But again, I don't see it as a big travesty. The inconsistency in rule application is frustrating but the Flames were objectively awful in the 3rd.

i get more frustrated by missed ball/strikes in MLB.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The bolded pretty well leaves discretion to the officials. In their opinion he deflected the puck to a teammate and the Flames gained an advantage. Whether we agree or not it doesn't really change that the ruling made was well within the NHL guideline.

At least you finally agree that it wasn't 'the correct call', just an interpretation by the ref which, frankly, was ridiculous, because it had no bearing on the play.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Previous leafs have nothing to do with it. They can do that under the rule, and it seemed like a smart use of a time out. The trade off is, they lose their time out.

I don't see an issue with it.

Because goals getting overturned 5-10 minutes after the fact following time outs, deliberation and review is great for this sport..

Maybe you just have terrible taste on what provides good entertainment. What you're proposing is "fine" isn't that.

If this becomes a regular thing it will create more disgruntled fans and disinterested casual viewers more than anything else.

[Enoch Root]

For me, it isn't about this call so much, as it is about lengthy reviews about trivialities that take away goals for no useful reason.

They're ruining the game.

And it is amazingly coincidental how often those 'interpretation of the ref' calls go against the Flames. Over time, should be 50/50, but it's more like 99/1

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Incorrect. They called the time out.

So am I wrong that the rule is supposed to be that if you use your time out, you give up the ability to challenge? Is that not how it was supposed to work? If they used their time out in this instance, why were they able to then immediately also challenge the goal?

I thought that was why we have pretty much seen an end to the use of time outs during the middle of the game. Coaches used to use their time outs when teams got down by two goals in a period. Now, they rarely use their time outs until the end of the game. Or (at least I thought) so they could save the time out to challenge a goal.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Because goals getting overturned 5-10 minutes after the fact following time outs, deliberation and review is great for this sport..

Maybe you just have terrible taste on what provides good entertainment. What you're proposing is "fine" isn't that.

If this becomes a regular thing it will create more disgruntled fans and disinterested casual viewers more than anything else.

Ok so it is a regular thing? How often does this actually happen?

I think coaches should be able to use their time outs as they see fit with no restrictions. The problem to be solved is more around how can you speed up the reviews themselves that the officials are doing.

Tennis does this the best. Challenge, review, decision in seconds. It's the best example in all of sports. So how do you do that in hockey. Seems solvable.

But I don't think the use of the timeout is the issue. In fact, it's the first time I recall a coach using a time out to give himself more time to decide whether to challenge. I thought it was pretty damn smart given the pivotal moment of the game.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by stemit14

So am I wrong that the rule is supposed to be that if you use your time out, you give up the ability to challenge? Is that not how it was supposed to work? If they used their time out in this instance, why were they able to then immediately also challenge the goal?

Not sure but I've never heard about that rule.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok so it is a regular thing? How often does this actually happen?

I think coaches should be able to use their time outs as they see fit with no restrictions. The problem to be solved is more around how can you speed up the reviews themselves that the officials are doing.

Tennis does this the best. Challenge, review, decision in seconds. It's the best example in all of sports. So how do you do that in hockey. Seems solvable.

But I don't think the use of the timeout is the issue. In fact, it's the first time I recall a coach using a time out to give himself more time to decide whether to challenge. I thought it was pretty damn smart given the pivotal moment of the game.

Teams seeing Toronto being able to use this tactic will certainly lead to more frequent usage of it. I don't think it should be a part of the game. You need a cap on that window to challenge that isn't extendable through stalling, etc.

Smart perhaps given the loophole that apparently exists, also stupid.

Game-tarnishing.

[Robbob]

My beef with the last bunch is that the threshold to overturn a call needs to conclusive. You can't tell me that the goal last night and the Backlund from earlier in the year, you can say that in the video review you conclusively determine it was a hand pass. It isn't black and white the way it is written, so I think that should factor into the decision if it was conclusive or not. It should be a pretty high standard to overturn a call like that.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

At least you finally agree that it wasn't 'the correct call', just an interpretation by the ref which, frankly, was ridiculous, because it had no bearing on the play.

The moment I saw the replay I knew the goal was getting called back so I agree it was the correct call today as much as I did last night. Interpretation by the official is built into the rule so there's simply no way you can say it's not a correct call when the people paid to interpret the rule do so. I mean if you take the teams out of the equation and this is say Devils vs Islanders, I doubt many here are making mountains out of this mole hill. It's not the reason the Flames lost last night and fans should be more upset about the overall play of the team after they got out to a 2-0 lead.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Created a CBA that includes a salary cap too improve competitive balance.
Propped up the Canadian teams with revenue sharing.
Brought a team back to Winnipeg.

Without the salary cap, at least half the teams in the NHL would be in rotten shape. Seeing as virtually all pro league's have gone that way, it is tough to give Bettman the credit.

He gave up teams in Quebec and Winnipeg and then brought one back to Winnipeg. I'd rate him -1. Over his time, he's added 12 US teams and taken away a Canadian one.

Revenue sharing is important for many teams, not just Canadian teams.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I remember when they used to rattle off about conclusiveness to overturn when reviews in high definition were first a thing.

It had to be conclusive to overturn a goal ruling on the ice.

