Fluto: Upon further review . . . eliminate coach’s challenge
- Thread starter sooshii
- Start date
Therick67
Registered User
sirmaxalot
Registered User
Inconsistency is what is killing it. From my other thread:
Ruled a goal as not enough to overturn conclusively but certainly looked like his foot was in the air.
Weeks later.
Goal called back as conclusively offside.
the argument being that there were better angles available for Washington but you couldn't find a more comparable pair of clips. Another poster in that thread noted that there were better angles at one arena and not another.
In both cases different calls and one cost Boston a game. Sucks that it coincidentally boned us twice but fans watching against Washington that remembered this call going against us were understandably upset.
Especially when the "better angles" were never shown to us. From what we were shown, it most certainly should have been a good goal considering the other clip and that decision.
Ruled a goal as not enough to overturn conclusively but certainly looked like his foot was in the air.
Weeks later.
Goal called back as conclusively offside.
the argument being that there were better angles available for Washington but you couldn't find a more comparable pair of clips. Another poster in that thread noted that there were better angles at one arena and not another.
In both cases different calls and one cost Boston a game. Sucks that it coincidentally boned us twice but fans watching against Washington that remembered this call going against us were understandably upset.
Especially when the "better angles" were never shown to us. From what we were shown, it most certainly should have been a good goal considering the other clip and that decision.
BigBadBruin8
@rsox1221
There are problems no doubt. However you have to remember it is year #1 of the entire process. It is not going to be perfect right from the jump.
Instant replay is a good thing for pro sports. Hockey was the last sport to put any kind of replay in and they were late to the party.
There are issues of course, and many can be corrected in the off-season with the rules committee. The A#1 thing is to take replays out of the hands of the guys who made the original calls. All replays have to be handled by the League office, no exceptions. They can keep the little tablet for the refs to watch on and confer with Toronto, but Toronto makes the call, and that call is final. It is human nature not to want to admit you were wrong; take that out of the equation for these guys.
Consistency is an issue and will only improve with more years of the process in place. It sucks now and the B's have been burned, but they aren't the only team and there are growing pains with any new process.
This piece is just more dreck from Fluto who's been specializing in dreck since he took over for Dupont, who was (and is really) the master of all things dreck. Fluto needs to not try so hard to be the new Dupont, it's pathetic.
Instant replay is a good thing for pro sports. Hockey was the last sport to put any kind of replay in and they were late to the party.
There are issues of course, and many can be corrected in the off-season with the rules committee. The A#1 thing is to take replays out of the hands of the guys who made the original calls. All replays have to be handled by the League office, no exceptions. They can keep the little tablet for the refs to watch on and confer with Toronto, but Toronto makes the call, and that call is final. It is human nature not to want to admit you were wrong; take that out of the equation for these guys.
Consistency is an issue and will only improve with more years of the process in place. It sucks now and the B's have been burned, but they aren't the only team and there are growing pains with any new process.
This piece is just more dreck from Fluto who's been specializing in dreck since he took over for Dupont, who was (and is really) the master of all things dreck. Fluto needs to not try so hard to be the new Dupont, it's pathetic.
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
Posted this in the GDT but it's worth repeating
I ran a stopwatch during both challenges. I started and stopped each time the coaches challenge and results were announced. Both totaled at: 5 min 55 sec
First challenge went: 3 mins 25 sec
Second challenge: 2 min 30 sec
That doesn't count the before and after time where they discuss it and the coaches call the refs over to talk about the play before calling a challenge.
I ran a stopwatch during both challenges. I started and stopped each time the coaches challenge and results were announced. Both totaled at: 5 min 55 sec
First challenge went: 3 mins 25 sec
Second challenge: 2 min 30 sec
That doesn't count the before and after time where they discuss it and the coaches call the refs over to talk about the play before calling a challenge.
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
Grinds the game to a complete halt IMO. Has the potential to sap momentum...
Trying to see the potential, but I still think these challenges do more harm than good.
Said again.
Hockey is NOT baseball. It is not the bloody NFL. We don't like three hour bore fests.
