Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... User Polls
 Coaches Challenge Plays Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

admin
Forum Admin



Canada
2145 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  11:21:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
Do you agree or disagree with giving coaches the option to video-challenge on-ice plays, similar to NFL Football?

Choices:

Agree
Disagree

(Anonymous Vote)

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5692 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  11:37:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree fully with a challenge flag type situation, though it has to be limited in some degree. Also, losing a timeout isn't quite as important in the NHL as it is in the NFL so that could make it difficult to punish a team for delay of game on a call which isn't overturned?

When i say limited, i think it should only be used in situations which goals are scored (one's that aren't already reviewable) and game misconducts. There's been a few hits this year where guys have been kicked out of the game that were actually clean! These, i'd be okay with a ruling. Also, the Duchene (think it was him?) goal which was offside by a meter or more would be an instance included in what i would think should be challengable.
Go to Top of Page

Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro



701 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  14:35:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree

The thing is if you have the rule where a flag would take away your timeout, That means you would have a limit of one flag per game. That would take automatically the non necessary delay of game call.

If you give a minor penalty, it could get out of hand depending on the score and the percentage of the team special teams.

If you want to use it for an icing in the first period, so be it, but then you don't have any timeout left and so you can't flag any good or bad goals or any other important calls for the rest of the game.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4627
( )

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  14:36:47  Reply with Quote
are you kidding me that would be the Biggest Joke ever .. Let the game go the way it is.. Ref's aint perfect but hell if i wana see a game stop for a challenge flag..
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5692 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  16:01:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81

I agree

The thing is if you have the rule where a flag would take away your timeout, That means you would have a limit of one flag per game. That would take automatically the non necessary delay of game call.

If you give a minor penalty, it could get out of hand depending on the score and the percentage of the team special teams.

If you want to use it for an icing in the first period, so be it, but then you don't have any timeout left and so you can't flag any good or bad goals or any other important calls for the rest of the game.



While I would NEVER wanna see "icing" as a challengable play, i guess if one was waived off and the puck was immediately centered and a goal was scored, there's an argument for it? I dunno, that may be going too far, but then the offside one i mentioned i think should be so.......hmmmm?

As for only having 1 timeout, like in football, if you win your challenge, you keep your timeout and don't lose the opportunity to challenge again, though the NFL does have a limit and the NHL would have to as well.

I'd also be okay with the NHL simply making more plays automatically reviewable, like goalie interference and game misconducts for things like headshots.

Edited by - Alex116 on 02/25/2013 16:03:04
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
573 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  21:43:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Make it like tennis, where if you challenge right you get to keep your challenge, also give a two minute penalty for an unsuccessful challenge on a play not resulting in a goal
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4516 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2013 :  08:58:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was gonna mention the tennis set-up, but Sahis beat me to it.

Obviously, hockey can't have an actual flag on the ice, I assume it would be easy to make a yellow light above / around the benches so that the coach could press a button and thereby use his "challenge".

I say, give each team 2 challenges. For any disputed play which HAS RESULTED IN A GOAL, NO-GOAL CALL, OR POWER PLAY (or non-call of a penalty), and which can be easily reviewed by video camera, the coach can use his challenge. If it is reviewed and the call is overturned, the coach has used his challenge (he has one more to use still if need be) and the correct call is made to either allow a goal, penalty, etc. If the call stands - which means upon review they either can't determine the result, or they determine the right call was made in the first place - the team gets a 2 minute penalty on top whatever else happened.

In my view, no team should really need anything more than two challenges, really. Right or wrong, it'd be almost never result in a situation where both challenges are used and another bad call is made. And there obviously needs to be a limit to it for sure, so I think 2 is perfect.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5692 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2013 :  10:28:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I was gonna mention the tennis set-up, but Sahis beat me to it.

Obviously, hockey can't have an actual flag on the ice, I assume it would be easy to make a yellow light above / around the benches so that the coach could press a button and thereby use his "challenge".

I say, give each team 2 challenges. For any disputed play which HAS RESULTED IN A GOAL, NO-GOAL CALL, OR POWER PLAY (or non-call of a penalty), and which can be easily reviewed by video camera, the coach can use his challenge. If it is reviewed and the call is overturned, the coach has used his challenge (he has one more to use still if need be) and the correct call is made to either allow a goal, penalty, etc. If the call stands - which means upon review they either can't determine the result, or they determine the right call was made in the first place - the team gets a 2 minute penalty on top whatever else happened.

In my view, no team should really need anything more than two challenges, really. Right or wrong, it'd be almost never result in a situation where both challenges are used and another bad call is made. And there obviously needs to be a limit to it for sure, so I think 2 is perfect.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



The tennis reference is similar to the NFL reference i made earlier. In the NFL, you get two opportunities to challenge. IF, you win both, you get a 3rd. They also limit it time wise as you can't throw a challenge flag with under 2 mins left in a half. These plays are automatically reviewed by the league.

