Have all the goal reviews taken away from your enjoyment of hockey?

[Rodgerwilco]

Out of curiosity, prior to the implementation of offside review, was this an issue you were looking for the league to fix? Or were you simply happy with the change when it came about? Genuine question.

Because that’s where one of my biggest issues lies—I believe they made a solution to a problem that didn’t need fixing.

Not me. Just the opposite, actually. The flaws in our game are a part of our game. I can’t remember the last time I got upset with a missed call.

I did want it to be changed. Watching a blatant offside goal in a pivotal moment of a playoff series was infuriating.

Football was my first sport I was into growing up and I never understood why other sports didn’t have challenges and reviews with instant replay like the NFL does.

I dont want to allow more missed calls just because it’s “part of the game”. It doesn’t make sense to me to not want the accuracy and legitimacy of the game to improve because “that’s just part of it.”

 

[Planetov]

I did want it to be changed. Watching a blatant offside goal in a pivotal moment of a playoff series was infuriating.

Football was my first sport I was into growing up and I never understood why other sports didn’t have challenges and reviews with instant replay like the NFL does.

I dont want to allow more missed calls just because it’s “part of the game”. It doesn’t make sense to me to not want the accuracy and legitimacy of the game to improve because “that’s just part of it.”

Fair enough. I 100% agree with you about blatant/missed calls. Nobody wants that.

But I will still argue that there is a distinct difference between a blatant/missed call and a grey-area close-call. Without frame-by-frame replay, “blatant” is not a proper description of a play in real-time. Applying the term “blatant” to a single frame in which you see white between a skate and the blue line isn’t in good faith.

The “part of the game” “missed calls” is referring to the little infractions we accept each and every shift, not the blatant stuff. If you want 100% accuracy and legitimacy, the current game we watch ain’t it.

 

[LeighDx59]

Nope.

I want them to get the call right regardless of if its my team or not. Though I do think they should put a time limit of how long the challenge should take, if its not obvious enough to figure out in a minute, then allow it.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Some of you guys need to chill out. lol

Getting it right is important. I agree it's too lengthy sometimes, but it's all part of the game evolving.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Some of you guys need to chill out. lol

Getting it right is important. I agree it's too lengthy sometimes, but it's all part of the game evolving.

Is it?

 

[KevinRedkey]

Is it?

Is getting things right in a competitive team sport important?
or
Is the game evolving?

The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Of course there's grey areas and nuance to that, but it's kind of strange to suggest either is flat-out not important, given the context of this forum.

 

[Angler]

I'm okay with goal reviews, I'd rather them get it right. I think the owners would agree too, there is a lot of money in revenue on the line. Reviews do not change my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Is getting things right in a competitive team sport important?
or
Is the game evolving?

The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Of course there's grey areas and nuance to that, but it's kind of strange to suggest either is flat-out not important, given the context of this forum.

Cause it's boring to sit for 5 minutes to see 1 white pixel. Its against the spirit and we should change the rule. Rules are all made up and we can change them

 

[KevinRedkey]

Cause it's boring to sit for 5 minutes to see 1 white pixel. Its against the spirit and we should change the rule. Rules are all made up and we can change them

I don't diagree that it can be boring, but it also doesn't ruin the game for me at all.

Some people think the strike box in MLB should be exact (like Tennis). Some people like the human error aspect. I tend to think it should be exact, if possible - within reason.

That said - those 5min 1-pixel events will eventually be just like Tennis where it takes 5 seconds. To get there, we just need to go through a boring patch where it takes too long currently.

 

[Roomtemperature]

I don't diagree that it can be boring, but it also doesn't ruin the game for me at all.

Some people think the strike box in MLB should be exact (like Tennis). Some people like the human error aspect. I tend to think it should be exact, if possible - within reason.

That said - those 5min 1-pixel events will eventually be just like Tennis where it takes 5 seconds. To get there, we just need to go through a boring patch where it takes too long currently.

Why do we have to do the boring part? If the tech isn't there don't waste my time

 

[KevinRedkey]

Why do we have to do the boring part? If the tech isn't there don't waste my time

If the NHL doesn't show the desire/need for this kind of tech - no one is going to develop it and pump in the $$$ required to make it happen. You don't get to the iPhone 15 without first making the OG iPhone. That goes for pretty much every aspect of technology across the board, with few exceptions.

 

[tarheelhockey]

10 months earlier the NHL’s half assed review missed Hull’s skate in the crease…

This is missing the greater arc of what happened in 1999.

The league didn’t used to review skate in crease calls. They instituted review that year because of whining over a high profile missed call, similar to the Duchene offside.

Well, it turns out that it’s an absolute nightmare to review every goal for a skate in the crease. Legit hockey plays became illegal and games were decided on joke technicalities similar to what we’ve seen with offside.

