Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Should There Be A Coaches Challenge?


kinot-1

Recommended Posts

The more games you see, it seems that in every game there's one or two times that a call, or non-call, can affect the outcome of a game. Only the BOG can implement a coaches challenge into the rules. Sometimes the call, or non-call, is in your favour,,, sometimes not. Each team (but not all) in the NHL benefits from it. In close games, this could very well mean playoff positioning, ROWs, draft pick position, even trophy titles.

In the playoffs, every call/non-call is magnified. Generally they are close games and can mean the difference between moving on to the next round, or even winning the cup, some of us can remember the infamous Brett Hull's skate in the crease goal, in the Dallas/Buffalo game which gave Dallas the cup.

The technology has advanced enough that there are lots of camera angles to show if there is/was a call or non-call. They can slow it down frame by frame and get definitive proof of exactly what happened.

OK,, ya got all that?

The league's GMs are to meet in Florida tomorrow, and it's supposedly on the agenda. The league has been saying that it wants to speed up the game,,, but at what cost?

Now, to the coaches challenge. Would/should there be a limit per game on how many coaches challenges in each game? What happens if the coach is wrong, should a 2 min. delay of game be appropriate?

Here are some examples of calls/non-calls, each of them could have had an effect on the score.

Watch at :60 secs.

Dekeyser gets high-sticked, should have been 4 mins.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDOur-sL1Rk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for a coaches challenge and i'm not sure i would limit them. I think a delay of game penalty would be appropriate if its overturned.

Reffing in this league has been atrocious at times. There is no excuse for it with the technology available these days. Time for the NHL to join the rest of us in this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, htl, it's one thing to get a hooking, tripping, or other call wrong, but it's quite another when it affects the outcome.

Here's 2 more examples:

The puck hit the netting, Detroit scores, it counts, when it shouldn't have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjEhhfVbQHs

Or this dubious call, where the Caps' Holtby trips himself (goal is scored, but it's taken back) and Detroit gets called for tripping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-Hx2Wj1uQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

The more games you see, it seems that in every game there's one or two times that a call, or non-call, can affect the outcome of a game. Only the BOG can implement a coaches challenge into the rules. Sometimes the call, or non-call, is in your favour,,, sometimes not. Each team (but not all) in the NHL benefits from it. In close games, this could very well mean playoff positioning, ROWs, draft pick position, even trophy titles.

In the playoffs, every call/non-call is magnified. Generally they are close games and can mean the difference between moving on to the next round, or even winning the cup, some of us can remember the infamous Brett Hull's skate in the crease goal, in the Dallas/Buffalo game which gave Dallas the cup.

The technology has advanced enough that there are lots of camera angles to show if there is/was a call or non-call. They can slow it down frame by frame and get definitive proof of exactly what happened.

OK,, ya got all that?

The league's GMs are to meet in Florida tomorrow, and it's supposedly on the agenda. The league has been saying that it wants to speed up the game,,, but at what cost?

Now, to the coaches challenge. Would/should there be a limit per game on how many coaches challenges in each game? What happens if the coach is wrong, should a 2 min. delay of game be appropriate?

Here are some examples of calls/non-calls, each of them could have had an effect on the score.

The league wants to speed up the games so they can squeeze more TV commercials into the 3 hours alloted to play the game. The Super Bowl consumes 4 hours to play a 60 minute game because of commercials. Greed is the name of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball's losing fans because it has poor broadcast partners, it ignored the changing demographics in the States, and gambling on football is a lot more popular than gambling on baseball. The games could be six hours if people wanted to bet on them. They'd make more in ad revenue, too. Coaches challenges in the NHL would add a paltry amount of time to a game, so that's a pretty poor "argument" against it. "Entertainment" value isn't as important as getting this stuff right. If you're entertained by thrown games and stuff like this, then maintain status quo:








I could post another 30 to 40 videos with five minutes of searching. If I went back to the archives with Gamecentre I could fill three pages with last season alone.

