Coach's video challenge

[LAWings 160]

In light of yesterday's shennanigans, this would be a prime example of utilizing the coach's challenge. The NHL is very open to the challenge but not close to implementing it, maybe next season.

Last year the Wings had a doozy against LA where the puck clearly went into the netting and the refs missed it, with the puck bouncing off the LA goaltenders back and into the net. Karma...

This article is from a few months back but gives insight into their thought process.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/video-review-coach-s-challenge-dominate-nhl-gm-s-meeting-1.2672726

I've been very open to having one video challenge per game, yesterday solidified that.

Edited October 12, 2014 by LAWings

[Duck Guy 86]

I would only be open to the idea of they could find a way to "punish" you if where in the wrong like how a NFL team loses a timeout I do not think timeouts are valuable enough in the NHL. so you would have teams challenging a goal just to challenge on the off chance something happened.

[Duck Guy 86]

Sorry can't edit my post for some reason but I would also say that they could only use the challenge on goals the whole reviewin the play for a penalty just seems unnessary to me

[T.Low 1,011]

There wasn't enough conclusive evidence in the video yesterday to overturn the call. Was it a one handed love tap on the thigh? Did he put the stick on the leg and pry the lower hand outward? Inconclusive.

I don't think one challenge stoppage would ruin the flow of the game.

[WingsallTheway 383]

Sorry can't edit my post for some reason but I would also say that they could only use the challenge on goals the whole reviewin the play for a penalty just seems unnessary to me

To me, reviewing penalties can drastically change the outcome of a game. See; Oct 11,2014.

I also remember another game, not even sure if it was the wings; (pretty sure it was) but crosby took a high stick from one of his own teammates and was awarded a 4 minute powerplay for high sticking. It could also be used to review dives and see if there was actual contact with the stick between legs for trips and stuff. The game is played faster then any other sport, theres nothing wrong with slowing it down for a second to correct a mistake.

[LAWings 160]

There wasn't enough conclusive evidence in the video yesterday to overturn the call. Was it a one handed love tap on the thigh? Did he put the stick on the leg and pry the lower hand outward? Inconclusive.

I don't think one challenge stoppage would ruin the flow of the game.

There was plenty of evidence, the video was very clear, Getzlafs stick was on Kronwalls hands (not his stick). That's a penalty '99 out of 100 times' as Mickey stated. Regardless of the fact that Kronwall tripped himself a bit, but when you take out the hands which is illegal, that has to be a penalty, and work the hands of a player like that it alters their balance (which could have been a factor in Kronwall tripping).

Watch the video again.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24749043/video-getzlaf-ducks-beat-red-wings-on-pretty-controversial-late-goal

To me, reviewing penalties can drastically change the outcome of a game. See; Oct 11,2014.

I also remember another game, not even sure if it was the wings; (pretty sure it was) but crosby took a high stick from one of his own teammates and was awarded a 4 minute powerplay for high sticking. It could also be used to review dives and see if there was actual contact with the stick between legs for trips and stuff. The game is played faster then any other sport, theres nothing wrong with slowing it down for a second to correct a mistake.

Does anyone remember this crazy goal from Kronwall?

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=701298

p.s. I give up trying to embed videos on this website...

Edited October 12, 2014 by LAWings

[puckloo39 5,686]

I think there is no point reviewing this non-call, which resulted in a win for the Ducks. That's how they usually win, actually.

This was a missed call, plain and simple. Wings should have gone to the PP and possibly win or at least tie for a point.

In the future, the D needs to be responsible, and the Wings have to score more goals. It's the only way they will win -- they must play 10X better than the other team and score at least 50% more goals per game, to counter-balance the bad calls and disallowed goals, which are both inevitable in our case.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

I voted undecided because I think goals should be reviewable in certain situations. Only certain penalties should be reviewable, and what happened against ANA isn't one of them.

Delay of game (puck over glass or trapezoid infraction).

Too many men

Goaltender interference (and it would still be ref discretion)

Diving (only to reverse it from tripping and only penalize the diver, eg Thornton going down like he was shot by Franzen)

That's it. Penalties like spearing, high-sticking, hooking, tripping and all of those would not be reviewable unless it's for a penalty shot.

