This league kind of sucks..

[btimbit]

The NHL has always had trouble getting out if its own way. This game is awesome and sells itself but they bend over backwards to please the casual viewer

It's hard to get upset about a review as long as it's the right call in the end, but I'm still of the opinion that if it didn't happen immediately before the goal, then it didn't have a large enough effect on the play that it should nullify a goal. Review/challenge goalie interference, kicking motion and high stick deflections, that sort of thing. Offsides only if it's a goal off that rush. Everything else is stupid

[WhiteTiger]

I've been thinking about this, and I've been wondering on a solution. Especially to the 'timeout to a challenge' thing, on top of challenging little plays/technicalities. I think I've found an elegant solution.


For video review to determine if a puck crossed the goal line or not, there are no changes, and no time limits.


For ALL other challenges, period, no questions about it or what it's about, it costs you your time out. Additionally, the challenge review period is 30 seconds...the length of the time out it cost you. If, after 30 seconds, it's not conclusively decided, then it's clearly inconclusive.

A team also only gets one per game. You get your time out OR a challenge. You do not get your time out back no matter which direction the challenge goes (for or against).

That ought to tighten up using challenges.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Not sure I'll add anything that hasn't been said, and I'll keep my comments focused on the rules in place around goal reviews (vs. league as a whole).

This isn't about the victims card here. What happened last night, was, as the rules are written today, the right outcome. Unlike the Coleman goal in Game 5 two years ago, it's not about subjective did the refs apply the right interpretation (which is an issue), this one was called correctly. The issue is the rule and how much has been made reviewable by the league. In their pursuit of accuracy, they've damage the entertainment and fun of the product, and they need to scale it back.

As with a lot of these things, I'm hoping it's a pendulum swing that will come back. But they've pursued solving the wrong problem. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but ever since a few years back, when I think it was Colorado, scored a key playoff goal on a play that was 20 feet offside (a true mess up) the league has slowly opened the flood gates on reviews because they are trying to solve the wrong problem. 100% accuracy, is not needed, nor is what is good for the game.

They need to stop trying to protect against the sub 1% incidents that are really bad, like that offside miss in the playoffs. As a fan base that has been robbed of a cup due to miss called, I get why they might think it's needed, but it's the wrong choice. A really epic miss like that with true meaningful impacts happens like what, once, twice every 10 years....... I think they need to realize that's ok. And driving out the excitement in every game, because we have multiple 10min delays in play (to get it right) or we are calling back goals (like last night) where the missed call really wasn't that impactful is not good for the sport.

Outside of the stoppage of play, which is so bad for flow and fan appreciation, the number of times in a season, where my exhilaration in celebration on a Flames goal is muted by 50% because me and my buddy are trying to be excited but we noted a "close play at the blue line 5 mins before" and we are worried it's going to be called back is happening way to often. The explosion of emotion when your team pops a goal is the main reason I love the games, it's addicting. That's being muted substantially by the review culture, and it seriously impacts enjoyment. And now, last night is an example of what's happening more often too, a goal coming back when you aren't even aware that it was even at risk. Creates a culture for the fans when after the biggest moments of your game, people aren't enjoying it, they are looking around worrying that something is going to get reviewed. The fans are literally sitting in the stands going drop the puck drop the puck so they can be sure the goal counted. That's not what is good for the game.

The league needs to realize, this isn't a fan or player safety issue, where you do manage to the 1% or worst case scenarios. This is just about the game, you accept a margin of error and you do what's right for fan enjoyment.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I've been thinking about this, and I've been wondering on a solution. Especially to the 'timeout to a challenge' thing, on top of challenging little plays/technicalities. I think I've found an elegant solution.


For video review to determine if a puck crossed the goal line or not, there are no changes, and no time limits.


For ALL other challenges, period, no questions about it or what it's about, it costs you your time out. Additionally, the challenge review period is 30 seconds...the length of the time out it cost you. If, after 30 seconds, it's not conclusively decided, then it's clearly inconclusive.

A team also only gets one per game. You get your time out OR a challenge. You do not get your time out back no matter which direction the challenge goes (for or against).

That ought to tighten up using challenges.

This is pretty close to what the rule was until 2020. Except for the 30 second time limit. But I like your idea.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Additionally, the challenge review period is 30 seconds...the length of the time out it cost you. If, after 30 seconds, it's not conclusively decided, then it's clearly inconclusive.

How about if they can't figure it out in 30 seconds because they are having video problems?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

How about if they can't figure it out in 30 seconds because they are having video problems?

Then too bad.

That would only happen if the Flames challenge though.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Not sure I'll add anything that hasn't been said, and I'll keep my comments focused on the rules in place around goal reviews (vs. league as a whole).

This isn't about the victims card here. What happened last night, was, as the rules are written today, the right outcome. Unlike the Coleman goal in Game 5 two years ago, it's not about subjective did the refs apply the right interpretation (which is an issue), this one was called correctly. The issue is the rule and how much has been made reviewable by the league. In their pursuit of accuracy, they've damage the entertainment and fun of the product, and they need to scale it back.

