Comments on: Wings GM Holland ‘open’ to idea of coach’s challenge

By: nothanksimdriving123

nothanksimdriving123 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:07:07 +0000

Yes, it should be a limited number, 2 or 3 absolute max. One idea is that a team loses their time out if their challenge fails (but what if you’ve already taken your time out; good question). But it has to be for penalties too, especially for this kind of scenario: Player X high sticks your guy, it isn’t called, and 10 seconds later X scores a crucial goal when he should have been in the sin bin. You would definitely want to challenge that.

By: joeyashwi

joeyashwi — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:57:40 +0000

This is totally off topic but the comment about the penalty shot brought this on. I think that if a player is interfered with in any way (trip, hook, hold) while on a breakaway, he should get a penalty shot AND the player committing the infraction gets two minutes. Breakaways are an exciting play in hockey and as it stands, the defensive player who gets burned isn’t really penalized at all being that it would have been a breakaway anyway. In fact, the goalie has more time to get ready for a penalty shot so it actually helps to just trip a guy going in alone. The extra two minute penalty should help deter this. Thoughts?

By: mclovinhockey

mclovinhockey — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:23:40 +0000

By only for goals you mean a play where there was a goal scored?
Cause technically the offsides for the goal would be part reviewed.

Then again how about high sticking calls where the person just throws his head back and does not get hit. Or just dives all together?

By: lordfletcher

lordfletcher — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:21:19 +0000

challenges should only be allowed on goals and anything non-penalty related within 2 minutes of the 3rd period. I think coaches should be able to challenge an icing or offsides within 2 minutes of the 3rd because it could change the outcome of the game…. I hope this wouldn’t get overused by the coaches and make the last two minutes slow and boring for the fans but if used correctly, I would hope it improves the game.

I would say the challenges should only go in to effect if the home base in Toronto hires about 10 new replay officals in the tv booth. I do not want to wait 5 minutes per each review like we have in the NFL. BORING!!! Should take no more than 30 seconds, if they can’t do that. no coaches challenges for me

By: jeremyroenickdanceparty

jeremyroenickdanceparty — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:00:22 +0000

who takes the shot depends on the penalty. if a specific player is fouled, he has to take the shot unless unable because of injury. if the penalty is not on a specific player (i.e. covering the puck in the crease) anyone on the ice at the time of the infraction can be selected. can’t pull someone from the bench though.

By: sjsharks66

sjsharks66 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:59:25 +0000

Ctochester,

I would say the challenge would be acceptable for that. They scored on an opportunity they received from a blown off side call. As long as they were controlling the puck the entire time. If the other team was able to get control of the puck and were unable to get it out of the zone then no challenge.

By: ctochester12

ctochester12 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:52:26 +0000

One of my thoughs on this is, how far back can the coach go to challenge? Let say the play is like the one from above, but instead of scoring right away it is 2 minutes later when the goal happens, would the coach be able to challenge and have the goal overturned?

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:40:53 +0000

Kenny speaks, the hockey world listens! Insofar as a penalty shot is concerned, does the fouled team not have the option of choosing its shooter? I remember Babcock elected Crosby over Nash in the Vancouver games though Nash had been fouled? Don’t sell Scott short…nobody gets to the NHL without good hands. Without being harried and with time, he’d be as good as anyone…look at the SO records of the some of the so-called gifted?

By: csilojohnson

csilojohnson — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:36:49 +0000

I would not be opposed to each team getting one. Maby make it a timeout or challenge. One voids the other. If they are worried about games running over timeslots.
Keep it simple. They should expand the role of the league office in reviewing goals. Maby expand thier review back to the blue line. For missed hooking, interference, etc.
Should go no further then that though.

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:16:05 +0000

I do think though that, in a penalty shot situation, the team awarded ought to be allowed to choose between the penalty shot and taking the 2 minutes. I mean, what if the person on the breakaway were John Scott? (Not that that’d ever happen…)

By: sjsharks66

sjsharks66 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:07:22 +0000

Would be useful for major penalties. Example, when desjardins was kicked out a couple weeks ago for his hit on mayers. Later the refs came out and said he should have not been kicked out. That has happened a lot this season for many teams.

