[PGT] Flames win in regulation! 4-2 over the Sharks

[polak]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

yea the problem is that this is just going to lead to more aggressive offside calling, which might reduce the number of reviews but then just end up in a lot of unnecessary stoppages.

the reason reviews and overrules work in tennis is because it takes about 5-10 seconds and fans get to watch a cool computer simulation of the ball. I think in its current state they're going to have to take away some or all of the challenge until they can find a way to make the result near instantaneous. that means robots with ultra HD vision of course.

Didn't the NHL tryout the Hawkeye system in the offseason?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

Didn't the NHL tryout the Hawkeye system in the offseason?

nope

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Benched

it's currently doing what they didn't want it to do...it's slowing down and disrupting the game.

I have to say calls for and against the Flames aside, I find it very annoying to my experience. And some of the so called goalie interference denied goals have been bad.

I dislike this coaches challenge. A lot.

The fact there have so many successful ones though shows that a lot of calls are wrong on the ice...and it's needed.

So I don't know how to fix it.

I just don't see how people can claim it slows the game down. One challenge per side, at most they take a few minutes. You're looking at a max of 5 minutes of delays, and as you say, they are being used and overturning important things.

When comparing this to most other sports, hockey is still one of the best for time watched vs gameplay time. And the gameplay is by far the fastest out of any sport. I just don't see how taking 5 minutes to make sure goals are goals is a bad thing.

[AC]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

Can someone post video of the minute long hemming in the Sharks zone leading up to the Backlund goal? I missed most of the game and didn't have it recorded. If that's not around somewhere maybe this could be an AC request.

Bam, here's a version with audio:
https://streamable.com/ng1c

Watch for the blatant interference on Raymond after he passes the puck to the point.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Benched

it's currently doing what they didn't want it to do...it's slowing down and disrupting the game.

I have to say calls for and against the Flames aside, I find it very annoying to my experience. And some of the so called goalie interference denied goals have been bad.

I dislike this coaches challenge. A lot.

The fact there have so many successful ones though shows that a lot of calls are wrong on the ice...and it's needed.

So I don't know how to fix it.

The first thing I'd do to fix it is put a clock on the review, like the NFL eventually had to do. Since they're being reviewed by the on-ice officials, they should already know what they saw, or at least what they think they saw. They should only require one or two additional angles to either confirm their initial view or reverse it.

If you don't see enough in two or three different replays to reverse the call, the call on the ice should stand. The review in the Caps-Jets game on Saturday went almost 10 minutes. That's ridiculous.


The second thing I'd do is limit replays to real-time only. No slow-motion replays. Let the officials review it in real time and make their decision based on that. Slo-mo frame-by-frame replays can really distort how bad an infraction actually was, especially with offsides. On a lot of offside plays, there's literally only one frame (1/30th of a second) where the play is barely offside. If watching the replay in real time isn't enough to make you change your mind, then accept that the call was right.


Finally, offside reviews should be the same as the puck into the netting reviews that they brought in last year. If the goal isn't scored immediately after the missed call, we accept that the players on the ice all continued to play as if the call was made correctly and the missed call didn't unfairly impact either team's ability to play the game, so the goal should stand.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AC

Bam, here's a version with audio:
https://streamable.com/ng1c

Watch for the blatant interference on Raymond after he passes the puck to the point.

That was an unreal sequence (and not their only great forechecking shift either). That was a bad interference play, too, though I was waiting for someone to say "there's Raymond, falling again).

Hartley had a lot of praise for that line.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by AC

Bam, here's a version with audio:
https://streamable.com/ng1c

Watch for the blatant interference on Raymond after he passes the puck to the point.

Never noticed that last night. The zebras were blind!