These guys -- the league office, the managers, blah blah -- are too clever for their own good.
Let's find another way to fix something that isn't' broken. Shall we?
Between the "Coaches Challenge" and the endless hits from behind/head shots, I'm about at the boiling point.
Last edited:
Btown
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2011
- 1,256
- 163
It's flawed because the officials who made the wrong call reviews it and makes the desition. Human error is more likely to occur in the same guy on the same play twice rather than 2 different people, plus the fact no one likes to be proven wrong. Have an outside party view and give the result to the refs in a timely matter saving time and getting the call right.
All I know is this: There is absolutely NO consistency with the calls that are being made after review. None. Until that gets resolved, there's no point in doing it,
FWIW, I disagreed with both calls that were reviewed tonight. Thought Pasta was offside, and I thought Rask was definitely interfered with. I have no idea what to think anymore and I have no faith in the consistency of the review process on a night to night basis. Until they get that fixed, might as well just let the initial call on the ice stand.
FWIW, I disagreed with both calls that were reviewed tonight. Thought Pasta was offside, and I thought Rask was definitely interfered with. I have no idea what to think anymore and I have no faith in the consistency of the review process on a night to night basis. Until they get that fixed, might as well just let the initial call on the ice stand.
Look - for off-sides calls the NHL needs to install cameras in the boards on the blue line similar to the overhead cameras over the goals. The broadcasters don't have cameras right on the blue line so it has to be NHL in-house.
Goaltender interference - just go with the officials gut call in real time. Truth is they are correct over 90% of the time.
Aeroforce
Registered User
For offside, a slight adjustment to the rule that gives the offense the benefit of the doubt instead of the defense would fix it.
Essentially get rid of the foot in the air call. IIRC that's also what led to that ten minute delay in overtime when Washington played Winnipeg. When the puck crosses the goal line they look for visible white paint between the puck and the goal line; why not say unless both feet clearly entered the zone before the puck, it's good?
If there's no visible white between both feet and the blue line, the play is good.
Goals like Krug's would not only count, there would be no need to challenge them.
It's hard enough timing an entrance with the traps teams play, and the dump and chase not only risks surrendering possession, now that obstruction has crept back into the game, it's even less effective.
If they can take out the red line, surely they can make a slight adjustment on the blue line that favors speed, scoring, and pace?
More goals, more speed, and less atmosphere-crushing delays over trivialities that had little bearing on the play. And let's face it, refs are calling lots of close plays offside just to be safe. That slows the game down, as well.
The goalie interference is a little trickier, because let's face it - there's some Oscar-worthy goalies in the game today.
Essentially get rid of the foot in the air call. IIRC that's also what led to that ten minute delay in overtime when Washington played Winnipeg. When the puck crosses the goal line they look for visible white paint between the puck and the goal line; why not say unless both feet clearly entered the zone before the puck, it's good?
If there's no visible white between both feet and the blue line, the play is good.
Goals like Krug's would not only count, there would be no need to challenge them.
It's hard enough timing an entrance with the traps teams play, and the dump and chase not only risks surrendering possession, now that obstruction has crept back into the game, it's even less effective.
If they can take out the red line, surely they can make a slight adjustment on the blue line that favors speed, scoring, and pace?
More goals, more speed, and less atmosphere-crushing delays over trivialities that had little bearing on the play. And let's face it, refs are calling lots of close plays offside just to be safe. That slows the game down, as well.
The goalie interference is a little trickier, because let's face it - there's some Oscar-worthy goalies in the game today.
Guys get paid to call offsides.Hockey has been fine for decades without it.Technology is ruining game you ask me.No purity left.
Jdavidev
Registered User
This. I am not interested in "getting it right". What is right about a skate may or may not be in the air 30 feet from a scoring play? What is really killing it for me, and what has killed NFL for me is, is that I am constantly told that this awesome athletic play that I just witnessed didn't happen. Just forget it. Spend 5 minutes slowing down the excitement and then, never mind, it didn't happen because we think that maybe a bit of skate blade was too far forward in 1/24th of a second.
And what is ridiculously stupid about this kind of review, is that it was added to remove the human error in these situations, but they are just adding more. Humans have to re-judge a judgement call based on sketchy video evidence. And human nature is not to just call what they see, but to INFER what they think they see.
Again, this is what happened to football. No more to they say the review was inconclusive, call stands, but they make a definitive judgement based on cruddy evidence. Was the ball loose before he hit the ground? Probably, but you can't see it in the footage directly so the play should stand as called in real time. But time and time again that's not what happened. And of course, most of the time these camera angles of a 2D image are not as good as the human eye a couple of feet from the action.
From 30 thoughts
ELLIOTTE FRIEDMAN
MARCH 8, 2016, 3:19 PM
2. The GM meetings begin next Monday in Florida, and it’s expected that a few of them may ask to see if the offside reviews can be moved from the ice to the War Room in Toronto. There seems to be a lot less anger about goaltender interference decisions than offside rulings. It’s delicate, however. Whenever this comes up — and it’s been brought up a few times, most recently during the Washington/Boston game last Saturday — officials push back, not wanting more control taken from them. At some point, though, it’s going to come down to bigger screens or no replay system at all.
ELLIOTTE FRIEDMAN
MARCH 8, 2016, 3:19 PM
2. The GM meetings begin next Monday in Florida, and it’s expected that a few of them may ask to see if the offside reviews can be moved from the ice to the War Room in Toronto. There seems to be a lot less anger about goaltender interference decisions than offside rulings. It’s delicate, however. Whenever this comes up — and it’s been brought up a few times, most recently during the Washington/Boston game last Saturday — officials push back, not wanting more control taken from them. At some point, though, it’s going to come down to bigger screens or no replay system at all.
Kovi
Registered User
- Feb 11, 2007
- 24,641
- 3,109
yes. and it is another attempt to water the game of hockey down to neatly fit in with other sports. Dont get me started on the fact that the "establishment" has completely changed the framework of my sport. This doesnt look anything like the hockey I fell in love with. Catering to the biggest crowd never gets you anywhere and creates a crappy product. leave the game alone....let them play and play as it was meant to be.
BigBadBruin8
@rsox1221
I'm sorry but that is asinine. You're not interested in "getting it right" right up until the Bruins get ****ed by a bad call. Imagine if the Bruins lost a playoff series on a bad call, a game 7, how would you feel then?
Replays aren't the problem, the current execution is the problem, and that can be adjusted and fixed. I'll say it again, it is year number one of the entire process, it is not going to be perfect right away.
Well on-ice officials, all I can say to that is "tough ****ing ****" because the way it's being run now is insane. It's going to go to Toronto for all replays hopefully ASAP because that's how it's should have been done from the start.
JRull86
Registered User
I had a super long post typed up, but I don't know what happened and it went away.
Basically, offsides should not be part of the Coach's Challenge. If a player's skate is in the air instead of touching the blue line, does that really have any bearing on the play? I say no. Maybe change the rule instead? Who knows.
Truth is, the linesman gets the offsides call correct 99.9% of the time (Matt Duchene says hello).
Coach's Challenge should be reserved for goaltender interference, puck played above crossbar, etc.
Just my .02
Basically, offsides should not be part of the Coach's Challenge. If a player's skate is in the air instead of touching the blue line, does that really have any bearing on the play? I say no. Maybe change the rule instead? Who knows.
Truth is, the linesman gets the offsides call correct 99.9% of the time (Matt Duchene says hello).
Coach's Challenge should be reserved for goaltender interference, puck played above crossbar, etc.
Just my .02
Jdavidev
Registered User
It's not asinine. The assumption being that by trying to get it right, they will actually get it right. I know this is in the first year, but we've seen playing of plays that should have been overturned, and weren't and plays that shouldn't, that were. The Bruins ARE currently get screwed by it.
