coach"s challenge....like it? hate it?

[moondart]

The proposal for next year for the "coach's challenge"...whatcha think?

[jayv8227]

Hate it in the NFL, hate it here.

[Idoit40fans]

I think it is stupid if they don't add the opportunity to make a challenge. That said, I think it would be stupid if they allowed more than one challenge per team per game.

[Fire0nice228]

I like it, but its hard to say how it would work. If a team is offsides and goes right in and scores immediately yeah its easy to challenge..but if they're offsides, have 30 seconds of zone control, and THEN score..what do you do? Make it so the coach has to throw their flag or however they will initiate it within 5 seconds of the infraction? If its a delayed penalty and the team scores on the delay and then the coach challenges and its not really a penalty (high sticked by his own player for example) do they take the goal back and add time? Etc.

So many scenarios where I just dont think it will work in hockey. The game is too fluid and doesnt stop after every play to give time to be reviewed.

[mikey287]

Dislike.

[meecrofilm]

There should be one, and it should only be allowed to challenge match penalties for hits to the head.

[shmenguin]

I'm totally fine with it, conceptually. The parameters are a little dicey, but it would right some significant wrongs. The cost would be what - a couple of minutes of review?

[shmenguin]

Hate it in the NFL, hate it here.

Why, because they still screw up the call sometimes, even after review? Doesn't happen nearly enough to negate its worth.

[pcm]

Why should the coaches be involved in refereeing the game? I much prefer the "ref in the sky [booth]" idea that would place a 3rd ref in front of cameras able to make (some) calls on ice.

[jayv8227]

Because in my humble opinion all the replays in the NFL have slowed the game to the point where it's darn near unwatchable. You have to sit through 4.5 hours of television time for what, 10 minutes of action?

I love the NHL because it's fast paced. I don't want to see that pace slowed for an occasional missed offsides call; and I do realize what a missed offsides call did to the Pens last April...

I guess I don't feel enough calls are screwed up to warrant it.

[moondart]

Because in my humble opinion all the replays in the NFL have slowed the game to the point where it's darn near unwatchable. You have to sit through 4.5 hours of television time for what, 10 minutes of action?

That's why you limit it to 1 per game. And, if it's not overturned, you get a delay of game penality. ala illegal curve stick checks.

[ffemtreed]

I don't see a need for it in the NHL. Any iffy goal is already reviewed and the occasional missed offside or whatever calls will = themselves out eventually for the teams. Its not like the NFL when you can just pause until the next play to make sure you got it right, in the NHL way too much stuff has already happened before you get a chance to stop and look back.

[moondart]

I don't see a need for it in the NHL. Any iffy goal is already reviewed and the occasional missed offside or whatever calls will = themselves out eventually for the teams.

The Brierre "offsides" goal is my case in point...not that the Pens woulda won the series, but that was horrid. Counting on the series "equaling itself out" is wishful thinking.

[Rylan]

I don't see a need for it in the NHL. Any iffy goal is already reviewed and the occasional missed offside or whatever calls will = themselves out eventually for the teams.

The Brierre "offsides" goal is my case in point...not that the Pens woulda won the series, but that was horrid. Counting on the series "equaling itself out" is wishful thinking.

That's the only time in my life I can recall this ever happening. Just have the league make goals resulting from a close offsides be reviewed. There is no need in hockey for challenges


Edit: And the recent Duchene goal, still a small sample size

[shmenguin]

bad goalie interference calls have regularly influenced games. same for bad major penalty calls. there's plenty of value in a theoretical replay system.

[Rylan]

bad goalie interference calls have regularly influenced games. same for bad major penalty calls. there's plenty of value in a theoretical replay system.

Those are part of the game. Even a bad offsides call is part of the game. But no point sitting there playing games with this. The majors happen occasionally but you shouldn't set a precedent that any type of penalties can be challenged and goalie interference might as well be a dead puck play. Shouldn't be reviewed

[shmenguin]

the "part of the game" argument is weak, imo - just like in baseball with blown umpire calls. if it can be fixed, it should be fixed. imperfections aren't that charming.

but the devil is in the details, obviously. i haven't thought too much about specifics of a replay system, but conceptually, i don't see how anyone could be against it. just like i don't understand how anyone would want the NFL system to go away. that's just craziness to me.

[Idoit40fans]

bad goalie interference calls have regularly influenced games. same for bad major penalty calls. there's plenty of value in a theoretical replay system.

Those are part of the game. Even a bad offsides call is part of the game. But no point sitting there playing games with this. The majors happen occasionally but you shouldn't set a precedent that any type of penalties can be challenged and goalie interference might as well be a dead puck play. Shouldn't be reviewed

Using your free hand to stop a faster player going around you was a part of the game. The two line pass was part of the game. Blindside shots to the head where a big part of the game. Many people's favorite part in fact.

[Rylan]

bad goalie interference calls have regularly influenced games. same for bad major penalty calls. there's plenty of value in a theoretical replay system.

Those are part of the game. Even a bad offsides call is part of the game. But no point sitting there playing games with this. The majors happen occasionally but you shouldn't set a precedent that any type of penalties can be challenged and goalie interference might as well be a dead puck play. Shouldn't be reviewed

Using your free hand to stop a faster player going around you was a part of the game. The two line pass was part of the game. Blindside shots to the head where a big part of the game. Many people's favorite part in fact.

