Skip to content

Report: GMs likely to discuss expanded goal reviews in March

Jan 21, 2014, 7:52 PM EDT

officialsgetty Getty Images

NHL general managers will discuss expanding the scope of video goal reviews during their next meetings in March, ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun reports.

In fact, LeBrun believes that there’s so much momentum for making sure that the Toronto “war room” can consider a wider array of video replays that the question might be when, not if, changes are made. There’s even talk that changes could be made by the 2014 playoffs.

(Such a change would require voting from the NHLPA and the league’s 30 owners, along with the GMs.)

While it’s likely that there have been those who have clamored for changes for some time, LeBrun points out two recent questionable goals that added even more momentum to the discussions.

Niklas Kronwall‘s questionable game-tying goal from Jan. 18 was a big one:

Monday’s game-winner for Joe Pavelski also brought about questions as to whether he was offside:

Bob McKenzie backed up the rumblings during an appearance before NBCSN’s Minnesota Wild – Dallas Stars game, but he also discussed some points of disagreement, as certain details (how far back will the reviews go, how far should replays be expanded?) need to be hashed out.

  1. charlieconway96 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:27 PM

    “Niklas Kronwall‘s questionable game-tying goal”

    PHT must be using a very loosely defined version of the word “questionable”.

    • hockeydon10 - Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM

      Not really. While it’s certainly not questionable to most fans — even Kronwall himself admits it hit the netting — the play is not ruled dead from a puck out of play until the officials blow the whistle for it being out of play. That’s how the current rule book reads.

      Now, should it be changed? Yes. It’s just a matter of defining how far back to go in review and defining what actions can overturn a goal called on the ice.

      • wtfkwp - Jan 22, 2014 at 11:49 AM

        I think he’s going with the idea, as I would, that there’s no questioning that it wasn’t, in reality, a goal. It was a goal in a real sense, while not according to the rules, which are obviously in error. If you understand that rules can be wrong, you get the idea.

      • wtfkwp - Jan 22, 2014 at 11:50 AM

        The “tuck rule” in the NFL is another example.

      • hockeydon10 - Jan 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM

        The rules say a puck is in play until the refs decide it isn’t. Pretty cut and dried.

  2. stakex - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:31 PM

    The big problem will be the scope of these expanded reviews, as mentioned above.

    For example: Say a team enters the attacking zone, is slightly offside, and scores on the rush. Its easy to say that goal should be disallowed. However, what happens if a team enters the zone offside, has strong possession, and scores 45 seconds later…. or even a minute or more after the original offside? At that point the original offside isn’t directly tied to the goal, but where do you draw the limit on reviewing the goal? That’s a pretty tough question, and one of the main reasons offside was never reviewable. Same is true with a puck off the netting. When does the goal no longer become reviewable? What happens if the puck bounces off the netting, leaves the zone, and the other team scores?

    All of those, plus many others, are questions that need to be answered before expanded replay is possible.

    • joey4id - Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47 PM

      What’s the difference between slightly offside, and offside with strong possession? What happens if the referee waves off a seemingly goal and play continues for 4 minutes, and the opposing team scores a goal? The video review of the waved off goal clearly indicates that the puck completely crossed the line. What happens to all the stats that were registered between the time of the waved off goal and the legit goal? Read the rule book and you”ll understand what they could do in the case of a slight offside or an offside with strong possession.

  3. sharksfan754 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    Challenge flag. You get penalized a 2 minute delay of game if wrong. I’m torn on making them have to have a timeout to challenge and you’d just lose that instead. Either way it’s better than what we have now. Make it happen after Olympic break.

    • hockeydon10 - Jan 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM

      Even with a challenge flag they would still need to define what can be challenged.

      Can they challenge hand passes prior to a goal? played with high stick? off netting? off player on the bench? off turnbuckle partition (the one Pachiorety was hit into)?

      How far back can they go? 15 seconds? 30? 1 minute?

      In the end, whatever is chosen for coaches challenge could instead be incorporated into the video review. The first step is to define all that.

  4. csilojohnson - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:43 PM

    I agree with expanding it to catch something like the Kronwall goal.
    Not reviewing the linesmans calls though. Slippery slope on those.
    As for challenge flags…. I think the NHL should stay away from adopting anything the NFL is doing related to officiating.

  5. ethanmacleod1685 - Jan 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM

    How is this not a rule now?

    • hockeydon10 - Jan 22, 2014 at 9:35 AM

      re: Kronwall goal: Pucks are considered in play until an official blows the whistle and indicated it left the playing area.

  6. ibieiniid - Jan 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM

    I’m now apprehensive of putting any sort of projectile in certain coaches’ hands. no challenge flags, please.

    • stratomaticfan - Jan 21, 2014 at 10:34 PM

      You don’t think Torts would act appropriately with a projectile in his hands?

  7. hockeydon10 - Jan 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM

    Seems obvious the only way it would work is:

    1) if the infraction — played with high stick, hand pass, puck out of play, etc. — then went directly to the goal scorer the goal could be called back.


    2) there was an infraction — played with high stick, hand pass, puck out of play, etc. — off the goal scorer’s stick with no intervening play in between.

    Otherwise it gets too muddied and becomes difficult to define how far back they can go.

    The Kronwall goal is a great example.

    For example 1), (a hypothetical could-have in that situation) if the shot went off the netting and landed in front of Quick and Bertuzzi fired it in, no goal on review because it went out of play and then was fired in directly from hitting the protective netting.

    For example 2, (the actual play that occurred) the shot went off the netting and then into the goal, review overturns it because it hit the netting.

  8. wtfkwp - Jan 22, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    I think they could give a challenge button to the TV analysts for the teams. The challenge wouldn’t be mandatory, but Toronto could stop and look at it, based on the opinion of the team’s analyst, which would generally be because of something he saw and confirmed on a replay. All uses of the challenge button could be informally discussed in private so the league and the teams understand each others’ concerns.

    This would give the league an “opportunity” to correct a gross error without it turning into a circus as with the NFL’s flag-throwing business. FWIW, I think the NFL can screw up anything, and their flag system is proof of it. They get the perfect opportunity to correct an error and still screw it up. In the case where the team is right, they still lose a challenge opportunity. It also shouldn’t affect their timeout situation. It’s a mess.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (2088)
  2. P. Kessel (1527)
  3. M. Richards (1340)
  4. N. Backstrom (1237)
  5. M. Giordano (1139)