Refs video review an Ian Cole interference penalty and change it to a Tyler Myers 5 minute major.

[Nucker101]

“That goal is to get things right”

Then who’s to say they don’t review everything that happens leading up to the call in question during any review situation?

Coach is challenging for goalie interference? Oh, I see #20 slashed a guy 30 seconds before that goal so instead we’re calling that now.


Sounds like a fun time

 

[cc]

The video review serves a singular purpose and it's supposed to confirm, reduce or rescind the original call.

It's purpose isn't to check to see if there was another unseen infraction that was missed and assign calls retroactively.

Does that mean they can make an 'even up' call if they notice a separate infraction that was missed during the review process? It raises a number of questions with regard to what they are able to do with a video review

 

[HighAndTight]

They weren’t even looking at that play, it’s not that they got the wrong player. They literally called a different infraction.

If you want to go this far, may as well institute a VAR system like in soccer.

VAR turns out to be no better and possibly corrupt.

 

[JianYang]

The concern here is that either the officials or someone in the war room (assuming they talking with them during the review) does not know the rule, and then you start wondering what else they may not know and interpret incorrectly.

We can say "they got it right", but it's a slippery slope in the grand scheme of things.

Plus, if they are allowed to look at another play on review, why do we still have that cat and mouse show where they will review whether the puck has crossed the line, then the other coach has to challenge for goalie interference. The official has already seen the play "to get it right".

Now they are picking and choosing when they will enforce an infraction that was never under review.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

People are really overreacting to this. I've seen refs change the offending player via review on a simple high sticking minor, sometimes they get the wrong guy and change it. Really not a big deal, this wasn't as uncommon or some offscript or against the rules thing being made out to be.

There's a lot to unpack here other than that. Looks like a minor penalty on Myers to me, he's spinning around crashing into the boards and not looking at kiraly, and his elbow is down, not flailed or extended, he's just a big guy taller than everyone else. I see a minor penalty.

Also, looks like there should have been interference minor on Cole

 

[Luck 6]

I'm not sure why Canucks fans are complaining.

It should have been a major penalty and a 5 on 3.

Could have almost been two 5 minute majors. Cole buried a guy from behind that didn't even have the puck.

I think you’re missing the point. The concern here isn’t about the outcome of the call, or the teams, it’s about the referees going rogue and not following the rules.

What is the point of having set rules if you can just adjust in the fly if you see fit? If they want to be able to do that, they should change that to be a rule then.

People are really overreacting to this. I've seen refs change the offending player via review on a simple high sticking minor, sometimes they get the wrong guy and change it. Really not a big deal, this wasn't as uncommon or some offscript or against the rules thing being made out to be.

There's a lot to unpack here other than that. Looks like a minor penalty on Myers to me, he's spinning around crashing into the boards and not looking at kiraly, and his elbow is down, not flailed or extended, he's just a big guy taller than everyone else. I see a minor penalty.

Also, looks like there should have been interference minor on Cole

This is different. They penalized Cole for boarding. They then reviewed it and rescinded that penalty, but added a 5 minute elbowing major to an entirely different player.

Where in the rules does it say you can do that? They didn’t get the wrong player, they rescinded a penalty and added a new one to a totally different player than was eligible for review.

 

[cc]

People are really overreacting to this. I've seen refs change the offending player via review on a simple high sticking minor, sometimes they get the wrong guy and change it. Really not a big deal, this wasn't as uncommon or some offscript or against the rules thing being made out to be.

There's a lot to unpack here other than that. Looks like a minor penalty on Myers to me, he's spinning around crashing into the boards and not looking at kiraly, and his elbow is down, not flailed or extended, he's just a big guy taller than everyone else. I see a minor penalty.

Also, looks like there should have been interference minor on Cole

I've seen officials huddle up and switch players as a result of what was discussed but I've never seen a separate call to a separate player come about from a video review. It feels unprecedented but I don't watch every game.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I've seen officials huddle up and switch players as a result of what was discussed but I've never seen a separate call to a separate player come about from a video review. It feels unprecedented but I don't watch every game.

I still find it bizarre that with 4 on ice officials they just couldn’t have conferred and figured out who to penalize. Surely one of them must have been watching the play.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

People are really overreacting to this. I've seen refs change the offending player via review on a simple high sticking minor, sometimes they get the wrong guy and change it. Really not a big deal, this wasn't as uncommon or some offscript or against the rules thing being made out to be.

There's a lot to unpack here other than that. Looks like a minor penalty on Myers to me, he's spinning around crashing into the boards and not looking at kiraly, and his elbow is down, not flailed or extended, he's just a big guy taller than everyone else. I see a minor penalty.

Also, looks like there should have been interference minor on Cole

His elbow is down? You sure you’re watching the correct play?

 

[Regal]

His elbow is down? You sure you’re watching the correct play?

It’s slightly away from his body but it’s not really obviously “up” in how we typically use the phrase either. It was still well below his shoulder

I’m fine with it as a major though because you need to control your body and it was still to the head

 

[FissionFire]

The NHL has a history of ignoring or changing rules on the fly. This is the league that literally awarded a Cup winning goal by ignoring their own season-long skate-in-crease ban. This is just par for the course and I’m surprised people do t expect these things.

 

[wetcoast]

I think it was actually called a Major on Cole for Interference/boarding initially, changed to a Major on Myers for elbowing. Definitely a strange sequence of events, never seen them cancel the penalty they called to call a completely different one via review.

Fortunately Van was exceptional on the kill

It was very strange in a number of ways as the Jackets player at the last second changed his body angle and then the Big giraffe got all spun around.