Things that happened significantly more often than a bad offsides call resulting in a goal or these bad goalie interference calls.

If you want to have these things review-able by the league that is fine. As I stated, the need for a coach's challenge is not needed in hockey. There are not enough situations to warrant the ability. But if you want the league to take a few seconds to check out the offsides goals, sure. As for goalie interference, that is a play that is made (or not made) by the discretion of the ref. Let the refs referee penalties.

[moondart]

bad goalie interference calls have regularly influenced games. same for bad major penalty calls. there's plenty of value in a theoretical replay system.

Those are part of the game. Even a bad offsides call is part of the game. But no point sitting there playing games with this. The majors happen occasionally but you shouldn't set a precedent that any type of penalties can be challenged and goalie interference might as well be a dead puck play. Shouldn't be reviewed

Using your free hand to stop a faster player going around you was a part of the game. The two line pass was part of the game. Blindside shots to the head where a big part of the game. Many people's favorite part in fact.

Things that happened significantly more often than a bad offsides call resulting in a goal or these bad goalie interference calls.

If you want to have these things review-able by the league that is fine. As I stated, the need for a coach's challenge is not needed in hockey. There are not enough situations to warrant the ability. But if you want the league to take a few seconds to check out the offsides goals, sure. As for goalie interference, that is a play that is made (or not made) by the discretion of the ref. Let the refs referee penalties.

Soooo...you want the league to police itself? Lol. They have done such a great job with everything else that they manage...lol.

[yubb]

It would slow the game down too much. The worst part of hockey, for me, is the stoppages in play. This is for simple things like icing and offsides. The stoppages in play is the main reason I don't like football.

A coach's challenge would add another stoppage, and a longer one. You can expect that to take at least five minutes. You'd have a few minutes of the coach explaning what he's challenging, the ref explaining this to the other coach, the actual review, the arguing about the call. It wouldn't be quick.

The argument about everything equaling itself out shouldn't be so easily dismissed either. There are tons of infractions that aren't called. And while it's tempting to want to press rewind on the major ones (Brierre, Duchene), they aren't that common. You'd be changing the fundamental flow of the game for two plays out of a thousand. I know there are others, but truly game-changing missed or blown calls don't happen that often. They may seem like they do, though, simply because of how much they can sway the game.

And this is going on the assumption that the review would actually get the call right. How many calls would let the "ruling on the ice" stand because of inconclusive evidence? In football you have to throw the flag before the next play starts. How would that work in hockey? Next stoppage in play, several minutes later, throw the flag, reverse the call and add the time back on the clock? Or just let everything else that happened after the call in question stand (even goals, penalties, etc.)?

The more I think about it, the sillier it sounds. Until we can have lasers and robots officiate, learn to live with an occassional bad call with game-changing significance.

[Idoit40fans]

You're right, they should probably get rid of coaches timeouts as well.

[the wicked child]

In general, not a huge fan of the idea. However, if the coach loses his TO if the challenge is unsuccessful (and cannot challenge if they already used their TO), it would be a rare occurrence. Additionally, it should be limited in scope.

[yubb]

You're right, they should probably get rid of coaches timeouts as well.

Non sequitur.

The premise isn't that there shouldn't be any stoppages in play, but that the cost of adding another stoppage doesn't outweigh the chance of a reversal of an incorrect call made on the ice. If you could guarantee that the correct call would always be made during review, perhaps it would be worth it. But some of the time there won't be enough evidence to make the right call and some of the time they'll just plain get it wrong.

[NashvilleCat]

It would slow the game down too much. The worst part of hockey, for me, is the stoppages in play. This is for simple things like icing and offsides. The stoppages in play is the main reason I don't like football.

A coach's challenge would add another stoppage, and a longer one. You can expect that to take at least five minutes. You'd have a few minutes of the coach explaning what he's challenging, the ref explaining this to the other coach, the actual review, the arguing about the call. It wouldn't be quick.

The argument about everything equaling itself out shouldn't be so easily dismissed either. There are tons of infractions that aren't called. And while it's tempting to want to press rewind on the major ones (Brierre, Duchene), they aren't that common. You'd be changing the fundamental flow of the game for two plays out of a thousand. I know there are others, but truly game-changing missed or blown calls don't happen that often. They may seem like they do, though, simply because of how much they can sway the game.

And this is going on the assumption that the review would actually get the call right. How many calls would let the "ruling on the ice" stand because of inconclusive evidence? In football you have to throw the flag before the next play starts. How would that work in hockey? Next stoppage in play, several minutes later, throw the flag, reverse the call and add the time back on the clock? Or just let everything else that happened after the call in question stand (even goals, penalties, etc.)?

The more I think about it, the sillier it sounds. Until we can have lasers and robots officiate, learn to live with an occassional bad call with game-changing significance.

One challenge a game isn't going to ruin the pace of the game. They already have stoppages to review questionable goals and it seems to work just fine.

As for waiting for a stoppage of play to go back and review something - why would a coach waste his challenge on an offside or any other play if it didn't result in a goal? There would be natural breaks for this.

As for living with game changing goals? I don't buy it. Go back to last post season and take away Danny Briere's goal. We might not have won that series but I'd like to take that goal off the board and see what happens. If not for the game at least to deny Danny the Dirty Diver a goal.

If you can get it right then get it right. One challenge a game isn't going to ruin the flow and maybe the video is inconclusive or misread but at least you have a chance to get big things fixed.