Rule 38 – Coach’s Challenge
38.1 General - The video review mechanism triggered by the Coach’s Challenge can only be utilized in GOAL/NO GOAL and delay of game– puck over glass situations and is intended to be extremely narrow in scope. In all Coach’s Challenge situations, the original call on the ice will be overturned if, and only if, a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct. If a review is notconclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice will be confirmed.
38.2 Situations Subject to Coach’s Challenge – A team may only request a Coach’s Challenge to review the following scenarios:
(a) “Off-Side” Play Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a“GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by reason of an “Off-Side”infraction by the attacking team (see Rule 83 – Off-Side);
(b) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Offensive Zone Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by reason of any play occurring in the offensive zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking team but did not. The one exception to this provision is when the puck strikes the spectator netting caused by either team and goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials; and
(c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential “Interference on the Goalkeeper” – Either: (i) A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper”(as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a “NO GOAL” call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of “Interference on the Goalkeeper” but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved orfouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player’s positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had nodiscernable impact on the play.
(d) Penalty situations for “Delaying the game – puck over the glass” – When a minor penalty for delaying the game has been assessed under Rule 63.2 (iii) for shooting or batting the puckout of play from the defending zone. This will only apply to delay of game penalties when the shot/batted puck is determined to have subsequently deflected off a player, stick, glass or boards,etc., and not a judgment call. No challenge can be issued for a non-call, in other words, no challenge is to be considered when the On-Ice Officials deem that it was not a violation of Rule 63.2(iii). A challenge can only be used to rescind a penalty, not tohave one assessed. In the event of a failed challenge, an additional minor penalty (or double-minor penalty, asappropriate) will be assessed (in addition to the existing delay ofgame penalty).