Slozo, i don't like the idea of challenging a penalty call. I think this is far too arbitrary. Unless, as i mentioned before, it's result is a game misconduct, then i'd be okay with it. Also, what if a play looked to be icing but the linesman waved it off and said the forward touched the puck first. Then, the forward and his team keep the puck in the offensive zone, cyling, getting a shot, etc and end up scoring say 45 seconds after the icing call? Is this then reviewable all the way back to the icing call since that would have changed the play completely? When do you limit the challenge to? Any controversial play could for arguments sake, be considered game changing up to the next whislte, no? Some grey areas they'd def have to work on for sure.....
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4516 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2013 :  07:15:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I was gonna mention the tennis set-up, but Sahis beat me to it.

Obviously, hockey can't have an actual flag on the ice, I assume it would be easy to make a yellow light above / around the benches so that the coach could press a button and thereby use his "challenge".

I say, give each team 2 challenges. For any disputed play which HAS RESULTED IN A GOAL, NO-GOAL CALL, OR POWER PLAY (or non-call of a penalty), and which can be easily reviewed by video camera, the coach can use his challenge. If it is reviewed and the call is overturned, the coach has used his challenge (he has one more to use still if need be) and the correct call is made to either allow a goal, penalty, etc. If the call stands - which means upon review they either can't determine the result, or they determine the right call was made in the first place - the team gets a 2 minute penalty on top whatever else happened.

In my view, no team should really need anything more than two challenges, really. Right or wrong, it'd be almost never result in a situation where both challenges are used and another bad call is made. And there obviously needs to be a limit to it for sure, so I think 2 is perfect.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



The tennis reference is similar to the NFL reference i made earlier. In the NFL, you get two opportunities to challenge. IF, you win both, you get a 3rd. They also limit it time wise as you can't throw a challenge flag with under 2 mins left in a half. These plays are automatically reviewed by the league.

Slozo, i don't like the idea of challenging a penalty call. I think this is far too arbitrary. Unless, as i mentioned before, it's result is a game misconduct, then i'd be okay with it. Also, what if a play looked to be icing but the linesman waved it off and said the forward touched the puck first. Then, the forward and his team keep the puck in the offensive zone, cyling, getting a shot, etc and end up scoring say 45 seconds after the icing call? Is this then reviewable all the way back to the icing call since that would have changed the play completely? When do you limit the challenge to? Any controversial play could for arguments sake, be considered game changing up to the next whislte, no? Some grey areas they'd def have to work on for sure.....



Explain to me . . . what makes challenging a penalty call arbitrary?

As arbitrary as calling the play itself in the first place?

Video review only makes the refs more accountable . . . and right now, there is near zero accountability. We have the technology, it will only improve the game and not take away from it, and the only reason not to change I feel is a stubborn, old-school thinking that is resistant to any change.

And . . . your question about how back do you go . . . you go back to when the play happened, and when it happened. Like you said, it could be 5 minutes without a whistle, but it is what it is! I feel that on a big challenge, the coach might instruct his players to simply ice the puck to stop the play and get the review.

We want to get the play right.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5692 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2013 :  07:43:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Slozo...
If they review an icing call or an offside, 99% of the time, it's going to be cut and dry, yes or no, whether they got it right. On the other hand, a penalty being reviewed will still be left up to the ref to judge whether or not it really was a penalty as it's somewhat of an opinion the ref has on the play. That, is what i call arbitrary. I guess they could allow penalty reviews, but i guarantee you very few would be challenged as it would take a real obvious one to be overturned! Most ref's would prob just get pissed they were being questioned, and uphold their calls, costing the challenging team a challenge, a timeout a penalty or whatever they decide to go with! Like i said, i'd be okaw with penalties resulting in game misconducts or even majors and one's that result directly in a goal such as goalie interference.

If they're going to go back 5 mins (for example), then maybe they need replay officials looking at these things as they happen (not the ref) and making a ruling during the play. If needed, they could stop the play, rather than wasting the time awaiting the next whistle? Just a thought.

Go to Top of Page

Guest9848
( )

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  08:49:54  Reply with Quote
Instead of having a coaches challenge just have the guys upstairs watching it call down and say nope ref was wrong. or have a deisgnated ref whos only there to watch video review and anytime something like that happens immediately correct the situation. you shouldnt need the coached to challenge the call the league should be responsible for ensuring the refs arent making mistakes. I dont see why we need to keep human error in the equation.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5692 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  10:15:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9848

Instead of having a coaches challenge just have the guys upstairs watching it call down and say nope ref was wrong. or have a deisgnated ref whos only there to watch video review and anytime something like that happens immediately correct the situation. you shouldnt need the coached to challenge the call the league should be responsible for ensuring the refs arent making mistakes. I dont see why we need to keep human error in the equation.



Similar to an idea i floated around once before. Why not take one official (ref) off the ice and put him in front of a monitor where he can watch for these sorts of things. Sure, the odd retaliatory penalty may be missed behind the play, but anything serious or a really bad call, could be reviewed and mic'd down to the on ice ref. Opens up a little more space on the ice (one less body) AND a lot of the time, the official out at center ice behind the play calls a penalty on a play right in front of the other ref who's not calling a penalty anyway!!!
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page