If they do keep it, obviously it has to go to Toronto to decide, it would make it more consistent, but even then, if they don't change the offside rule, it will still be difficult to decide. You would have to see where the puck is, and where each of the other players are in X, Y and Z space to determine it. Maybe if they changed it so your skate doesn't have to be on the ice, i.e. any part of the skaters body still over the blue line vertically counts as onside. Lot easier to deduce just from an overhead. Assuming the viewing angle is all clean.
BUT... I don't find offside to be something that serious to be reviewed. It's like icing and faceoff location when the puck goes out of play. Those are left up to the judgement of the refs, are sometimes wrong, or judged pretty arbitrarily, and they can lead directly to scoring plays too. Are those next to review?
PLUS, they will never get it right, because the review only can potentially correct missed offsides that led to possesion for a scoring play (the puck could be in the zone for over a minute before a goal, and all that erased?). What about all the plays that are blown dead that were actually onsides? And to protect from this, are linesmen going to start letting everything go just in case, like the NFL does?
Replay is neccessary for certain plays. It's vital to determine if the puck crossed the line. Something that directly impacts a goal, and lot of times can't be determined in real time with view obstructed and split second nature of it. The problem is expanding it to include more and more.
The NFL is a prime example of this. Needed in it's initial use. Now it has expanded to cover so much of the game. You can't even cheer many scoring plays anymore, not really, until you wait for the review. Turnovers, same thing. Slows down the game, takes excitement out. Removes exciting plays from happening, all for sometimes the smallest of fractions of an inch, or worse, when the call is horridly butchered in replay, which happens more and more.
I would much rather being arguing, man, the ref missed that, than, man, the ref missed that, and screwed it up even worse in replay. The NFL started with "need clear and indisputable evidence to overturn," now they don't care, and make horrible judgement calls left and right, despite the evidence.
So, in short, I would rather offsides be left off of replay. If is not going away, then I agree, it must be up to Toronto, make the offsides determination easier to judge, and remove the stupid Coach's Challenge. Changing the way coach's coach. No one wants to take a timeout early in the game anymore.
Goalie interference is a tough one, because that is on scoring plays directly, but a lot of the times, it's harder to determine in replay then in real time for the officials the impact of the interference on the play, because it's not a black and white call. That one is also really difficult to take away from the on-ice officials, because it's such a judgement call.
Yeah. OT, but watching these games with the coaches challenge & the other officiating issues has been brutal. It's like, why should I waste my time with this? The Bruins are frustrating enough.
JRull86
Registered User
The coaches challenge needs to go away. I thought it would be a good idea prior to the season, but my god is it awful. If it has to stay, it needs to be ammended to only apply to cases of goalie interference. None of this foot is in the air offsides BS.
Again, OT, but I agree. Really, the simplest solution is to get rid of it entirely. "If it ain't broke (for the most part), don't fix it."
What's odd to me is that in previous seasons, the "Is it a goal/Is it not a goal" question seemed to be handled with aplomb in TO. As a fan, you'd wait perhaps four minutes, five tops. I don't quite understand why this part of the replay review has become so tortured, and tortuous. (Sorry, look it up!
)
Spanky185
Registered User
MLB had a similar issue when they instituted challenges and replay. Managers were challenging and getting safe calls overturned because the ball wasn't secured in the glove, even though it was in the glove. basically ruining what had been called since gloves entered the sport and eschewing all common sense.
After six weeks MLB issued a statement saying to use common sense, and that stopped. Alas it seems like the NHL isn't keen on using common sense with reviews and what should be overturned
mikelvl
Registered User
I want a ridiculous no goal or offside call to royally screw a team in the Stanley Cup Finals. Maybe then these ass clowns will wake up. The Bruins have been royally screwed this year.
Although, if there were no review of goals, the Bruins still would have been screwed because the hack referee ruled it no goal.
Although, if there were no review of goals, the Bruins still would have been screwed because the hack referee ruled it no goal.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: SCF: Florida Panthers vs Edmonton Oilers (EDM leads 1-0) (160 Viewers)- Latest: Greatzsky 99
-
-
-
-