So before the playoffs, they legalize certain common sense scenarios, like putting your skate into the crease ahead of the puck when you’re the guy who has the puck. But that’s the kind of nuance that isn’t followed day by day, certainly not in the pre-social media era. So nobody clearly understood the new rules.

Fast forward to the climax of the season. Hull scores a completely legal Cup winning goal. The season is over, chaos ensues. Next thing you know, fans are all bent out of shape because they want the goal overturned based on rules that don’t apply anymore. That Cup is forever stained by a controversy that shouldn’t have happened, based on an idiotic attempt to micro-manage the game with replay.

25 years later, we have an internet argument that there should be MORE scenarios like this. People don’t learn the lesson and it never ****ing ends.

 

[KeydGV21]

This is missing the greater arc of what happened in 1999.

The league didn’t used to review skate in crease calls. They instituted review that year because of whining over a high profile missed call, similar to the Duchene offside.

Well, it turns out that it’s an absolute nightmare to review every goal for a skate in the crease. Legit hockey plays became illegal and games were decided on joke technicalities similar to what we’ve seen with offside.

So before the playoffs, they legalize certain common sense scenarios, like putting your skate into the crease ahead of the puck when you’re the guy who has the puck. But that’s the kind of nuance that isn’t followed day by day, certainly not in the pre-social media era. So nobody clearly understood the new rules.

Fast forward to the climax of the season. Hull scores a completely legal Cup winning goal. The season is over, chaos ensues. Next thing you know, fans are all bent out of shape because they want the goal overturned based on rules that don’t apply anymore. That Cup is forever stained by a controversy that shouldn’t have happened, based on an idiotic attempt to micro-manage the game with replay.

25 years later, we have an internet argument that there should be MORE scenarios like this. People don’t learn the lesson and it never ****ing ends.

I hesitate to use the New York Post a source but…

UPON FURTHER REVIEW, CHAOS; NHL REVIEWS ITS WORST NIGHTMARE

The well-intentioned crease encroachment rule that nevertheless created so many headaches the last three years for the NHL may be history by this afternoon, if the Board of Governors cares to addre…

nypost.com

If it was a completely legal goal because the NHL changed the rules in March, it sure was news to the hockey media and one of the teams involved…

Apparently if the NHL tells this lie enough, people do end up believing it

 

[Planetov]

This is missing the greater arc of what happened in 1999.

The league didn’t used to review skate in crease calls. They instituted review that year because of whining over a high profile missed call, similar to the Duchene offside.

Well, it turns out that it’s an absolute nightmare to review every goal for a skate in the crease. Legit hockey plays became illegal and games were decided on joke technicalities similar to what we’ve seen with offside.

So before the playoffs, they legalize certain common sense scenarios, like putting your skate into the crease ahead of the puck when you’re the guy who has the puck. But that’s the kind of nuance that isn’t followed day by day, certainly not in the pre-social media era. So nobody clearly understood the new rules.

Fast forward to the climax of the season. Hull scores a completely legal Cup winning goal. The season is over, chaos ensues. Next thing you know, fans are all bent out of shape because they want the goal overturned based on rules that don’t apply anymore. That Cup is forever stained by a controversy that shouldn’t have happened, based on an idiotic attempt to micro-manage the game with replay.

25 years later, we have an internet argument that there should be MORE scenarios like this. People don’t learn the lesson and it never ****ing ends.

I wish I could like this post more than once. Well put.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I hesitate to use the New York Post a source but…

UPON FURTHER REVIEW, CHAOS; NHL REVIEWS ITS WORST NIGHTMARE

The well-intentioned crease encroachment rule that nevertheless created so many headaches the last three years for the NHL may be history by this afternoon, if the Board of Governors cares to addre…

nypost.com

If it was a completely legal goal because the NHL changed the rules in March, it sure was news to the hockey media and one of the teams involved…

Apparently if the NHL tells this lie enough, people do end up believing it

Your source is the New York Post, mine is the Buffalo Sabres front office.

League memo defines crease rule - 10:44 ET; June 23, 1999

web.archive.org

"We did receive the memo," team spokesman Mike Gilbert said from Buffalo, N.Y. "It was sent to (general manager) Darcy Regier and also sent to (coach) Lindy Ruff."

This puts a very different spin on Ruff screaming at the Commissioner during the Cup ceremony, not to mention going out to the Sabres’ postseason rally AFTER this article and leading a “no goal” chant.

Basically, this narrative exists largely because Lindy Ruff wanted to save face for not checking his email.

 

[Planetov]

Is getting things right in a competitive team sport important?
or
Is the game evolving?

The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Of course there's grey areas and nuance to that, but it's kind of strange to suggest either is flat-out not important, given the context of this forum.