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

o/t but I am so cynical about that Hawkeye system. How can you be sure they aren't just graphicking the ball wherever they want (I say the same thing about the hidden donuts game at the dome).

the system might be doing exactly that, in fact the margin of error for Hawkeye is such that if a ball is sufficiently close to the line then there's a chance the computer is wrong. among other reasons I'm pretty sure that's why they don't use it on clay, because if the computer ruling doesn't line up with the physical marking of the ball, then that throws the whole system into anarchy.

what players and fans like about it is that it's decisive one way or another, and the computer doesn't (or shouldn't) have an agenda. there's no additional arguing with an official...just accept and move one. I'm thinking it would be the same for hockey except for the few obligatory crackpot conspiracy theorists.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

the system might be doing exactly that, in fact the margin of error for Hawkeye is such that if a ball is sufficiently close to the line then there's a chance the computer is wrong. among other reasons I'm pretty sure that's why they don't use it on clay, because if the computer ruling doesn't line up with the physical marking of the ball, then that throws the whole system into anarchy.

what players and fans like about it is that it's decisive one way or another, and the computer doesn't (or shouldn't) have an agenda. there's no additional arguing with an official...just accept and move one. I'm thinking it would be the same for hockey except for the few obligatory crackpot conspiracy theorists.

It won't work for goals, which is what it was being discussed about before. Too many obstructions for the cameras. The Hawk-eye company does, I think, supply the tech for actual video reviews.

[Biff]

I wonder if the off-side review could end if possession changes hands or if the opportunity for possession change occurs. i.e. a shot on net and a save is a potential possession change. My thinking is that you could review a missed offside only back to the point that you had an opportunity to offset the "advantage".

[polak]

What would make the challenges more acceptable is if they banned all coaches aids. Like how the Flames installed monitors in the bench and what not.

None of that. If you want to challenge you better have caught the mistake with your eyes in realtime. Just like the refs.

[polak]

Or make them have to flag the play immediately. No waiting for a goal to develop.

[calgaryblood]

I would only allow coaches challenges on goalie interference. And I've thought that since they introduced the coaches challenge so it has nothing to do with the play last night.

[FiveSeven]

Lordy. I have zero problems whatsoever with anything. Honestly, it's like a maximum of 3 minutes regardless of tough to call plays.
We're there or watching for hours, what's a couple minutes? From a spectator perspective I see zero reason to complain. Just get the call right.

[dino7c]

Back from a trip to the sin bin...but enjoyed the game so much I had to get a post in

last night was the Flames team I know and love, hopefully more to come

[dino7c]

oh and I support some kinda time limit on the offside call...goals off the rush I agree but when the play has been in the zone for 20 or 30 seconds no

[dino7c]

double post

[Benched]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I just don't see how people can claim it slows the game down. One challenge per side, at most they take a few minutes. You're looking at a max of 5 minutes of delays, and as you say, they are being used and overturning important things.

When comparing this to most other sports, hockey is still one of the best for time watched vs gameplay time. And the gameplay is by far the fastest out of any sport. I just don't see how taking 5 minutes to make sure goals are goals is a bad thing.

Until they're successful and challenge the next one. Or they only challenge it so u can have a time out (how is that enhancing the game? Takes longer than a timeout). Or as a poster mentioned one was 10 min last night. A period is usually what? 45-50 min? So 20%+ of a regular period spent for 1 review?

I'm glad hockey still owns vs other sports. But IMO it's hurting the flow of the game, it's being used on very marginal calls, which is leading to less goals and more guys sitting around while we watch zebras looking at TVs trying to decide if that guys tip of his skate touching the goalie was enough to be considered goalie interference. Every time I have flash backs to that foot in the blue paint debacle/year with that ridiculous rule.

Not liking it. Not at all.

I guess for people who avidly watch other sports like football it's not as jarring. I just wish there were a quicker way to ensure they get the call right. Don't think anyone disagrees that that IS important.

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by AC

Bam, here's a version with audio:
https://streamable.com/ng1c

Watch for the blatant interference on Raymond after he passes the puck to the point.

The most impressive part of this whole clip is Raymond winning a puck battle on the boards to start the play.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

Lordy. I have zero problems whatsoever with anything. Honestly, it's like a maximum of 3 minutes regardless of tough to call plays.
We're there or watching for hours, what's a couple minutes? From a spectator perspective I see zero reason to complain. Just get the call right.

Is being an inch offside really that important to "get right" on a play that developed into a goal a minute later?

It's dumb that an entire minute goes by, then the coach gets to analyse a replay of the video and decides to challenge it.

Like I said, at the very least they should make it so you have to challenge the play as it happens.