- 03/02/2011, 11:32AM ET
baby jeebus said 03/02, 11:32 AM
This season there was talk about implementing the coach's challenge in the NHL for unfavourable calls like they have the NFL. Should it happen next season?
First, they already have video review for questionable goals, and that works fine. No need to change that.
So what would the challenge be used for, poorly called penalties? Off-sides?
Penalties are subjective, it's not as clear cut as a puck crossing the goal line. What one person calls interference another would call...not interference..? And we can't have refs changing their calls when it comes to subjectivity, it has to be consistent.
Secondly, the only time the challenge would be used is if a 'potentially missed call' leads to a goal for the other team. Apart from the call itself being subjective, the question is when does a 'missed call' actually lead to a goal? Can a missed off-side in the other zone be the reason a goal was scored against you? This seems more like a 'get out of jail free' card.
In the next argument, I'll discuss why the challenge works for football, but would not work for hockey, if necessary.
BM. said 03/02, 12:41 PM
I like the idea of the coach's challenge, but on a very limited basis.
I think the coach should get one challenge per game. If they lose the challenge, they lose their timeout. If they have already used their timeout, they don't get to challenge anything.
The ref wouldn't go and look in a TV monitor, it would be dealt with the same way goal reviews are dealt with: The War Room in Toronto would review the play.
There are several different instances that I can think of that lead me to believe that the coach's challenge would have made a difference.
1. Colton Orr blatantly interfering with the goalie and deflecting a shot off his skate and into the net. It was the game-winning goal. Had the coach been allowed to challenge, the play would have been reversed and a goalie interference penalty would have been called, thus changing the whole game.
2. High sticking penalties (2 or 4 minutes). I have seen on several occasions that a player was hit in the face by the stick of his own teammate, and the other team was given a 4 minute high sticking penalty. This is something that must be addressed. A coach's challenge would make the play right.
Out of room, MTC!!
baby jeebus said 03/02, 06:45 PM
So, goalie interference.
Again, that can be subjective, even on review. Often, when goalies cry interference, it's their own teammates that pushed the guy into them, in which case no penalty. Or, a guy might be bumped by someone and he'll take a fall into the goalie, claiming he was pushed. It comes down to personal opinion. Unless it's blatantly obvious (in which case the refs will call it on the ice), I doubt a review would make any difference. I'd also point out that goals that are redirected off skates is already reviewed if it's deemed intentional.
High sticking penalties: my first thought was, what about other penalties? Only certain penalties can be reviewed? What about hitting from behind, 10 minute majors, game misconducts. So there are bad calls, what about missed calls, are those reviewable?
There has to be consistency. If you can review one penalty, you have to be able to review them all. There are just as many questionable tripping calls as there are high sticking. And again, a coach will only use a challenge if a goal was scored against him, attempting to reverse the call. In which case, it's not so much about the penalty as it is get out of jail free.
BM. said 03/02, 10:51 PM
"Or, a guy might be bumped by someone and he'll take a fall into the goalie, claiming he was pushed"
Maybe, but if the player skates over to the bench and tells the coach that he was pushed, the coach can challenge that play and have it overturned.
The point of the challenge is to give the coach the ability to have the refs take a second look at a play in order to determine whether or not the referee is correct. The coach or one of the players may have seen something that the referee missed.
"my first thought was, what about other penalties"
It wouldn't be limited to high sticking penalties. I was simply using that as an example because you see a lot more questionable high sticking calls than anything else. It could also be used to distinguish between boarding/charging/cross checking situations, because they are sometimes marginal as well.
Point is, the refs are not always correct. Everyone knows that. Bringing in the coach's challenge is not a perfect remedy, but it's a start. And really, what can it hurt? It will do a lot more good for the game than it will do bad.
Hell, they could even try it on a trial basis (one year maybe) and re-evaluate after that.
baby jeebus said 03/03, 05:42 PM
I just can't see reviewing penalties working. They don't review penalties in the NFL, they deal with bad calls. Roughing the passer is often one person's opinion over the other. You can't give refs the opportunity to change their calls just because the coach or the crowd doesn't like it, it compromises the integrity of the whole game.
If a player tells his coach he was actually pushed or not, doesn't change what the ref saw, or what the video camera shows. A refs idea of whether he made the right call or not will be influenced by a coach's challenge, or crowd response and have an affect on his review of the play. You can't have that.
If it's a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' like a goal or a first down, then it works. But if there is any grey area, like penalties, you have to make a call and stick to your guns.
BM. said 03/04, 12:24 PM
"They don't review penalties in the NFL, they deal with bad calls."
You can't really compare the NHL and the NFL as far as this goes. The NFL chooses not to review penalties because the entire game would be full of challenges, not to mention the fact that penalties in the NFL are usually pretty obvious. Things happen in the NHL at a much quicker pace and refs can miss a lot more calls.
"If a player tells his coach he was actually pushed or not, doesn't change what the ref saw"
It absolutely can change what the ref saw. If the refs were never wrong, coach's challenges wouldn't exist in any sports.
"But if there is any grey area, like penalties, you have to make a call and stick to your guns."
Again, if this were the case, there would not be coach's challenges in any sports. Refs make mistakes. They know it, and we know it. Coach's challenges should absolutely be a part of hockey for that reason.
Crowd response is irrelevant and does not have any bearing on this argument. The crowd always complains when a penalty is called against their team.
In conclusion, coach's challenges should exist, but on a limited level.
|2||7#bag _ Com||1098||333||88||75.2%|
|5||Dyhard is a certified stoner||54||25||3||67.7%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia