Sooo... Instant Replay. Why not?

[rares]

Did we have this discussion before and I missed it or something?

What are people's feelings/opinions on using instant replay in hockey?

With all these "sorry, all 4 officials completely missed it!" bullshit excuses (Torres/Hossa hit last night, Clowe's buffoonery touching the puck from the bench, Briere (was it?) goal offsides, etc.), I don't understand why you can't add some kind of instant reply/challenge system.

If you give coaches challenges, make it one per game. I think I've heard the "it'll make games take too long" argument but it just makes me laugh. It'll take a minute or two. Just like reviewing a goal from Toronto or whatever.

What reason does the NHL have, today, in 2012, for not allowing something like this, especially when other sports have "seen the light" and have adopted similar things?

Just stubbornness or are there some legit reasons?

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Did we have this discussion before and I missed it or something?

What are people's feelings/opinions on using instant replay in hockey?

With all these "sorry, all 4 officials completely missed it!" bullshit excuses (Torres/Hossa hit last night, Clowe's buffoonery touching the puck from the bench, etc.), I don't understand why you can't add some kind of instant reply/challenge system.

If you give coaches challenges, make it one per game. I think I've heard the "it'll make games take too long" argument but it just makes me laugh. It'll take a minute or two. Just like reviewing a goal from Toronto or whatever.

What reason does the NHL have, today, in 2012, for not allowing something like this, especially when other sports have "seen the light" and have adopted similar things?

Just stubbornness or are there some legit reasons?

the nhl does review things ie goal or no goal

i agree with you but i see the counterpoint that we are now venturing into reviewing subjective referee judgements on the spot (no matter how obvious the correct call should be to us) and btw .. who is doing that review on the spot??? Shanahan cant even get supplemetary discipline right & consistent with extended time for hearings and days to decide

 

[jstewismybastardson]

back to your bold point ... its like the nfl allowing a coaches challenge on PI penalties ... how is that gonna work?



/although ... the cfl is supposedly gonna try that this year ... so we might have an answer

 

[rares]

As for who... definitely good question.

Referees themselves can do the review... war room can help if they need the help.

I think my main point would be... if you're a referee, get over the "oh-shit-I-missed-a-call" phobia and make it right with the review.

Again, this would only possibly happen once per game, per team or something like that.

Clowe would get 2 minutes for interference if Sutter challenged and the Kings would have their 5-on-3. Torres would get his major and game misconduct or whatever and so on.

 

[rares]

back to your bold point ... its like the nfl allowing a coaches challenge on PI penalties ... how is that gonna work?

/although ... the cfl is supposedly gonna try that this year ... so we might have an answer

I wouldn't care/mind if they allowed PI challenges, TBH.. what's the big deal?

If it's an important enough play to you to burn one of your challenges on, go for it, coach.

It's still all hinging on when and how you use your limited challenges (in the NFL example).

In the NHL, I'd only give each team one.

And yes, if coach Q had already used his up last night before the Torres hit, he'd be SOL. That's fine.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I'm all in favor of adding instant replay for puck over the glass penalties, since these are 100% factual, with no judgment involved, but I don't like the idea of review for judgment calls.

 

[rares]

I'm all in favor of adding instant replay for puck over the glass penalties, since these are 100% factual, with no judgment involved, but I don't like the idea of review for judgment calls.

):

Why not? :p

 

[awaz]

why do you need reviews? from the way the flyers/pens series is going you'd think teams could just call penalties by reacting

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

):

Why not? :p

Because you can have 30 people look at a replay and 15 will tell you it's a penalty and 15 will say it's not, even when looking at the same angles.

Very hard to implement too, since play has moved on in many cases, assuming that we're talking about a non-call situation.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Because you can have 30 people look at a replay and 15 will tell you it's a penalty and 15 will say it's not, even when looking at the same angles.

Very hard to implement too, since play has moved on in many cases, assuming that we're talking about a non-call situation.

im just imagining last night ... Mike Murphy is in the war room watching the game and he gets a call to review the torres hit while the ref is standing at the box on the phone and the fans at the madhouse are doing what they do at the madhouse which is be mad

He watches it ... and he sees what "he thinks might" be torres shoulder maybe making initial contact with what looks like Hossas sternum but he reviews it frame by frame and sees that it was late ... so he says 2 minutes interference or charging because "it looks like" Torres left his feet ... that will certainly satisfy the fans at the madhouse

NHL has shown time and time again they fuck things up ... what makes anyone think they wont fuck this up

indecision is their forte'

 

[rares]

Because you can have 30 people look at a replay and 15 will tell you it's a penalty and 15 will say it's not, even when looking at the same angles.

Easy solution, though. Let the call (or non-call) on the ice stand then. You just lost your challenge. Game moves on.

Very hard to implement too, since play has moved on in many cases, assuming that we're talking about a non-call situation.

Yeah, somewhat difficult there but can always wait for whistle... or buzz one of the officials to have them whistle play dead (as soon as possible, not on a breakaway), etc.

But yeah, thanks for the feedback. You bring up good points for sure.

I don't have this all figured out, either.

I just wanted to see what others thought. I think it can definitely work. It won't be perfect (NFL's version isn't either) but I think it's worth looking into.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Easy solution, though. Let the call (or non-call) on the ice stand then. You just lost your challenge. Game moves on.

it would be hard to have conclusive evidence on something that can be so subjective ... im envisioning alot of lost challenges

 

[ritari330]

I think Refs should be allowed to use review for things they don't see. Not a missed call, but don't see at all.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I think Refs should be allowed to use review for things they don't see. Not a missed call, but don't see at all.

yup this is a great point ... all 4 officials somehow missed the hit last night

 

[mattola]

yup this is a great point ... all 4 officials somehow missed the hit last night

i dont know how. the replay has the linesman looking right at it behind them

 

[rares]

i dont know how. the replay has the linesman looking right at it behind them

Very good point. The Clowe interference replays also showed a couple officials looking towards the play, IIRC. Yet they said none of them saw it.

Bottom line, I think it's become too easy for them to use the "sorry, none of us saw it!" excuse to cover their asses.

This would help curb that a bit...

 

[jstewismybastardson]

errors of omission has always been the NHL refereeing philosophy lol

 

[mbhhofr]

There are over one thousand potential calls in a hockey game. As previously mentioned, 30 people looking at the same replay from different angles and in slow motion can't come to the same conclusion. Using replay to determine whether the puck crossed the goal line or not is ok. The game is played and officiated by humans on the ice. Players make bad passes and miss shots on a wide open net. Should they get a do over?

 

[IPostedWhat]

I think when the coach wants to challenge a play, he should throw a puck on the ice during play to let the refs know?

 

[awaz]

why not just allow linesman to call penalties? say they can only call penalties when there is something that clearly goes on behind the play where the refs, in all honesty, shouldn't be looking anyway (not pertaining to the hossa incident in particular, i havent seen a good clip of that aside from the gif in the other thread)

or, to go a little more in depth.. have them be allowed to blow the play dead (when the offending team touches the puck) if they think the ref missed a penalty.. then review that.