Also, a failed review would cost the timeout. A successful would obviously either result in a goal/no goal or the penalty being upheld or called. If the timeout has already been used, 2 min delay of game. Another failed review would result in a 4 min delay of game (2+2 like a blood penalty), another would be a 5 min DOG and a coach ejection, then assistant coach and so on and so on.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Wings_Dynasty

[Guest DeGraa55]

I voted undecided because I think goals should be reviewable in certain situations. Only certain penalties should be reviewable, and what happened against ANA isn't one of them.

Delay of game (puck over glass or trapezoid infraction).

Too many men

Goaltender interference (and it would still be ref discretion)

Diving (only to reverse it from tripping and only penalize the diver, eg Thornton going down like he was shot by Franzen)

That's it. Penalties like spearing, high-sticking, hooking, tripping and all of those would not be reviewable unless it's for a penalty shot.

Also, a failed review would cost the timeout. A successful would obviously either result in a goal/no goal or the penalty being upheld or called. If the timeout has already been used, 2 min delay of game. Another failed review would result in a 4 min delay of game (2+2 like a blood penalty), another would be a 5 min DOG and a coach ejection, then assistant coach and so on and so on.

I agree with a version of this

[number9 3,297]

So far I'm the only one who voted go to hell...

I don't even know what stance on the issue that is, I just couldn't help myself picking it. I guess I thought more would join me

[WingsallTheway 383]

There was plenty of evidence, the video was very clear, Getzlafs stick was on Kronwalls hands (not his stick). That's a penalty '99 out of 100 times' as Mickey stated. Regardless of the fact that Kronwall tripped himself a bit, but when you take out the hands which is illegal, that has to be a penalty, and work the hands of a player like that it alters their balance (which could have been a factor in Kronwall tripping).

Watch the video again.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24749043/video-getzlaf-ducks-beat-red-wings-on-pretty-controversial-late-goal

Does anyone remember this crazy goal from Kronwall?

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=701298

p.s. I give up trying to embed videos on this website...

Ironically, I was thinking of including that in my post. Works both ways.

If that goal had not happened, we would have lost the game as it was the tying goal going to OT. We made it into the playoffs by what 3 points? Could have changed the playoff outcome on a clear no goal.

[T.Low 1,011]

There was plenty of evidence, the video was very clear, Getzlafs stick was on Kronwalls hands (not his stick). That's a penalty '99 out of 100 times' as Mickey stated. Regardless of the fact that Kronwall tripped himself a bit, but when you take out the hands which is illegal, that has to be a penalty, and work the hands of a player like that it alters their balance (which could have been a factor in Kronwall tripping).

Watch the video again.

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24749043/video-getzlaf-ducks-beat-red-wings-on-pretty-controversial-late-goal]http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24749043/video-getzlaf-ducks-beat-red-wings-on-pretty-controversial-late-goal[/..

There was plenty of evidence, the video was very clear, Getzlafs stick was on Kronwalls hands (not his stick). That's a penalty '99 out of 100 times' as Mickey stated. Regardless of the fact that Kronwall tripped himself a bit, but when you take out the hands which is illegal, that has to be a penalty, and work the hands of a player like that it alters their balance (which could have been a factor in Kronwall tripping).

Watch the video again.

..

Thanks but I'm seeing Getzlaf fight through a half hearted Kronwall check at the 4 sec mark, then Getzlaf fights through a half hearted check by Franzen at the 7 sec mark, then Kronwall skates into the boards as Getzlaf stretches with one hand on his stick and appears to lightly touch Kronwalls thigh, and possibly his lower hand. It is clear that there is NO tugging motion.

I agree with the author you linked to, where he says it was "borderline", and borderline does not get a call reversed.

My take away from that little video is that in the waning seconds with the game on the line, Getzlaf wanted it a lot more than Kronwall and Franzen. After our young guys busted their asses all game, the veteran leadership of Kronwall and Franzen let them down.

Edited October 13, 2014 by T.Low

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Maybe they should but I'm not convinced it would change the outcome of Getzlaf's play.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I voted no.

I think all goals should be reviewed, and the puck over the glass penalty should go away. Borderline penalties are too common/debatable to be reviewed IMO.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I voted no.

