Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penalty for Unsuccessful Offside Challenge

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Penalty for Unsuccessful Offside Challenge

    The NHL has approved a change to the coach's challenge rules.

    First of all, a team no longer needs to have its timeout to issue a coach's challenge for a play suspected to be offside. Secondly, if an offside challenge is unsuccessful, the team does not lose its timeout but instead takes a 2 minute minor penalty for delaying the game.

    What isn't clear is whether or not a team still loses its timeout for issuing a goaltender interference challenge.

    What are your thoughts?
    4
    Good Decision
    75.00%
    3
    Bad Decision
    25.00%
    1

  • #2
    Meh. Will limit random guess attempts. But what a silly thing to be penalized for. Ultimately, the whole thing is a mess. Technology should have some way of knowing for sure if a puck is offside by now.

    Comment


    • #3

      Comment


      • #4
        They should of done this from the start. Hope they do something like this in the CFL.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it's a good decision, so I voted bad to make up for your missed vote :)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by matchesmalone View Post
            Meh. Will limit random guess attempts. But what a silly thing to be penalized for. Ultimately, the whole thing is a mess. Technology should have some way of knowing for sure if a puck is offside by now.
            You and I have always agreed on this. It's 2017. Blue line and goal line sensors shouldn't be THAT hard to implement!

            Comment


            • #7
              I can see why they are doing this but eventually you are going to have a game with a really astute video guy on the bench that picks off multiple of these in a game. Then what? I assume the NHL does not have 3 timeouts per side because it wants to keep game lengths short. This does potentially the opposite.

              Bigger problem is still the goalie interference - no one agrees definitively what it is. How do you have a video review for that if there's no objective criteria for the call? Look, hockey is fast I get it, but either you implicitly trust the referee in ALL circumstances, ALL the time, or you provide the tools that can show definite proof of a goal or an infraction. Right now you have neither. Not a recipe for success.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Matt the Aussie View Post
                I can see why they are doing this but eventually you are going to have a game with a really astute video guy on the bench that picks off multiple of these in a game. Then what? I assume the NHL does not have 3 timeouts per side because it wants to keep game lengths short. This does potentially the opposite.

                Bigger problem is still the goalie interference - no one agrees definitively what it is. How do you have a video review for that if there's no objective criteria for the call? Look, hockey is fast I get it, but either you implicitly trust the referee in ALL circumstances, ALL the time, or you provide the tools that can show definite proof of a goal or an infraction. Right now you have neither. Not a recipe for success.
                The NHL comes across as sort of an amateur league, in my mind, because of all the grey areas and lack of consistency. Some things are a penalty in the first 50 minutes of the game, and some things aren't? Some things are penalties in some games, and not others?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Matt the Aussie View Post
                  I can see why they are doing this but eventually you are going to have a game with a really astute video guy on the bench that picks off multiple of these in a game. Then what? I assume the NHL does not have 3 timeouts per side because it wants to keep game lengths short. This does potentially the opposite.

                  Bigger problem is still the goalie interference - no one agrees definitively what it is. How do you have a video review for that if there's no objective criteria for the call? Look, hockey is fast I get it, but either you implicitly trust the referee in ALL circumstances, ALL the time, or you provide the tools that can show definite proof of a goal or an infraction. Right now you have neither. Not a recipe for success.
                  Everything you say is exactly correct. I hadn't considered the issue you suggest in the first paragraph. Yikes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks Matches.

                    The other potential issue is teams that are poor on the PP (thinking Sens here lol) are going to get challenged more than teams that are great on the PP. Think of a game, Habs vs. Sens lets say - Sens are down 2-0 with 5 minutes left, and Habs have already used their timeout. Sens score, but Habs challenge.

                    If they win - no goal, and a good rest for the team
                    If they lose - a powerplay against, but still a good rest for the team and confident that Price and rested D will kill any chances off

                    I just think the set up of this rule is too easy to "game" with.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X