Coaches Challenge in Hockey

[Din758 371]

Florida Panthers general manager Dale Tallon said he has submitted a proposal for a coach's challenge, TSN reported on Thursday.

The topic will be on the agenda when NHL general managers meet Tuesday in Toronto, TSN reported.

NHL senior vice president and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell has received Tallon's proposal, TSN reported, which includes the following criteria:

• Applies only to goal-related plays

• Challenge must be issued within prescribed time limit

• Team must have timeout left to issue challenge

• Unsuccessful challenge results in loss of timeout

• Successful challenge results in no loss of timeout

• One challenge per team per game

I really hope this gets shot down. Can you imagine how stupid it would look throwing a red flag down on the ice? I think the replay system they have in place right now is perfect.

[mmamolo 287]

Although I dont like the idea of throwing red flags out onto the ice it would be interesting if coaches could use this idea to challenge goal situations that currently aren't reviewable under the current rules. We've seen some disallowed goals that should have counted because under the current set of rules they arent eligable to be reviewed. That could be interesting at least.

[Konnan511 1,736]

I like it. The games evolving and this will sooner or later be a part of the game. If this was a rule for the past decade, Holmstrom would be a 40 goal scorer and we would have have an easier time in the playoffs due to not having goals disallowed =]

[InKennyWeTrust 126]

I don't know, though, a lot of times they screw up the call even after sending it off to review.

[Din758 371]

how many instances is it though where a coach would want to force a replay when it wouldnt be done already by the current rules? I think my problem is that a coach could do these "challenges" to get longer than a 30 sec. timeout at key points of the game. Can anybody think of a time where a play wasnt taken to review by the officials when a coach had a valid argument to have it reviewed?

Also I wonder how this rule would apply to discretionary calls (goalie interference, kick-ins). Scenario: Holmer is screening the goalie, Lids buries just as Holmer is getting pushed into the goalie by the D-man and the ref waives it off for interference. Could we use this replay to try to point out that hes pushed in thus making it a goal?

[WpgMikos 17]

I absolutely hate the idea. Perhaps I'm a dino in that regard but I don't see the need. There is a human element (refs) that I think is necessary. Sure they get it wrong sometimes but I think if you go with a 'coach's challenge', the flow to the game will be destroyed.

I'm not a big fan of the idea. Just my 2 cents.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I think it's pointless and redundant, they already review questionable goals and they're pretty good about going upstairs when there is any doubt in the first place...

The thing that needs to be addressed, are the calls coming from the war room - As soon as it goes to the "war room", the ref should no longer have any say and the war rooms decision should be final, also, they need to get a little better at reviewing in said war room and get a better success rate...

Oh, and do I even need to mention the removal of "intent to blow"?

Very simple:

whistle blown - play dead.

no whistle - live play.

done and done.

[stevieisthebest 80]

I'm not sure how I feel about the challenge idea. I really liked the yellow line behind the red goal line that was the exact width of the puck, so if the puck touched the yellow line at all it would be a goal. That seems like a really good idea.

[Din758 371]

ya i def agree that the intent to blow call is garbage, considering it takes under a second to raise your hand to your mouth and blow. I would take a slow whistle as opposed to a quick one anyday.

[lookalive07 251]

I'm not sure how I feel about the challenge idea. I really liked the yellow line behind the red goal line that was the exact width of the puck, so if the puck touched the yellow line at all it would be a goal. That seems like a really good idea.

If the puck was on it's side though, it would still be questionable, thus making the yellow line kind of unnecessary. I think they need to add a wide-angle camera inside the nets that shows the entire goal line (possibly from different angles in case the goalie's butt gets in the way), and would show the puck crossing the line.

I also thought of a way they could utilize a sensor. I'm a physics major and we've used Gieger counters in class that detect radiation due to elemental composition. I wonder how hard it would be to implement a system that used the composition of the puck and made it so the counter detected the puck and its spikes in readings as it enters the net (fully or not). It'd be even easier if the NHL used pucks with a thin disc of metal, something that wouldn't affect the weight, shape, or size of the puck, but would be easy for a detector to read whether the puck completely crossed the line.