As with a lot of these things, I'm hoping it's a pendulum swing that will come back. But they've pursued solving the wrong problem. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but ever since a few years back, when I think it was Colorado, scored a key playoff goal on a play that was 20 feet offside (a true mess up) the league has slowly opened the flood gates on reviews because they are trying to solve the wrong problem. 100% accuracy, is not needed, nor is what is good for the game.

They need to stop trying to protect against the sub 1% incidents that are really bad, like that offside miss in the playoffs. As a fan base that has been robbed of a cup due to miss called, I get why they might think it's needed, but it's the wrong choice. A really epic miss like that with true meaningful impacts happens like what, once, twice every 10 years....... I think they need to realize that's ok. And driving out the excitement in every game, because we have multiple 10min delays in play (to get it right) or we are calling back goals (like last night) where the missed call really wasn't that impactful is not good for the sport.

Outside of the stoppage of play, which is so bad for flow and fan appreciation, the number of times in a season, where my exhilaration in celebration on a Flames goal is muted by 50% because me and my buddy are trying to be excited but we noted a "close play at the blue line 5 mins before" and we are worried it's going to be called back is happening way to often. The explosion of emotion when your team pops a goal is the main reason I love the games, it's addicting. That's being muted substantially by the review culture, and it seriously impacts enjoyment. And now, last night is an example of what's happening more often too, a goal coming back when you aren't even aware that it was even at risk. Creates a culture for the fans when after the biggest moments of your game, people aren't enjoying it, they are looking around worrying that something is going to get reviewed. The fans are literally sitting in the stands going drop the puck drop the puck so they can be sure the goal counted. That's not what is good for the game.

The league needs to realize, this isn't a fan or player safety issue, where you do manage to the 1% or worst case scenarios. This is just about the game, you accept a margin of error and you do what's right for fan enjoyment.

This is a good point. I remember that awful call that missed the offside on Duchene - it was an embarrassing miss for the league in a very important game. But outside of that, I can’t think of any time before that where I thought any of the teams got screwed over by a missed offside call. Since then, plenty of goals have been called back due to offside reviews… but they are almost always a matter of fractions of an inch - really not enough to affect the play or be the reason a team was able to score.

The tough board for the league is once they opened the door to review, it’s hard to argue how close a call needs to be for it to be called back. It’s either onside or it’s offside. If they can’t tell then the call on the ice stands - that’s how it’s supposed to work. I hope they can streamline or improve this process but I’m not sure if they ever will.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

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.

Plus I think the rule still covers an indirect hand pass, so it can bounce off anything and still be called. For example a guy behind the net could bat the puck to the front of the net and therefore give his team an advantage as a result even if it bounces off a bunch of bodies first.

The question is whether there was an advantage gained in this case, and that's what I question. The puck grazed off of Coleman's finger and randomly went between a Flame and a Leaf at the blue line - a 50 50 opportunity for either to play the puck and Tavares maybe got there first. No advantage was gained IMO.

[dissentowner]

Until you get Bettman and his old boys club out of there the NHL is going to manage games to get the results they want for the franchises they favour. We know it happens, Peele got caught, Kerry Fraser has admitted as much that this happens. Unfortunately when the Count retires it will be Daley who has apprenticed under him and had the exact same mindset who will take over. As much as Bettman has grown the game in the US he has destroyed the integrity of the sport by having the officials do what they can to favour the big cash cows of the league. Unless you can get a commissioner in there who cares more about fairness of play instead of just marketing and dollars it isn't going to change.

[Shazam]

Gross. Daley is a tough guy wannabe. Bettman is mostly reasonable.

[Kolsch]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Not sure I'll add anything that hasn't been said, and I'll keep my comments focused on the rules in place around goal reviews (vs. league as a whole).

This isn't about the victims card here. What happened last night, was, as the rules are written today, the right outcome. Unlike the Coleman goal in Game 5 two years ago, it's not about subjective did the refs apply the right interpretation (which is an issue), this one was called correctly. The issue is the rule and how much has been made reviewable by the league. In their pursuit of accuracy, they've damage the entertainment and fun of the product, and they need to scale it back.

As with a lot of these things, I'm hoping it's a pendulum swing that will come back. But they've pursued solving the wrong problem. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but ever since a few years back, when I think it was Colorado, scored a key playoff goal on a play that was 20 feet offside (a true mess up) the league has slowly opened the flood gates on reviews because they are trying to solve the wrong problem. 100% accuracy, is not needed, nor is what is good for the game.

They need to stop trying to protect against the sub 1% incidents that are really bad, like that offside miss in the playoffs. As a fan base that has been robbed of a cup due to miss called, I get why they might think it's needed, but it's the wrong choice. A really epic miss like that with true meaningful impacts happens like what, once, twice every 10 years....... I think they need to realize that's ok. And driving out the excitement in every game, because we have multiple 10min delays in play (to get it right) or we are calling back goals (like last night) where the missed call really wasn't that impactful is not good for the sport.