This isn't acceptable. This is supposedly the highest level of hockey in the world. Absolutely nothing is "well" about NHL officiating. I question how anyone who watches even 5 NHL games a year would not support a challenge system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to like the idea of the coach's challenge, but I just don't know how they would implement it. I mean sometimes it's cut and dry - checking for goaltender interference after a goal, for example. That sounds great.

Now say that in Team A's zone, someone from Team B high sticks someone from A (missed call), steals the puck, they break out of the zone and score on a breakaway. Can that goal be overturned? Now what if the same penalty takes place but instead of scoring on the breakaway Team B gains the zone and cycles the puck for 45 seconds before they score. Can that be challenged? What happens to the game clock? The missed high-stick may not have directly led to the goal, but it sure leaves team A feeling pretty slighted.

The coach's challenge system works in baseball and football because each of those sports is made up of individual, separate plays with long pauses in between. I just don't know how you make it work in hockey. Maybe you could put in some wording saying that something could only be challenged if it directly leads to a goal or something like that, but that still leaves a whole lot of grey area.

So again, while I really want to like the idea of a coach's challenge I just don't know how they'd do it in a fair way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to like the idea of the coach's challenge, but I just don't know how they would implement it. I mean sometimes it's cut and dry - checking for goaltender interference after a goal, for example. That sounds great.

Now say that in Team A's zone, someone from Team B high sticks someone from A (missed call), steals the puck, they break out of the zone and score on a breakaway. Can that goal be overturned? Now what if the same penalty takes place but instead of scoring on the breakaway Team B gains the zone and cycles the puck for 45 seconds before they score. Can that be challenged? What happens to the game clock? The missed high-stick may not have directly led to the goal, but it sure leaves team A feeling pretty slighted.

The coach's challenge system works in baseball and football because each of those sports is made up of individual, separate plays with long pauses in between. I just don't know how you make it work in hockey. Maybe you could put in some wording saying that something could only be challenged if it directly leads to a goal or something like that, but that still leaves a whole lot of grey area.

So again, while I really want to like the idea of a coach's challenge I just don't know how they'd do it in a fair way.

I totally agree with semantics that if not done the right way, it would prolong games. That could shift momentum and have a drastic influence on games.

I'd be all for a coaches challenge if done correctly, so calls aren't challeneged after every whistle or every call.

I'd be inclined to do something like this:

1)limit the amount of challenges per game, maybe like the TO, only have 1

2)a penalty is issued for delay of game if a call is challeneged and upon video review find that the ref was right

With limiting the challenges to 1, coaches wouldn't be so quick to challenege after every whistle. Also with only having 1 challenege, they're going to be less reluctant to use it up early, unless a blatant call was made.

If a delay of game penalty is issued for challenging, When call on the ice was right, like in football, coaches wouldn't be so quick to challenege, they'd have to be almost 99% sure of themselves or they'll be putting themselves behind the 8 ball. Much like with the illegal curve, we know players play with them all the time, but rarely ever seen. Look at the Kings/Habs game when demers called for a stick check late in the game. After the penalty was issued, you can clearly see several Hab players changing their sticks.

If you limit the challenges per game and issue a DOG penalty for challenging a right call, we might not see very many challenges, which in turn wouldn't really affect the length of the game.

On another point, if we're checking every call through video review, then what would we need with refs?

Basically we'd be lengthening the game and eliminating the need for 2 refs and 2 linesmen. Always need a ref/lm to drop the puck and break up scrums/fights.

I don't believe every call should go to video review. But let's say on an OT goal in the playoffs, sure Hasek would've loved video review, or something else meaningful, then I'd at least try and find ways to introduce it, without slowing down the game.

Baseball is already slow enough to begin with, reviewing every call is just ridiculous.