/geek.

[MrWings787 11]

They need to get rid of intent to blow the whistle.

[stevkrause 1,247]

If the puck was on it's side though, it would still be questionable, thus making the yellow line kind of unnecessary. I think they need to add a wide-angle camera inside the nets that shows the entire goal line (possibly from different angles in case the goalie's butt gets in the way), and would show the puck crossing the line.

I also thought of a way they could utilize a sensor. I'm a physics major and we've used Gieger counters in class that detect radiation due to elemental composition. I wonder how hard it would be to implement a system that used the composition of the puck and made it so the counter detected the puck and its spikes in readings as it enters the net (fully or not). It'd be even easier if the NHL used pucks with a thin disc of metal, something that wouldn't affect the weight, shape, or size of the puck, but would be easy for a detector to read whether the puck completely crossed the line.

/geek.

I agree with this 100%, they could very easily put a chip in the puck and a sensor in the posts... if it crosses, it's triggered, lights go off...

[Konnan511 1,736]

A chip might sound easy, but you'd need quite a bit of technology in it to rim both sides of the puck close enough to the edges while. but safe enough away from being damaged by shots or it being stepped on. Plus, the costs would be astronomical seeing how they go through a dozen or two a game, have a bunch more readily available and also taking into consideration all the NHL games being played. it'd be expensive.

Just install a few cameras in the net, and built into both posts at the base. that wouldn't cost a lot and it could be done over night easily.

[stevkrause 1,247]

A chip might sound easy, but you'd need quite a bit of technology in it to rim both sides of the puck close enough to the edges while. but safe enough away from being damaged by shots or it being stepped on. Plus, the costs would be astronomical seeing how they go through a dozen or two a game, have a bunch more readily available and also taking into consideration all the NHL games being played. it'd be expensive.

Just install a few cameras in the net, and built into both posts at the base. that wouldn't cost a lot and it could be done over night easily.

from someone who has been in IT for the last decade, trust me, the cost would be nowhere as expensive as you think and actually pretty minimal all and all... they did the abortion that was the glow puck almost 20 years ago and that technology wouldn't be too far off, except it's evolved and become cheaper... I'm not saying it should be the end all be all, but it would be just another tool...

[eva unit zero 271]

I'm not sure how I feel about the challenge idea. I really liked the yellow line behind the red goal line that was the exact width of the puck, so if the puck touched the yellow line at all it would be a goal. That seems like a really good idea.

It seems like a good idea. But then you have to realize that the puck is not a sphere. If the puck is on edge, flipping over, etc, it can be fully across the red goal line without contacting the yellow line. So painting such a line is a pointless exercise.

Several electronic transmitters placed within the puck would allow for electronic verification. Place a good number, maybe ten or so, small transmitters inside the puck. They would be placed within the puck centered a half-inch from each flat side, and that same distance from the outside edge, spaced evenly and placed in a circular formation. The goal post could then contain a detector device which determined whether the puck was fully across the goal line, based on whether or not all of those transmitters had cleared that half-inch past the goal line. This eliminates the "puck on edge" problem with any other type of electronic system or additional visual affirmation such as the yellow line.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

The League needs to do a better job of assessing the talent (or lack thereof) of all of their on-ice officials; they just recently got a raise, didn't they?

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From TSN:

The NHL's general managers have shelved a proposal to allow coaches to challenge goal calls.

Panthers GM Dale Tallon put the item on the agenda, but didn't receive much support from his colleagues.

...

[stevkrause 1,247]

From TSN:

Good, I think they need to address the current review system, not put a new one in place...

[cupforwings 138]

what would be the point of a coaches challenge if the league reviews every goal anyway? It's not like they don't go to Toronto if the goal is at all questionable?