I think all goals should be reviewed, and the puck over the glass penalty should go away. Borderline penalties are too common/debatable to be reviewed IMO.

Agreed.

If it were in place during the Ducks game, I still don't see that play ending up any differently. It's a marginal hook to Kronwall's hands, he falls down and Getzlaf scores.

I can't imagine a universe where they review that play on video, disallow the goal and retroactively call a penalty on Getzlaf for the hook.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

Thanks but I'm seeing Getzlaf fight through a half hearted Kronwall check at the 4 sec mark, then Getzlaf fights through a half hearted check by Franzen at the 7 sec mark, then Kronwall skates into the boards as Getzlaf stretches with one hand on his stick and appears to lightly touch Kronwalls thigh, and possibly his lower hand. It is clear that there is NO tugging motion.

I agree with the author you linked to, where he says it was "borderline", and borderline does not get a call reversed.

My take away from that little video is that in the waning seconds with the game on the line, Getzlaf wanted it a lot more than Kronwall and Franzen. After our young guys busted their asses all game, the veteran leadership of Kronwall and Franzen let them down.

I agree with this to a point but how many times have you seen ticky tac calls like that get called and change the outcome the other way in the middle of a game? But People have to realize as well...Refs pretty much put their whistles away on little stuff like that in the last few mins of a hockey game. Every one knows that. We had many many chances to score and couldn't put it in. We out played the ducks and boston these first 2 games of the season. I am just happy we are looking so good so far. I was expecting way worse reading how much people hated our team and said we were going to be the same awful team from last season. But to my surprise we played 2 of the best teams in the league and looked really good. I have hope.

[rrasco 1,312]

Thanks but I'm seeing Getzlaf fight through a half hearted Kronwall check at the 4 sec mark, then Getzlaf fights through a half hearted check by Franzen at the 7 sec mark, then Kronwall skates into the boards as Getzlaf stretches with one hand on his stick and appears to lightly touch Kronwalls thigh, and possibly his lower hand. It is clear that there is NO tugging motion.

Normally if they get the stick horizontal and in the hands, it's called. That's what they look for anyways, just like holding penalties if you get that free hand in there, whether you hold or not...that's the giveaway. I don't think this would have been overturned, or really should have been. It was more disappointing than anything.

[Euro_Twins 4,485]

Normally if they get the stick horizontal and in the hands, it's called. That's what they look for anyways, just like holding penalties if you get that free hand in there, whether you hold or not...that's the giveaway. I don't think this would have been overturned, or really should have been. It was more disappointing than anything.

It's more or less consistency. If the ref would call a play like that in the second, why would he not call it in the last minute? If a penalty is a penalty at one point in the game why would time remaining be a factor in deciding if it's a penalty later. We've seen way too much of this, penalties being decided by who's leading the game, how much time is left, or when it should be offsetting penalties and only one guy gets the call. If they let calls like that borderline hook go all the time, that's one thing. When it's the end of the game or ot and they let it go because of time or because they may have called a penalty just before it really grinds my gears.

[aflac9262 211]

I voted against it because it would depend on the framework. If everything was reviewable, then all of a sudden it would become subjectivity layered with more subjectivity. I'm not even sure how it would work with the flow of the game and what consequences there may be should something be modified. If a goal is scored on a delayed call and the penalty is reversed, do they wash out the goal and restore time on the clock from the point of the call? It just makes for some awkward situations.

[LAWings 160]

So far I'm the only one who voted go to hell...

I don't even know what stance on the issue that is, I just couldn't help myself picking it. I guess I thought more would join me

Sometime there just needs to be an option to let the OP know how you really feel...

[rrasco 1,312]

It's more or less consistency. If the ref would call a play like that in the second, why would he not call it in the last minute? If a penalty is a penalty at one point in the game why would time remaining be a factor in deciding if it's a penalty later. We've seen way too much of this, penalties being decided by who's leading the game, how much time is left, or when it should be offsetting penalties and only one guy gets the call. If they let calls like that borderline hook go all the time, that's one thing. When it's the end of the game or ot and they let it go because of time or because they may have called a penalty just before it really grinds my gears.

Oh, I agree with consistency. If you're gonna call a penalty, all good, just be consistent about it.

[number9 3,297]

Go to to hell currently tied with undecided *fingers crossed*