It bugs me that a blown call in the 90's, between the Sabres and Blues, influenced the outcome of the playoffs. That's what I'd like to eliminate, having crucial games decided by made up, blown or ignored calls.

I kind of like the human error thing, can work for or against, but an error should not dictate a cup winner. To me that ruins the entire season, it all came down to 1 blown call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball's losing fans because it has poor broadcast partners, it ignored the changing demographics in the States, and gambling on football is a lot more popular than gambling on baseball. The games could be six hours if people wanted to bet on them. They'd make more in ad revenue, too. Coaches challenges in the NHL would add a paltry amount of time to a game, so that's a pretty poor "argument" against it. "Entertainment" value isn't as important as getting this stuff right. If you're entertained by thrown games and stuff like this, then maintain status quo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6O08e2EWtQ%5B/media%5D%C2%A0%5Bmedia%5Dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHisYm9bgR4%5B/media%5D%C2%A0%5Bmedia%5Dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WprLhW1Zdew%5B/media%5D%C2%A0%5Bmedia%5Dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELztj_bydxI%5B/media%5D%C2%A0I'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6O08e2EWtQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHisYm9bgR4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WprLhW1Zdew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELztj_bydxI

I could post another 30 to 40 videos with five minutes of searching. If I went back to the archives with Gamecentre I could fill three pages with last season alone. This isn't acceptable. This is supposedly the highest level of hockey in the world. Absolutely nothing is "well" about NHL officiating. I question how anyone who watches even 5 NHL games a year would not support a challenge system
Some look blatant, some are questionable and some should never happen. I would never completely eliminate refs and put all the power in the hands of the video review board, because then you'd have those accusing them of being biased and that would just introduce the challenge of video review, it would never stop.

Just to add to my previous post, sticking with my original thought by only allowing 1 challenge, per team, per game.

You'd only use it when absolutely sure the ref missed something.

I remember a game where the puck actually went into the netting, none of the officials saw it, the defending players did, so they stopped skating and a goal was scored as a result. That would be the perfect time for a challenge.

You can't challenge missed calls, so forget that, those will always be a topic for debate. Unless it directly led to a goal and can't be behind the play or have happened 1 minute earlier, has to be in the same sequence. Like with the Emelin headshot.

For me, these are the things I'd like challeneged. And you still only get 1/game and if wrong, you get a penalty

1)blown call

2)goal scored during an offside or puck leaving the ice surface, even momentarily (puck hit netting, player on bench, etc...)

3)goaltender interference or tender equipment malfunction like we saw the other night with Tokes mask.

4)or a missed call in crease that directly led to a goal (like with the Hull/Hasek foot in crease fiasco)

For #4, let's say there is a goal mouth scramble, dman has it between his feet, offensive player can poke it out, so he slew foots/up ends the defender (trip or stick under blade), defender on his back and offensive player has an easy tap in. Ref doesn't see the slew foot/trip and allows the goal to count.

The others are pretty clear cut.

During that Sabres/Blues playoff series when the Blues won on a blown call, I was upset all summer. I was actually cheering on the Blues, Sabres were Hab rivals back then, but didn't like how the cup was decided. I was happy for Hull and the Blues, but not happy with how the winning goal was scored. To me, I felt like I had wasted the last year watching a season and post season that was decided on a blown call and for those that saw it, it was pretty obvious. ref was in the corner and could clearly see that Hull was very close if not in Hasek's blue paint. The ref made no attempt to get closer to see if Hull was actually in the blue paint. Also it wasn't as if Hull got there a split second earlier, he was literally standing in the blue paint waiting for the pass.

One of worst blown calls in playoff history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to the whole delay of game thing.

Goal is scored, team challenges says there was interference (goalie) on the play.

Upon further review if they find no goaltender interference, then the goal counts and not only are you down by a goal, you're down a man for 2 mins for getting the challenge wrong.