Outside of the stoppage of play, which is so bad for flow and fan appreciation, the number of times in a season, where my exhilaration in celebration on a Flames goal is muted by 50% because me and my buddy are trying to be excited but we noted a "close play at the blue line 5 mins before" and we are worried it's going to be called back is happening way to often. The explosion of emotion when your team pops a goal is the main reason I love the games, it's addicting. That's being muted substantially by the review culture, and it seriously impacts enjoyment. And now, last night is an example of what's happening more often too, a goal coming back when you aren't even aware that it was even at risk. Creates a culture for the fans when after the biggest moments of your game, people aren't enjoying it, they are looking around worrying that something is going to get reviewed. The fans are literally sitting in the stands going drop the puck drop the puck so they can be sure the goal counted. That's not what is good for the game.

The league needs to realize, this isn't a fan or player safety issue, where you do manage to the 1% or worst case scenarios. This is just about the game, you accept a margin of error and you do what's right for fan enjoyment.

Exactly this. I was ecstatic over that Zary goal. Was a really exciting game, quite an emotional roller coaster. The review basically took a moment from happiness to annoyance/bitterness/disgust. If I can't have genuine moments of excitement then I don't know what the point of watching is.

[Flamesfan05]

I don’t think you should allow challenge on thing that don’t directly result in the goal.

I mean give me a break you don’t give an assist on everyone that touched the pick. You shouldn’t call back a goal that happened 2 minutes ago when both teams had a chance at the puck

[Jiggy_12]

things happen so fast in hockey, that if you take time to closely review a random sequence of events, you'll probably find something that by definition is an infraction of the rules.

In the NFL, referees can find a penalty on any given play if they look hard enough.

Giving a team time during their timeout to analyze video to find an infraction isn't what sports are about. I think everyone would agree with that.

[ReinhartonD]

This may not be connected, but it seems the exhaustive detail in reviewing everything that might cancel a goal came along about the same time as the explosion of gambling as a league revenue partner. There is big money wagered on so many aspects of each game that adds pressure to microscopically check every detail that might impact a payout.

I wonder if betting on face-off wins is why we're seeing the ridiculous number of wave-outs this year as well? I see that sort of thing as having a lot of potential for fixing--it's easy to have a bad night in the circle and no one could tell if a player were deliberately losing enough draws to keep his percentage under a certain number that may pay off his cousin's friend, etc.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Don't move the goalposts, it has nothing to do with how the Flames played.

The rule literally states that it is up to the ref's interpretation. That means that there is no 'right call'. Full stop.

[flamingred89]

They just need a hard and fast time limit. NFL has the play clock. MLB has 15 seconds. Give them 20 seconds from the whistle. If an infraction was truly that egregious you would know right away and can challenge. If a team tries to take a timeout to challenge or challenges after the window it's a delay of game penalty. What happened last night was ticky tack bull#### and definitely leans into the favouritism narrative.

[Enoch Root]

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?

Yes, the Flames could have challenged that.

Originally Posted by Robbob

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.

Ny understanding is that, when there is a challenge, they only review what was challenged. If there is a 2nd issue, that requires another challenge. There have been situations in the past where one thing is reviewed, and the call goes one way, then the other team challenges something else, and the call was reversed. I haven't seen that in a while, but it does happen.

If there was any evidence that the puck touched Tavares' stick, the Flames should have challenged it. I doubt there was though. And they had like 10 mintes to find evidence of it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I do think they need to rethink this ... find ways to keep goals not lose them.

Maybe they should have a eye in the sky official that can kill plays the second he sees a call missed (off side, etc).

Then you don't get that goal scored that gets taken away.

Just re-write the hand pass rule to say incidental contact of the puck and glove is permitted - a player must direct it or otherwise show some form of intent to play the puck with his hand.

Getting shot in the hand is not a hand pass.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I've been thinking about this, and I've been wondering on a solution. Especially to the 'timeout to a challenge' thing, on top of challenging little plays/technicalities. I think I've found an elegant solution.


For video review to determine if a puck crossed the goal line or not, there are no changes, and no time limits.


For ALL other challenges, period, no questions about it or what it's about, it costs you your time out. Additionally, the challenge review period is 30 seconds...the length of the time out it cost you. If, after 30 seconds, it's not conclusively decided, then it's clearly inconclusive.

A team also only gets one per game. You get your time out OR a challenge. You do not get your time out back no matter which direction the challenge goes (for or against).

That ought to tighten up using challenges.

Is this a problem that needs to be solved? I don't recall another time where a coach has called a time out to use like this.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Just re-write the hand pass rule to say incidental contact of the puck and glove is permitted - a player must direct it or otherwise show some form of intent to play the puck with his hand.

Getting shot in the hand is not a hand pass.

Mind you, I think Coleman intended to play the puck with his hand to himself. He just mostly missed.