An idea so this doesnt happen again

[wingfanatic4alltime 32]

Ok not every goal is reviewable which imo is a absolute joke so my buddy and me were having this discussion after the game and i came up with the idea like in football coaches can challenge calls. For example the holmer goal yes its non reviewable but if you allow a coach 1 or 2 challanges a game and have the refs review the video of that play. Yes it would slow the game down but i think everyone on this board would rather put up with a 10 minute delay and have the refs get the call right then not even reviewing the play and having the play change the series.

Now im not saying dallas is going to win in fact im pretty sure we are going to wrap it up saturday.

So what do you guys think?

[<nightwing> 0]

Ok not every goal is reviewable which imo is a absolute joke so my buddy and me were having this discussion after the game and i came up with the idea like in football coaches can challenge calls. For example the holmer goal yes its non reviewable but if you allow a coach 1 or 2 challanges a game and have the refs review the video of that play. Yes it would slow the game down but i think everyone on this board would rather put up with a 10 minute delay and have the refs get the call right then not even reviewing the play and having the play change the series.

Now im not saying dallas is going to win in fact im pretty sure we are going to wrap it up saturday.

So what do you guys think?

i like your idea!, i would go with one challange per game otherwise it could get out of hand.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

Or just make every goal reviewable.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Well, you're not the first to think of the idea, but the major roadblock is, how do you penalize a team whose coach got the challenge wrong? In football they lose timeouts, but hockey teams rarely use their one timeout and its loss isn't a big deal anyway.

[C-Dub 0]

I vote no on that one. I like that every GOAL is reviewed but the problem with Homers interference call is that the goal did not count. hence, it cannot be reviewed. Just like in the NFL, where you cannot challenge penalties, the NHL would implement a similar thing. If you could review anything we'd be there for a while. Hence, the only thing worth challenging would be a goal and they are reviewed already anyway. There is no need for challenges then.

There are too many issues surrounding challenging a play like Homer's, BUT, the fact is the ref should have seen that clearly Homer did nothing and the goal should have counted. Like they used to say in the beer commercials, "It is a shame and a mockery!"

[tommingthepuck96 1]

Well, you're not the first to think of the idea, but the major roadblock is, how do you penalize a team whose coach got the challenge wrong? In football they lose timeouts, but hockey teams rarely use their one timeout and its loss isn't a big deal anyway.

2 minute minor for delay of game.

[Doggy 130]

Or just make every goal reviewable.

Yeah challenges are not necessary. If high sticks are reviewable then goalie interference should be.

[imisssergei 0]

Yeah challenges are not necessary. If high sticks are reviewable then goalie interference should be.

The only problem with that is goaltender interference is a judgment call most of the time. There are guidelines, and for the most part is pretty easy to call, but you can't really review it. It's not a black and white call like a high stick is.

[toby91_ca 620]

EVERY goal is reviewed from a video replay judge, but most of the time, this is simply to make sure the puck went into the net. I'm not sure if video replay would be extremely useful on a play like goaltender interference because it is so subjective. For example, if the ref called interference, the video replay judge would have to see something conclusive to overturn that call. What would be conclusive? I know many may think it is easy to tell, but I'm not so sure.

Not sure I like the coaches challenge idea either, this isn't football, the game and pace of the game is completely different.

Also, a disallowed goal should not change a series, especially when one team is up 3-0. I can see it being a huge deal in the 7th game, which is tied, but this doesn't change the series.

[Doggy 130]

The only problem with that is goaltender interference is a judgment call most of the time. There are guidelines, and for the most part is pretty easy to call, but you can't really review it. It's not a black and white call like a high stick is.

How is being in the crease and/or touching the goalie a jugdment call? On a replay it's very much black and white and much, much easier to see than most high stick calls. You basically need the perfect camera angle if its close.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Doggy

[Hank 0]

i like your idea!, i would go with one challange per game otherwise it could get out of hand.

Yup. And if you're overruled you lose your only timeout.

But people need to stop bitching about that Homer non-goal. We got away with one earlier and this one didn't swing our way so it's even.

I like the human aspect of games and that means mistakes are going to be made.

As soon as you start reviewing every goal, the game slows down and you drain the game of any momentum or spontenaity. Pretty soon players will stop celebrating and simply skate to the bench to see if it's a goal or not.

I know NHL officiating can be frustrating at times but these are the best refs in the world. Watch any IIHF World Championship games and you'll see what I mean. The officiating internationally is atrocious.

Dallas outplayed us last night - plain and simple. They deserved the win and probably would have won with or without the Datsyuk goal counting.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Hank

[toby91_ca 620]

How is being in the crease and/or touching the goalie a jugdment call? On a replay it's very much black and white and much, much easier to see than most high stick calls. You basically need the perfect camera angle if its close.

Because being in the crease and/or whether you are touching the goalie or not are not the clear definitions of goaltender interference.

It isn't reviewable for good reason. I think other things shoudl be reviewable that are not, but this one is too difficult.

[Hank 0]

Because being in the crease and/or whether you are touching the goalie or not are not the clear definitions of goaltender interference.

It isn't reviewable for good reason. I think other things shoudl be reviewable that are not, but this one is too difficult.

I agree.

I do like the idea of a 'coaches review' though. Give them one per game and that should cover any blown calls like last night.

[Doggy 130]

Because being in the crease and/or whether you are touching the goalie or not are not the clear definitions of goaltender interference.

It isn't reviewable for good reason. I think other things shoudl be reviewable that are not, but this one is too difficult.

You're kidding me right? Like all reviewable plays, if it is too difficult the original call will stand. Of course it has to be clear cut to overrule a call.

You cannot sit there and say this is harder to judge than kicking motions, high sticks and pucks crossing the line. None of it is easy. No offense, but I really see no validity to your point. That's my opinion anyway.

[toby91_ca 620]

You're kidding me right? Like all reviewable plays, if it is too difficult the original call will stand. Of course it has to be clear cut to overrule a call.

You cannot sit there and say this is harder to judge than kicking motions, high sticks and pucks crossing the line. None of it is easy. No offense, but I really see no validity to your point. That's my opinion anyway.

That's fine, you can disagree, but in my opinion, all the other plays that are reviewable, the actual rules are far more clear. I agree that a replay may be difficult to get conclusive evidence, but what you are actually looking for is very clear in the other cases.

[Doggy 130]

That's fine, you can disagree, but in my opinion, all the other plays that are reviewable, the actual rules are far more clear. I agree that a replay may be difficult to get conclusive evidence, but what you are actually looking for is very clear in the other cases.

Yeah I just think that skates in the crease, incidental contact and intentional contact aren't that hard to see and in many cases pretty clear. Especially, in comparison to goals scored from a skate in a kicking motion.

[toby91_ca 620]

Yeah I just think that skates in the crease, incidental contact and intentional contact aren't that hard to see and in many cases pretty clear. Especially, in comparison to goals scored from a skate in a kicking motion.

What does having your skates in the crease have to do with anything? This is my point. If having your skates in the crease plays any role in this, then yes, it would be reviewable, but since there is no rule anywhere in the actual rulebook about having your skates in the crease, then it makes reviewing the play more difficult.

You are suggesting incidental contact and intential contact are not that hard to see? Having someone review a video is just giving someone else the opportunity to give their "opinion" on something the ref should be able to do without a replay.

[Doggy 130]

What does having your skates in the crease have to do with anything? This is my point. If having your skates in the crease plays any role in this, then yes, it would be reviewable, but since there is no rule anywhere in the actual rulebook about having your skates in the crease, then it makes reviewing the play more difficult.

You are suggesting incidental contact and intential contact are not that hard to see? Having someone review a video is just giving someone else the opportunity to give their "opinion" on something the ref should be able to do without a replay.

For what it's worth I think the crease exists to help judge how much room the goalies are being allowed. You're correct, there is no rule about it like there used to be.

Anyway, you think it's really hard to judge - I think otherwise.

[calfan 0]

How is being in the crease and/or touching the goalie a jugdment call? On a replay it's very much black and white and much, much easier to see than most high stick calls. You basically need the perfect camera angle if its close.

How do you determine if the goalie moved into the player or the player moved into the goalie? Homer's feet are 6 inches outside of the crease. Are you going to look to see if there is conclusive evidence his big ass is over the blue line?

Y'all are the last fans in the league who should want a review for this. Far fewer goals are called back on Homer than are allowed. A video replay analysis is going to change that ratio for the worse for the Wings because more often than not he's making contact with the goalie.

This is just a bad idea that takes away from the flow of the game.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Change the crease rule. If a player's SKATES are in the crease, no goal. Clear cut. If his skates are outside the crease then there is no interference, then it is reviewable also.

That goal was waved off because of Homer's ass in the crease.

[toby91_ca 620]

Change the crease rule. If a player's SKATES are in the crease, no goal. Clear cut. If his skates are outside the crease then there is no interference, then it is reviewable also.

We already had that rule, it sucked big time.

[calfan 0]

Change the crease rule. If a player's SKATES are in the crease, no goal. Clear cut. If his skates are outside the crease then there is no interference, then it is reviewable also.

That goal was waved off because of Homer's ass in the crease.

Which you have to admit looks like an eclipse from the goalie's point of view.

[PaVel DaTsYuK fan13 0]

I wouldn't want too many reviews in a game, because there would be more dead time and the game would lose its pace. I wouldn't want hockey to become like football, were there's so much stoppage, but I think that there should be ways to overturn goals from upstairs, because what happened last night, is absolutely inexcusable.

It's a trick subject, but the best solution would probably be allowing a team one challenge for a game, as well has having every play be reviwed from upstairs, and getting the message to the ref quickly so they don't start play.

The league would have to get creative so the game would lose pace, and creativity and innovation aren't exactly the first words that come to mind when I hear the name Gary Bettman.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Y'all are the last fans in the league who should want a review for this. Far fewer goals are called back on Homer than are allowed. A video replay analysis is going to change that ratio for the worse for the Wings because more often than not he's making contact with the goalie.

Likewise, Dallas is the last team in the league that should ever ***** about someone scoring a goal on them that had anything to do with intrusion into the crease The statute of limitations doesn't run out on that til they get another Cup. Might be a while.

[Chris L 0]

But people need to stop bitching about that Homer non-goal. We got away with one earlier and this one didn't swing our way so it's even.

The non-goal isn't the issue here, I think the issue is the bad officiating in the playoffs this year. Just about every series has had some kind of goof up, lopsided and/or clearly biased calls. We're not the only ones bitching about it.

But, as others pointed out here, the theme this year seems to be whoever is the biggest crybaby gets their way. The Wings rise above, Dallas does not (see Modano's crying about face-offs in games 3 and 4) -- That's the difference.