Why are officials allowed to video review flagrant fouls ?

[rmilia1]

Was thinking about this last night . Flagrant means obvious and excessive . By definition if something is obvious you shouldn't need review. If it's obvious you'd see it right away . I feel like the games take long enough as is without a 5 minute review each time a guy elbow goes up or a guy tries to block a shot but hits a guy on the head instead

 

[jontaejones]

Was thinking about this last night . Flagrant means obvious and excessive . By definition if something is obvious you shouldn't need review. If it's obvious you'd see it right away . I feel like the games take long enough as is without a 5 minute review each time a guy elbow goes up or a guy tries to block a shot but hits a guy on the head instead

The video reviews were ridiculous by the end of the season. I hope they don't ruin the tournament by taking 10 minutes to review each out of bounds play.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

Was thinking about this last night . Flagrant means obvious and excessive . By definition if something is obvious you shouldn't need review. If it's obvious you'd see it right away . I feel like the games take long enough as is without a 5 minute review each time a guy elbow goes up or a guy tries to block a shot but hits a guy on the head instead

Because of the impact. Potentially a player could earn a technical if it's egregious enough, but that is to the extreme side. They mainly want to cover their asses in the event a play or foul earned by the offending player impacts the outcome of a game.

That being said, I am not disagreeing with you. I think across the board replays/reviews have made games longer and over analyzed to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

It’s all a joke.

If you’re a star player, you can taunt and intentionally and excessively elbow a guy and only get a flagarant 1 with no tech.

While the guy you elbowed can celebrate that elbowing and get a T.

Even after a 5 minute review.

 

[huskers1217]

Was thinking about this last night . Flagrant means obvious and excessive . By definition if something is obvious you shouldn't need review. If it's obvious you'd see it right away . I feel like the games take long enough as is without a 5 minute review each time a guy elbow goes up or a guy tries to block a shot but hits a guy on the head instead

see "targeting" rule.

 

[redseat]

Need to see if there is "excessive" contact to head area... I see why they do it, it hasn't really slowed down the game has it? I don't think so

 

[rmilia1]

see "targeting" rule.

Targeting applies to all helmet to helmet hits though . These fpagrajt reviews do not . They only apply to obvious and excessive situations . I could see needing to review of contact was made to the head but not if OBVIOUS and excessive contact was made . The 2 rules aren't the same thing

 

[huskers1217]

Targeting applies to all helmet to helmet hits though . These fpagrajt reviews do not . They only apply to obvious and excessive situations . I could see needing to review of contact was made to the head but not if OBVIOUS and excessive contact was made . The 2 rules aren't the same thing

i was basing it more on the fact that replay sucks in both cases.

there are replays of clearly not targeting and its still called.

 

[BamaDude]

Was thinking about this last night . Flagrant means obvious and excessive . By definition if something is obvious you shouldn't need review. If it's obvious you'd see it right away . I feel like the games take long enough as is without a 5 minute review each time a guy elbow goes up or a guy tries to block a shot but hits a guy on the head instead

It doesn't usually take more than a couple of minutes for such a review to take place. It just seems longer because you are anxious for the game to continue, or the network decided it would be a good time to take a tv time-out.

Those are potentially impactful plays & they should be reviewed.