1) Agree with the delay of game penalty if the goal stands. Currently, there is no reason not to challenge if its close... similar to the offside challenge, the number of reviews went down a lot once a penalty was attached to the call and it empowers the refs imo...
2) there should be some consistency made wrt to the calls, meaning clear examples on tape provided to refs, coaches, players and GMs at the beginning of the season and at the mid point of the season as a reminder...
3) have as consistent a crew as possible to make the calls... not sure how easy this is to do, but if you have have consistent referee teams, you should be able to have consistent review teams.
1) Agree with the delay of game penalty if the goal stands. Currently, there is no reason not to challenge if its close... similar to the offside challenge, the number of reviews went down a lot once a penalty was attached to the call and it empowers the refs imo...
I thought that the team that challenges loses a timeout if they are wrong and you need a timeout to make a challenge?
Have the call on the ice stand. These reviews of goaltender interference are similar to Pass interference in football. Calling them is an art, not a science, and trying to apply a black and white rule is inherently going to cause issues.
If you insist on having them, limit replays to black & white items like offside.
The idea of only allowing goalies to ask for G.I. reviews is the worst idea ever. Think of every time a goalie got up after a goal asking for refs to make a call - they'd call for a review in the heat of the moment.
Problem #1 is seemingly no accountability and the NHL trying to review all of this on a shoestring budget.
Upgrade the cameras and place cameras at better locations for more definitive views. Keep investing in puck-tracking technology and bring the game up to 2019. It's silly that we're all trying to determine what happened from the low-quality footage we have today.
Also hire officials to ref the game from above the rink. I've brought up the FIFA example multiple times, but they demonstrated an ability to quickly make the correct call. They seemingly solved officiating for their tournaments and I think all NA leagues should be looking in that direction for solutions.
Agree with this 100%. I watch the NRL (Australian Rugby League) quite a bit and think they have a pretty good system.
- All video reviews are done in a central 'bunker' so its on the game referees doing the review.
- They telecast the video and audio of the reviewer so you can see the same replays they are using, plus hear them talk through the decision
They also release a weekly video with the boss of the referees to discuss any controversial decisions and whether the ref's made the right call etc.
Pretty simple stuff really, transparency and accountability.
Would also help if anyone actually knew what the f'ing goal tender interference rules are!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jethro Choicebro For This Useful Post:
The same people that oversee that also over see the Department of Player Safety(Suspensions) and NHL officiating and all are seemingly entirely random.
I think you'd have to bring in someone from another sport where they have better consistency in enforcing rules.
I thought that the team that challenges loses a timeout if they are wrong and you need a timeout to make a challenge?
thanks wasn't thinking of the timeout lost... it think that the loss of the timeout is probably too little to prevent a coach from rolling the dice however...
something like a penalty is punitive and a team just getting scored on would have to really believe that the interference was clear and obvious versus marginal or 50/50 if they were to challenge...
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
With the play last night I think that is in large part a reputation call - Tkachuk is known for "accidentally" making contact with goaltenders, he does it all the time in order to gain an advantage. It is part of his game and he excels at it and unfortunately it is what he is known for.
As it stands there is always going to be a subjective component to all calls like that and I think that video review while imperfect is still better than the option of nothing at all.
Anytime a goal is overturned I believe there should be an explanation video from the league as there is for suspensions. None of this hiding behind the screens in Toronto crap as there should be an explanation when a goal has been taken away from a team. Right now there's not enough accountability.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
With the play last night I think that is in large part a reputation call - Tkachuk is known for "accidentally" making contact with goaltenders, he does it all the time in order to gain an advantage. It is part of his game and he excels at it and unfortunately it is what he is known for.
As it stands there is always going to be a subjective component to all calls like that and I think that video review while imperfect is still better than the option of nothing at all.
I think you're right, and reputation factoring it's way into any call is another big problem in the NHL. If Tkachuk didn't do anything illegal, any accidental contact he's gotten away with is irrelevant. Problematically, they apparently deemed it illegal due to some tolerance they've afforded themselves with the rules... sometimes.
Unless it's illegal, it's definitely a part of the game and Fleury would do well to keep his stick out of people's mid-section if he finds it so difficult to make a save that way.
Anytime a goal is overturned I believe there should be an explanation video from the league as there is for suspensions. None of this hiding behind the screens in Toronto crap as there should be an explanation when a goal has been taken away from a team. Right now there's not enough accountability.
That would go a long way to making the game more entertaining for sure. As Jethro just shared, the league pulling back the curtain can help fans understand decisions and mistakes game-to-game.
No accountability, lots of confusion and no faith that anyone in the NHL is going to do a good job.
That the NHL doesn't do this now tells me that they're very aware at the increased dissatisfaction their current methods will draw if they showed you how they come to decisions today.
Just do away with the challenge and copy the Rugby system. Move a ref upstairs to a video room and put them in radio contact with the on-ice ref. The video ref can question any call including goals, offside, and penalties (missed or called). If a decision is questioned the two refs will get talking and reach a consensus. The one ice ref can watch replays on the big screen and the entire conversation is broadcast live to the fans. The benefit of this system is to get the calls right most of the time while providing transparency on how a decision was reached.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
I’ve said it here before, but I’d actually open it up to any call (or non call) can be challenged. It makes no sense that offsides and interference can be challenged but nothing else. Any missed penalty can result in a goal so I don’t see the difference.
Here’s the caveat: you get 1. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, you have no more challenges left after one. If you’re wrong time out is still gone.
I think this would have coaches A) using them earlier on more obvious misses (penalties most likely). Or B) saving it until the very end for a crucial moment.
Of course after being scorned a billion times by this, this topic comes up because it needs to be 'fixed'.
A solution would be for the Flames to have less goals that results in video review. I don't have numbers to back it up, but it seems this happens to the Flames much more frequently than other teams.
You can only get one challenge a game as it is. So the only thing I would change is to add more risk/reward to it by adding the risk of a delay of game penalty for all challenges, not just offsides. Therefore you don't do it just for the sake of doing it.
Also, and this is not so much an issue with challenges itself, but with the rules themselves - more clarity and consistency on what is actually goaltender interference, and what isn't. It's bush league that honestly the very same thing can happen, and have two different results on a regular basis. No one actually knows what is goalie interference.
What another poster said. Challenge is for if the puck was in. Interference should be determined by refs on the ice as the play happens, it's up to them to determine whether or not contact was observed. If they call it, then it was obvious enough at game speed to warrant the call. No more goalies whining after the fact that there was contact then getting their way when they initiated it, cause then you get more embellishing like fleury did in order to make it not count.
