Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
offsides wrote:Don't like it. It will start with one challenge but grow. A coach will use his challenge but another bad play will happen and it just won't be fair if they can't challenge it. Someone will lose a game on a bad call after using their challenge and the cry will come for allowing more challenges. I like the way hockey is now. Just accept the good with the bad, play through the bad stuff and take advantage of the good stuff. In the playoffs a best of 7 will not be lost on one bad call.
yubb wrote:I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.
However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?
The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.
yubb wrote:However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
NashvilleCat wrote:yubb wrote:I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.
However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?
The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.
So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?
NashvilleCat wrote:yubb wrote:I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.
However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?
The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.
So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?
Idoit40fans wrote:NashvilleCat wrote:yubb wrote:I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.
However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?
The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.
So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?
I have never seen a game in which there were two plays like that Briere play or the Duchene play. In the event that there were two of them though, I'd suggest that you can use your timeout for one challenge. If you win that challenge, you get a second challenge, and if you use that and lose, you take a delay of game penalty. If you take a timeout, you cannot challenge. If you're arguing that it hardly ever happens, exactly. Why not have the challenge their to correct it when that call is blown?
yubb wrote:I believe that there are calls that go both ways, ones that are missed, ones that are called when no penalty takes places and that it generally evens out. It has to; it's just odds, like gambling, where overall the numbers even out
yubb wrote:NashvilleCat wrote:yubb wrote:I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.
However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?
And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?
The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.
So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?
Very good point. But it depends on the scope of what a coach can challenge. If you can only challenge off-sides like the examples we've been using, then 1) it wouldn't happen that much, so having the challenge wouldn't make a big difference. but 2) is that really all we're talking about? Are we only worried about goals scored on off-sides plays?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests