Truth & Rumors > NHL

The coach's challenge coming to hockey?

Views
1786
Comments
50

07:51 AM ET 01.22 | To what extent is there an appetite for the NHL to expand video review? Pierre LeBrun: I think more than ever. It's all about timing and I can tell you right now that it's on the GM's agenda in March when they will again tackle this. But this time, I think the league might finally get its way. ... Bob McKenzie: I believe that Detroit goal on Saturday night was the tipping point for general managers. GMs in the past have overwhelmingly been against expanding video review but after Saturday night, I surveyed 23 NHL GMs and 22 of them said we cannot have a repeat of what happened on Saturday night. The one GM who didn't say that said they have to discuss what they're going to do. Now, how exactly they go about that is the controversial aspect. Some guys want the coach's challenge.

TSN.ca

Gary Bettman, Icon Sports Gary Bettman, Icon Sports
January 22, 2014  08:25 AM ET

Noooooo!!!

Comment #2 has been removed
January 22, 2014  08:54 AM ET

I think everyone can agree the DET goal on Saturday should not have counted.

Problem is in defining the parameters of what is reviewable. This gets messy.

If you want to expand the review process to go beyond "did the puck completely cross the goal line", what is reviewable?

The DET goal should not have counted because the puck hit the mesh behind the goal. Should have been blown dead. So you want to include that as reviewable. Fair enough, but how far back should the review go? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? A minute?

Maybe the rule should be "any play is reviewable to determine if the puck ever left the ice area". But that leads to the other problem (which became an issue in the playoffs last year), "did the defensive team shoot the puck over the glass"? Should that be reviewable?

Comment #4 has been removed
January 22, 2014  09:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Speaking of review, would anybody like to change their Leaf elimination dates? :)

My Landscaper says it is in November

Comment #6 has been removed
January 22, 2014  09:40 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Just have every goal automatically reviewed the second the ref calls it a goal or no-goal and we have no problem.

why wasnt it reviewable?

January 22, 2014  09:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Speaking of review, would anybody like to change their Leaf elimination dates? :)

Unfortunately, no. Gardiner is still allowed to touch the puck, so I am sticking with my original call.

January 22, 2014  09:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Speaking of review, would anybody like to change their Leaf elimination dates? :)

I would <raises hand>.
I confess to being mean, cruel and irrational when picking today as the day....or was it next week?

If you offer up such kindness, I would say they make it in as a 6 seed.

Comment #10 has been removed
Comment #11 has been removed
January 22, 2014  09:47 AM ET

Go Eugenie!!

Comment #13 has been removed
January 22, 2014  09:49 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

I think everyone can agree the DET goal on Saturday should not have counted.Problem is in defining the parameters of what is reviewable. This gets messy.If you want to expand the review process to go beyond "did the puck completely cross the goal line", what is reviewable?The DET goal should not have counted because the puck hit the mesh behind the goal. Should have been blown dead. So you want to include that as reviewable. Fair enough, but how far back should the review go? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? A minute?Maybe the rule should be "any play is reviewable to determine if the puck ever left the ice area". But that leads to the other problem (which became an issue in the playoffs last year), "did the defensive team shoot the puck over the glass"? Should that be reviewable?

Well put.

If there is any question about a goal, it should be reviewed. If there is a question about the defense shooting the puck into the stands it should be reviewed.

I think that unless the play resulted in a stoppage it shouldn't be reviewed unless it is about a goal.

The other side of the review was a goal in Pittsburgh the other night. The goal made it 4 - 1 instead of 3 -1, but it took them a long time to decide. They had to figure out if the puck did indeed go across the line. It did, but it should have only taken them a minute to decide that, then they had to figure out if it went off a skate. It did, but there was no kicking motion so the goal was good. What took them so long is beyond me and anyone else who was watching the review.

January 22, 2014  09:51 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Speaking of review, would anybody like to change their Leaf elimination dates? :)

I don't know what you sacrificed to the Hockey Gods (obviously not a virgin) but it seems to be working. :(

January 22, 2014  09:52 AM ET

please no.

Comment #17 has been removed
January 22, 2014  10:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

My pet goat had an expiry date, anyway.

And you probably got tired of Kadri phoning trying to date her.

Comment #19 has been removed
 
January 22, 2014  10:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Nah, you're effin out man.

Thank You.

Leafs ****

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2695
    Comments
    866
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    2830
    Comments
    809
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2374
    Comments
    527
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    4825
    Comments
    329
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2213
    Comments
    139

SI.com

SI Photos