I suppose it's just unfortunate that the way the rule is written gives the refs the power of interpretation in that case. But there wasn't a conclusive directing of a puck towards a teammate that can be observed, and a leafs players potentially touches the puck on its way down as well. Neither of which appears concrete one way or the other.

Thus, inconclusive, thus ruling on the ice stands.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not sure but I've never heard about that rule.

Just checked. They changed the rule in 2020. Before the 2019-2020 season, you were required to have a timeout available to your team to challenge and were restricted to one per game. Now you can challenge as many times as you want.

I guess I understand the reasoning for the change… but I have not seen many teams use their time out to give their video team time to review before officially challenging. Obviously the rules allow for that and it won’t shock me if we start seeing that more often now. Really not a fan of that. Would rather make teams have to gamble on their choice to challenge more. Do this by making two rules changes:

1. If your team loses their challenge, make the penalty a 5 minute major instead of just a minor penalty. Much more of a serious risk to losing a challenge.
2. Teams have a 20 or 30 second window after a goal is scored to choose to challenge. Absolutely no more - I would honestly love it if was more like 10 seconds. The clock starts ticking the moment the goal horn goes off. They should have a button on the bench they have to press to make the challenge official. This eliminates the wasted time coaches use trying to talk to the refs before officially challenging. I get so tired of seeing the refs argue with them over the call for the sole purpose of buying time for their video team.

I think these changes could cause one or more of the following to happen:

1. Teams will lose their challenges more often which will result in powerplays - more scoring chances (what the league likes).
2. Teams will likely not challenge if the play is too close to call - fewer challenges over plays being 1/4 of an inch offside. Fewer challenges speeds up the game.

[DazzlinDino]

Someone showed a picture of the puck hitting Tarvars stick after it hit Coleman. Shouldn't the Flames be allowed to refute the challenge call especially since it hit a Toronto players stick?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Teams seeing Toronto being able to use this tactic will certainly lead to more frequent usage of it. I don't think it should be a part of the game. You need a cap on that window to challenge that isn't extendable through stalling, etc.

Smart perhaps given the loophole that apparently exists, also stupid.

Game-tarnishing.

Game tarnishing!?!?!
Dear lord the hyperbole.
What an excessive amount of complaining for something so small.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Without the salary cap, at least half the teams in the NHL would be in rotten shape. Seeing as virtually all pro league's have gone that way, it is tough to give Bettman the credit.

He gave up teams in Quebec and Winnipeg and then brought one back to Winnipeg. I'd rate him -1. Over his time, he's added 12 US teams and taken away a Canadian one.

Revenue sharing is important for many teams, not just Canadian teams.

Some of this isn't true
The NBA and MLB have soft caps. The NFL and NHL have hard caps.

What is your criticism of him. What has he done that is wrong?

[nfotiu]

The annoying thing about being able to go back to any time where it was in the zone, is that as soon as the refs missed that call, then basically the Flames can no longer score unless they let the leafs clear the zone.

If these hand pass calls are so important, then the refs should be doing a better job of seeing them and calling them. They have two refs on the ice, so at least at least one of them should always have his eyes on the puck. Do they see these, but decide it wasn't enough of an advantage to blow down, but if a goal is scored, then yes its bad?

Why are these subtle hand passes so important to get correct? What about all the tripping, holding and interference that are often missed that lead to goals?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Just checked. They changed the rule in 2020. Before the 2019-2020 season, you were required to have a timeout available to your team to challenge and were restricted to one per game. Now you can challenge as many times as you want.

I guess I understand the reasoning for the change… but I have not seen many teams use their time out to give their video team time to review before officially challenging. Obviously the rules allow for that and it won’t shock me if we start seeing that more often now. Really not a fan of that. Would rather make teams have to gamble on their choice to challenge more. Do this by making two rules changes:

1. If your team loses their challenge, make the penalty a 5 minute major instead of just a minor penalty. Much more of a serious risk to losing a challenge.
2. Teams have a 20 or 30 second window after a goal is scored to choose to challenge. Absolutely no more - I would honestly love it if was more like 10 seconds. The clock starts ticking the moment the goal horn goes off. They should have a button on the bench they have to press to make the challenge official. This eliminates the wasted time coaches use trying to talk to the refs before officially challenging. I get so tired of seeing the refs argue with them over the call for the sole purpose of buying time for their video team.

I think these changes could cause one or more of the following to happen:

1. Teams will lose their challenges more often which will result in powerplays - more scoring chances (what the league likes).
2. Teams will likely not challenge if the play is too close to call - fewer challenges over plays being 1/4 of an inch offside. Fewer challenges speeds up the game.

In the NLL the challenge must be made within 35 seconds.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Why are these subtle hand passes so important to get correct? What about all the tripping, holding and interference that are often missed that lead to goals?

That's the thing. If they are so inconsequential to the play that a ref can't see it in real time when it happens, then it shouldn't matter. I am sure the spirit of the rule to avoid players from obviously making hand passes, not just having a puck deflect off their glove.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Someone showed a picture of the puck hitting Tarvars stick after it hit Coleman. Shouldn't the Flames be allowed to refute the challenge call especially since it hit a Toronto players stick?

The ref should have looked at that as part of the review. So there would not have been any point challenging that because in the refs opinion he didn't think it touched a toronto player after.