[stevkrause 1,247]

what would be the point of a coaches challenge if the league reviews every goal anyway? It's not like they don't go to Toronto if the goal is at all questionable?

exactly, like I said above, I think a coaches challenge is pointless and redundant - They already review questionable goals and they're pretty good about going upstairs when there is any doubt in the first place...

The thing that needs to be addressed, are the calls coming from the war room - As soon as it goes to the "war room", the ref should no longer have any say and the war rooms decision should be final, also, they need to get a little better at reviewing in said war room and get a better success rate...

Oh, and do I even need to mention the removal of "intent to blow"?

Very simple:

whistle blown - play dead.

no whistle - live play.

done and done.

[Datsyuk Fan 14]

exactly, like I said above, I think a coaches challenge is pointless and redundant - They already review questionable goals and they're pretty good about going upstairs when there is any doubt in the first place...

The thing that needs to be addressed, are the calls coming from the war room - As soon as it goes to the "war room", the ref should no longer have any say and the war rooms decision should be final, also, they need to get a little better at reviewing in said war room and get a better success rate...

Oh, and do I even need to mention the removal of "intent to blow"?

Very simple:

whistle blown - play dead.

no whistle - live play.

done and done.

I don't think that's the problem. If I remember correctly, the war room's decision is final. They're just limited in what kinds of things they can review. Like Brad May's disallowed goal last year, where the war room said it should be a goal, but because the ref said he already blew the whistle (or "intended to") the play wasn't reviewable. Another common problem that's not reviewable is goals getting called back for goaltender interference, no matter how obvious it is from the video that the player is outside the crease.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

I don't think that's the problem. If I remember correctly, the war room's decision is final. They're just limited in what kinds of things they can review. Like Brad May's disallowed goal last year, where the war room said it should be a goal, but because the ref said he already blew the whistle (or "intended to") the play wasn't reviewable. Another common problem that's not reviewable is goals getting called back for goaltender interference, no matter how obvious it is from the video that the player is outside the crease.

Then why did the play even go to review?

[stevkrause 1,247]

I don't think that's the problem. If I remember correctly, the war room's decision is final. They're just limited in what kinds of things they can review. Like Brad May's disallowed goal last year, where the war room said it should be a goal, but because the ref said he already blew the whistle (or "intended to") the play wasn't reviewable. Another common problem that's not reviewable is goals getting called back for goaltender interference, no matter how obvious it is from the video that the player is outside the crease.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the war room just gives the on ice official their stance on the play and the on ice official still makes the final call... if anyone has concrete wording about how this is ruled - please share...

alsom and as you stated about the goalie interference, I think that the war room should be allowed to overrule ALL calls, regardless of what the ref ruled on ice....

Then why did the play even go to review?

Exactly - intent to blow needs to go away ENTIRELY...

Once again - fix the current system.

Edited November 9, 2010 by stevkrause

[Datsyuk Fan 14]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the war room just gives the on ice official their stance on the play and the on ice official still makes the final call... if anyone has concrete wording about how this is ruled - please share...

alsom and as you stated about the goalie interference, I think that the war room should be allowed to overrule ALL calls, regardless of what the ref ruled on ice....

Exactly - intent to blow needs to go away ENTIRELY...

Once again - fix the current system.

I agree completely... in goal/no goal situations at least. If they changed that, I'd be happy.

Here's where I got that:

38.1 General Duties – The following are the general duties of the Video Goal Judge:

(i) He will review replays of disputed goals when requested to do so by the Referees.

(ii) He will review replays of disputed goals when he observes an incident that was undetected by on-ice officials.

(iii) After viewing the incident he will promptly convey his decision directly to the Referee at the penalty bench. When a play has been referred to the Video Goal Judge, his decision shall be final.

Then why did the play even go to review?

What they said (if I remember and understood it correctly) was the war room called the refs to let them know it should be a goal, but the ref said he already blew the whistle, so the goal never actually went to review.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Datsyuk Fan