Sure one could call it a penalty but all of us have seen worse intentfull infractions not get a 5 minute major and the ruling on the ice and the end call skirted the actual rules as well.

 

[wetcoast]

Team wins by scoring 3 PP goals. Make a main boards thread complaining about the refs. Wasn’t this one of those guaranteed win type of teams you were going against too? Classic.

Maybe try to stick to the actual thread topic and not indicate how important other teams uniforms are to your posting needs.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm not sure how to embed the video, but here's a link to the play in question. Was very strange.

Right at 33 seconds you can see how unconventional the Jackets player went into that play and put himself in a venerable position and the clip isn't in real-time that's something people often forget here.

If that had been Quinn Hughes on the exact same play instead of the big giraffe the contact would have been to the players chest and then maybe they call Cole for a 2 minute minor but who knows.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Right at 33 seconds you can see how unconventional the Jackets player went into that play and put himself in a venerable position and the clip isn't in real-time that's something people often forget here.

If that had been Quinn Hughes on the exact same play instead of the big giraffe the contact would have been to the players chest and then maybe they call Cole for a 2 minute minor but who knows.

That’s still on Myers, he’s been that height for 15 years, he should know if he’s spinning like that there’s a good chance it’s getting someone in the head

 

[wetcoast]

That’s still on Myers, he’s been that height for 15 years, he should know if he’s spinning like that there’s a good chance it’s getting someone in the head

Did you watch the clip at the 30 second mark to see how it all went down?

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

And the only reason I know their thread is obsessed is cuz I keep hearing about it and ya know when someone takes a big dump and then says "you gotta see this"... and even though you don't wanna go look cuz it's disgusting... you also just need to see it for yourself. It's like that.

 

[Three On Zero]

That’s still on Myers, he’s been that height for 15 years, he should know if he’s spinning like that there’s a good chance it’s getting someone in the head

Similar to high sticking, you’re responsible for your body parts, this is 100% a high elbow and Myers deserved the major

 

[Three On Zero]

The easiest solution I see, when you have an injury due to multiple bodies in a short sequence, you call an infraction to stop play and then review the footage to ensure you penalize the right players without penalizing anyone. Once reviewed you call out the penalty/penalized player

You don’t call a penalty on one player and then change it to another after

“We have a major penalty called on the play, we are reviewing the sequence now”

 

[Crease]

They can’t, according to the rule book:

> The Referee shall have the following options after video review of his own call: (i) confirming his original Major Penalty call; (ii) reducing his original Major Penalty call to a lesser penalty; or (iii) rescinding the original Major Penalty altogether.

This is Rule 21.5. The third prong isn’t in the version of the rulebook released at the beginning of the 2023-24 season. If they added it mid-season, it’s because the refs were rescinding penalties after review and the league wanted to retroactively make that consistent with the rules. And it doesn’t even cover what happened here. The NHL has been changing rules on the fly to cover officials since Brett Hull’s foot in the crease.

 

[Guttersniped]

The easiest solution I see, when you have an injury due to multiple bodies in a short sequence, you call an infraction to stop play and then review the footage to ensure you penalize the right players without penalizing anyone. Once reviewed you call out the penalty/penalized player

You don’t call a penalty on one player and then change it to another after

“We have a major penalty called on the play, we are reviewing the sequence now”

Kuraly is bleeding from the face, that’s an automatic Major and Game Misconduct if it was caused by an elbow (or boarding or charging).

They might not of bothered officially announce that before the review, but they were calling a major based on the face injury due to a collision and then reviewing it.

If he wasn’t bleeding, it would be a lot weirder, but they didn’t review an interference minor and then discover something happened to Kuraly.

Edit: more specific about penalties.

 

[Three On Zero]

Kuraly is bleeding from the face, that’s an automatic Major and Game Misconduct if it was caused by an elbow or other physical infraction.

They might not of bothered officially announce that before the review, but they were calling a major based on the face injury due to a collision and then reviewing it.

If he wasn’t bleeding, it would be a lot weirder, but they didn’t review an interference minor and then discover something happened to Kuraly.

That’s not what they were reviewing, they were reviewing the Cole hit

 

[Lawzy]

Kuraly is bleeding from the face, that’s an automatic Major and Game Misconduct if it was caused by an elbow or other physical infraction.

The existence of blood absolutely does not result in an automatic major. What about an interference penalty on an otherwise clean hit that results in a cut from the defending players own visor? How about a simple high-sticking penalty? Neither of those are majors but they are certainly physical infractions.

They might not of bothered officially announce that before the review, but they were calling a major based on the face injury due to a collision and then reviewing it.

They placed Ian Cole in the penalty box and verbally confirmed it was an interference penalty on Cole. Unless you're arguing they were calling the major on Cole... in which case that's worse not better.

If he wasn’t bleeding, it would be a lot weirder, but they didn’t review an interference minor and then discover something happened to Kuraly.

This is exactly what they did.

Even if all of that was true. Why didn't Cole get a penalty as well? It seems pretty clear they didn't understand the rule and that is what's concerning. Myers absolutely deserved a penalty (it could be argued as a minor or major) and so did Cole but that doesn't change the fact that the way they were given penalties (or taken away) doesn't actually align with the rules set by the NHL.

 

[Moose Head]

Did Jack Tunney announce the call reversal?

 

[Derailed75]

Apparently they can!

This caused a cascade of bottles when the NFL did this in Cleveland. They also got the call right but the review buzzer didn't come in u til after the following snap. You cause riots and massive unrest when a sports league makes up the rules in the fly