That would greatly reduce the amount of challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Sportsnet: At the BOG meeting yesterday, GMs were shown 3 instances of goals from last years POs. (different games) . Those 3 were determined to be non-goals by the BOG, but yet they were good goals on the ice and video review, during the game. The BOG said they "want to get it right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

1 challenge per team per game per predetermined guidlines which can be changed periodically as a history of challenges is accumulated. No penalty if the ref's call is deemed correct. The ref's make bad/wrong calls all the time and they go unpenalized therefore I can't see penalizing a team. The team would lose/use up their challenge in the same way they use their timeouts. The challenge call would have to used strategically by the coach. The game is too fast for everyone to always get it right the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the challenge should be used for every call or missed call. If it leads directly to a goal, then that's what i assumed the challenge would be used for. Example would be a missed offside or other infraction that isn't currently reviewed. I certainly wouldn't want to see it used for something like a missed penalty. Heaven forbid if they stopped play for every missed penalty call. Refs in this league are so bad it would take forever to review all their mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 challenge per team per game per predetermined guidlines which can be changed periodically as a history of challenges is accumulated. No penalty if the ref's call is deemed correct. The ref's make bad/wrong calls all the time and they go unpenalized therefore I can't see penalizing a team. The team would lose/use up their challenge in the same way they use their timeouts. The challenge call would have to used strategically by the coach. The game is too fast for everyone to always get it right the first time.

The only reason I suggested penalizing is because without it, teams may just try a "Hail Mary" when trailing late in a game or to rest players.

If a challenge is made, there has to be enough doubt, without consequence for being wrong, like I said, teams will exploit the rule late in games. They already have 1 timeout and if they use that up earlier, they may try to challenge to get a 2nd time out.

So I stand by the delay-of-game penalty for a challenge that was proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the challenge should be used for every call or missed call. If it leads directly to a goal, then that's what i assumed the challenge would be used for. Example would be a missed offside or other infraction that isn't currently reviewed. I certainly wouldn't want to see it used for something like a missed penalty. Heaven forbid if they stopped play for every missed penalty call. Refs in this league are so bad it would take forever to review all their mistakes.

Only a missed penalty that directly leads to a goal, like with the burrows hit on Emelin. Not a missed trip in the dzone, puck comes up the ice, they pass it around, fight in the corners and when play stops, the defending team challenges?

Had to directly lead to a goal or for a penalty where the penalized team feels they were shafted. Could also be used to curve diving. A team is penalized for high sticking, but the guilty party knows for a fact he didn't get the stick up, the player simply felt the stick hit his chest and he throws his head back to draw a penalty.

The offside goals for sure, need a challenge there.

How many times have we been scored on where the puck crossed after the opposing team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

The only reason I suggested penalizing is because without it, teams may just try a "Hail Mary" when trailing late in a game or to rest players.

If a challenge is made, there has to be enough doubt, without consequence for being wrong, like I said, teams will exploit the rule late in games. They already have 1 timeout and if they use that up earlier, they may try to challenge to get a 2nd time out.

So I stand by the delay-of-game penalty for a challenge that was proven wrong.

Teams will be afraid to challenge late in the game fearing they'll be penalized if they're wrong. I also don't believe a wrong challenge should give the opposition a power play. To bring in the coach's challenge they can do away with the timeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the challenge should be used for every call or missed call. If it leads directly to a goal, then that's what i assumed the challenge would be used for. Example would be a missed offside or other infraction that isn't currently reviewed. I certainly wouldn't want to see it used for something like a missed penalty. Heaven forbid if they stopped play for every missed penalty call. Refs in this league are so bad it would take forever to review all their mistakes.

But what is the definition of 'leads directly to a goal'? I mean if two guys break in and score on the rush and one is offside, yeah, that's obvious. But what if there's a missed offside and then the puck goes in 10 seconds later without having left the zone? 20 seonds? A minute? It's a real grey area.

The only way I can see this being used is for something like goalie interference after a goal is scored. In that particular case I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...