By: dmacirish

dmacirish — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:05:52 +0000

i think that coaches challenges could be used for situations such as this offsides call which was missed or danny b’s last year against the pens (which was a whole lot closer). since the NFL has been the first to use the coaches challenges in the main 4 sports here in the US i assume, as is happening, that there will be a lot of comparisons made to how they do it. unfortunately there is very little which is the same in the sports to use a direct correlation between the two.

scoring – touchdown versus goal – doesnt the war room in toronto review all of them anyway?
out of bounds – there is no out of bound in hockey but the offsides and defensive zone clear delay of game penalty could be looked at here.
minor or major penalties – there really is very little that could be looked at here to make a valid case of using a coaches challenge (and penalties are not able to be challenged in the NFL right?)

give the coaches 1 challenge per game for an offsides that they feel was called incorrectly or if there is a delay (defensive zone clear) that they feel should not have been called. if the coach is incorrect they lose their time out – if they had already used their time out then they cant challenge.

By: doubles22

doubles22 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:04:29 +0000

Something that bothers me about the disputed Duchene goal is the interpretation of the offside rule that many fans / media members are leaning on in this particular instance. There is another component to the offside rule that is getting lost in our haste to hang the zebras out to dry. In addition to no member of the attacking team legally proceeding the puck into the offensive zone, also critical to the application of the rule is to determine which team played the puck into the zone.

A monkey could look at the picture posted above and cry about a missed offside call. The fact that Duchene proceeded the puck into his attacking zone was never in dispute as far as the officials were concerned. The real question on this play was which team played the puck into the zone. For this play to have been legal, the Nashville defenseman would have had to “voluntarily propel” the puck back into his own zone. In reality, the puck was “deflected” back into the zone by Nashville, and it is this distinction that should have resulted in the play being ruled offside.

Not to be a zebra apologist, but this play was actually much, much closer to being a legal play than most fans / media members know or care to admit.

By: 1943mrmojorisin1971

1943mrmojorisin1971 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:39 +0000

No. Expand the goal/no goal review to include looking at goalie interference but nothing more than that. The refereeing has been atrocious this year so maybe they should be held to account rather than saying, “It’s ok, don’t bother doing your jobs correctly, we have lots of HD cameras to do them for you.”

By: gebray1s

gebray1s — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:45:22 +0000

What about for Major penalties also – case in point the hit that Backes had against Huskins that was rescinded in the Blues vs Detroit game.

By: gebray1s

gebray1s — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:45:22 +0000

What about for Major penalties also – case in point the hit that Backes had against Huskins that was rescinded in the Blues vs Detroit game.

By: ballistictrajectory

ballistictrajectory — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:24:35 +0000

I needses my indents…

By: ballistictrajectory

ballistictrajectory — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:24:08 +0000

So… how would this play out?

if infraction_pending (means ref has his hand up or is “thinking of blowing the whistle” [do I HATE that one]…)
if attacker_flagged (borrowing from the NFL)
no goal
[no need for review, the ref is at fault]
else
goal
automatic goal under review
if no_goal
infraction_charged
else
infraction_pending = false
else
if goal_waved_off
on play_suspended
automatic play under review
{grey area – didn’t this happen a couple of seasons ago where the no-goal goal wasn’t reveiwable until after the other team scored?}
if valid_goal
reset clock
void countless minutes and fans’ enthusiasm.
else
whatever happened still counts
else
automatic goal under review

By: hockeyknowledge

hockeyknowledge — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:23:54 +0000

I would agree it should only be done for goals. Otherwise a game would be much longer, but that also depends on the # of challenges.

By: sjsharks66

sjsharks66 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:11:54 +0000

Should only be used for goal questioning, not for minor penalties.