Everything you just said is right, and all of it together. Getting the call right, evolving the game, nuance, and grey area are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be.

The foot-in-the-crease rule change (that tarheelhockey was good enough to bring up) is a perfect example of this. It was a hard and fast rule that was erased good goals. So they changed it. And guess what? That change helped get the call right, evolve the game, AND embrace nuance and grey-area.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Everything you just said is right, and all of it together. Getting the call right, evolving the game, nuance, and grey area are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be.

The foot-in-the-crease rule change (that tarheelhockey was good enough to bring up) is a perfect example of this. It was a hard and fast rule that was erased good goals. So they changed it. And guess what? That change helped get the call right, evolve the game, AND embrace nuance and grey-area.

I do agree with this.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Translation

OP team keeps losing these review

 

[elmaco]

Nope, right now the correct team wins.

 

[JianYang]

Have the reviews taken some enjoyment out? Maybe a little bit. You do have that slight reservation in the back of your mind when a goal is scored, and takesf a little bit away from the moment.

Offside reviews can be frustrating, but if the tradeoff is that you never have that duchene play again, then I accept it.

The one that I hate is the interference reviews. I like the idea of reviewing them, but are they really getting them "right" frequently enough?

 

[KeydGV21]

Your source is the New York Post, mine is the Buffalo Sabres front office.

League memo defines crease rule - 10:44 ET; June 23, 1999

web.archive.org

"We did receive the memo," team spokesman Mike Gilbert said from Buffalo, N.Y. "It was sent to (general manager) Darcy Regier and also sent to (coach) Lindy Ruff."

This puts a very different spin on Ruff screaming at the Commissioner during the Cup ceremony, not to mention going out to the Sabres’ postseason rally AFTER this article and leading a “no goal” chant.

Basically, this narrative exists largely because Lindy Ruff wanted to save face for not checking his email.

A) I highly doubt the league was sending out rule change memos in 1999 by email…so a nice cheap shot on Lindy, but it clearly shows your bias…

B) you own source doesn’t state what the memo actually stated but does indicate that it supersedes the memo from 3 weeks earlier about the rule…

Now, which is more likely…the NHL, on at least their 3rd version of the rule that season screwed up the application of the rule? Or the NHL, known for being so incompetent they needed 3 versions of that rule that season alone, managed to properly review the goal in the mayhem of an overtime goal?

Given they managed to not catch my first example of the puck going through the side of the net, it would be absolutely delusional to think them getting the review right is what is more likely…

 

[tarheelhockey]

A) I highly doubt the league was sending out rule change memos in 1999 by email…so a nice cheap shot on Lindy, but it clearly shows your bias…

Why? We’re talking about 1999, not 1979. Business email was most definitely a thing.

In any case, the fact is that Lindy received the memo and then behaved as if he didn’t. Either he didn’t pay attention to the rule change, or he lied about it. Which do you think is a better look?

B) you own source doesn’t state what the memo actually stated but does indicate that it supersedes the memo from 3 weeks earlier about the rule…

Did you not read the full article? It contains direct quotes on the rule in question.

On March 25th the NHL sent to all team general managers, league supervisors, on-ice officials and video goal judges a memorandum containing "definitive procedures" concerning potential crease violations on goals.

The memorandum said it superceded all previous ruling, "including Bryan Lewis' memoranda dated March 4, 1999." Lewis is director of officating. In the key section of "clarifications and exceptions" that covered Brett Hull's Stanley Cup-winning goal last weekend in which the Dallas Stars forward had his left skate in the Buffalo Sabres crease when he scored, the memorandum states:

-"An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. Result: Goal is allowed. The offside-rule rationale applies." (A player actually controlling the puck who crosses the line ahead of the puck is not considered off-side.)

-"Attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed. The player did not maintain control of the puck."

The Sabres said Tuesday they received the memorandum.


That’s as open and shut as it can possibly be. The Sabres knew (or should have known) that the goal was legal, even while they were publicly campaigning otherwise.

Now, which is more likely…the NHL, on at least their 3rd version of the rule that season screwed up the application of the rule? Or the NHL, known for being so incompetent they needed 3 versions of that rule that season alone, managed to properly review the goal in the mayhem of an overtime goal?

Again, it’s open and shut what the specific text of the rule change said, how it applied to the Hull goal, and that it was distributed to Regier on March 25th. There’s no argument here.

 

[Laveuglette]

For offside I think it's dumb and it annoys me. For goalie interference or other penalties or rules no, they should get the call right. But c'mon, if a offside is missed, it's missed, what happens next should count and not be erased afterwards.

I would just go back to the former rules before those offsides review and all that coach challenge BS. Why would you penalize a team if they are ultimately wrong but the doubt was legitimate? It's always been nonsense for me.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

No.