Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
jayv8227 wrote:Hate it in the NFL, hate it here.
jayv8227 wrote: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?
ffemtreed wrote: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.
moondart wrote:ffemtreed wrote: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.
shmenguin wrote: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 wrote:shmenguin wrote: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
Idoit40fans wrote:Rylan wrote:shmenguin wrote: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 wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Rylan wrote:shmenguin wrote: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.
Idoit40fans wrote:You're right, they should probably get rid of coaches timeouts as well.
yubb wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests