Do the refs need a page out of the NFL system?

[timothy1997 0]

After last night, I began to think on what the NHL can do to avoid circumstances like this from happening again.

I began to think about the NFL and how when a Quarterback has the ball and it gets knocked out of his hands (whether by a fumble or pass attempt), the refs are taught to let the play continue...NOT TO BLOW THE WHISTLE...and then review the play later to see what happened. Players are still allowed to fight for the ball in the possibility of the play still going on.

Why can't something like this happen in the NHL? Let the play continue..and then if the puck goes in...then they can review it to see if it ligitment or not. To me this seems simple and with the NHL being a reactive league, not a proactive league, I wonder if they will address this during the offseason.

[sean 19]

The difference is that the NHL is trying to protect its goalies.

[timothy1997 0]

The difference is that the NHL is trying to protect its goalies.

and the NFL is out to protect QBs with rules and restrictions.

My point is that if a goalie is fighting to cover up the puck...how is that any difference from a football player fighting for the football in a scrum.

[b.shanafan14 733]

The difference is that the NHL is trying to protect some goalies.

Fixed

Of course I'm kidding, but it is funny how I'm pretty the Ducks got at least one goal, maybe two, against us in '07 by jarring the puck away from Hasek. And I've seen Homer geting caught with a toe in the crease and that constitutes no-goal/goaltender interference penalty, while apparently Perry can slash and run Ozzy, but as long as the puck is in the net, no harm to foul. Also saw a pretty fantastic crosscheck to the throat of a young goaltender, followed shortly after by a goal. The offending player went unpenalized or reprimanded; the player was a Pittsburgh Penguin. (pure coincidence )

[Sherwood5030 0]

Duno this may be pretty difficult. But if i were to suggest anything I would say that any goal that is scored but is waved off due to a whistle should be reviewable, especially if all four officials on the ice convene and any one of them says it was loose. There are four officials on the ice for a reason use them, its only common sense. To have one man make a call that important without clarification from his peers is just idiocy. Only in the NHL. To me it would be pretty simple if there is a quick whistle and a goal is scored first confine with the other officials and see what comes of it. If further review is necessary then they should go to video replay. Personally I loved what the spokesperson for the officials McGuire said "First off, as any of us watch on a replay, it's easy to make the correct call,'' McGuire said. This kills me, well yeah that's obvious, which is an obvious reason that it should be utilized. Officials are going to make mistakes but they way they handle it in the NHL is atrocious, and something needs to be done.

To me these would all seem to be pretty simple reviews. you listen for the whistle, ask whether it was loose or not or if a player pushed it in from under a goalie and what not. Its simple really just provide clear cut rules for it that are black and white. Not gray like intent to blow the whistle.

[Guest mindfly]

I want the coaches to be able to challenge a ref's call like they can do in the NFL... Like yesterday babcock could have thrown a flag to the ice, the refs gone and checked the replays that showed the f*** wasnt covered, and the ruling is changed and its a good goal... simple, correct and fair

[Decoy Jones 0]

I could see them taking a page from the NFL. How about this. Each team gets one review a game. If the call is reversed, no big deal and the game continues. If the call is upheld, the team gets a delay of game penalty. With a system like that, teams would only use it when it's obviously a bad call so as to not take a penalty.

[sean 19]

and the NFL is out to protect QBs with rules and restrictions.

My point is that if a goalie is fighting to cover up the puck...how is that any difference from a football player fighting for the football in a scrum.

Well, in the NFL, the fumble/no fumble is the result of the QB having already been hit; the outcome of the call doesn't really make much difference on the QBs wellbeing. Blowing the whistle quickly does benefit the goalie to some degree, but as b.shanny said, there's gotta be some consistency.

This is a bit off topic but I think the 'intent to blow the whistle' idea should be completely done away with. Respect the human element of refereeing, and use the sound of the whistle for rulings, rather than the intent. The intent to blow the whistle is a subjective idea; the sound of the whistle cannot be 'interpreted'.

[timothy1997 0]

I could see them taking a page from the NFL. How about this. Each team gets one review a game. If the call is reversed, no big deal and the game continues. If the call is upheld, the team gets a delay of game penalty. With a system like that, teams would only use it when it's obviously a bad call so as to not take a penalty.

I am fine with that idea.

I am against changing the rule of the play is dead once the whistle is blown (or attempting to be blown). I think your opening up more problems that way. However, I am suggesting that the refs eliminate the quick whistle approach.

How long does a goalie have to cover up the puck for a play to be dead? 3 secs? 2 secs? I think once you define that...then you can review the play..determine if the goalie had control for the required amount of secs.

[CenterIce 83]

This thread covers basically what I was posting last night in another thread. The unfortunate thing is that the NHL has a habit of making things set in stone, once they have happened, rather than trying to get it right. A couple of examples are only reviewing a limited set of circumstances and not allowing the officials to take back a penalty once they have called it (especially if the other officials had a better view).

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

After last night, I began to think on what the NHL can do to avoid circumstances like this from happening again.

I began to think about the NFL and how when a Quarterback has the ball and it gets knocked out of his hands (whether by a fumble or pass attempt), the refs are taught to let the play continue...NOT TO BLOW THE WHISTLE...and then review the play later to see what happened. Players are still allowed to fight for the ball in the possibility of the play still going on.

Why can't something like this happen in the NHL? Let the play continue..and then if the puck goes in...then they can review it to see if it ligitment or not. To me this seems simple and with the NHL being a reactive league, not a proactive league, I wonder if they will address this during the offseason.

Aside from losing a tiny amount of flow in the game, I think this is a pretty solid idea. I'd be all for it.

I want the coaches to be able to challenge a ref's call like they can do in the NFL... Like yesterday babcock could have thrown a flag to the ice, the refs gone and checked the replays that showed the f*** wasnt covered, and the ruling is changed and its a good goal... simple, correct and fair

While that sounds good in theory, the problem there is that the whistle blew and then Hossa knocked the puck in. With that, you've got the opposition stopping once they hear the whistle, and they could then argue that they could've kept the puck out had they not stopped play.