Yesterday, the NHL/NHLPA Competition Committee met in New York to discuss a set of new rule recommendations.
Among them, a change to defensive zone face-offs where the defensive player is to place his stick on the ice first. Neutral zone face-offs will remain the same, with the visiting team having to place their stick on the ice first. Also, talks about changes to the overtime format were discussed but no agreement had been reached on the subject, indicating that there will be at least one more season with the shoot-out still intact.
The hot button topic of the evening was the introduction of the coach’s challenge. Should the coach still have his time-out, he can trade it in for a review on a play leading up to a goal, as a result of either an off-side going uncalled or a goaltender being interfered with. The coach would lose his time-out for the game but would get a chance for the play to be reviewed in Toronto and possibly overturned, whereas in the past few years plays of this nature may have gone unnoticed and directly influenced the outcome of the game.
It’s a fantastic start. For years, fans have requested the idea of a coach’s challenge and similar to the one recommended at the meetings, with a time-out being traded in for a chance to review a play. However, the plans proposed at the meetings just simply aren’t good enough. More accurately, the idea is incomplete at best.
For plays involving a goal, how about a coach challenging the play of a player putting the puck into the net via a distinct kicking motion? In this case, we can understand it not being involved in the discussion. Plenty of factors go into a play involving a kicking motion. For one, it’s a judgment call. Sometimes a blatant kick not only goes unnoticed, but actually goes undetected during a review in Toronto, such as this play:
Whichever way you look at it, there have been cases that contradict this very call. Lesser motions of directing the puck into the net with a foot or a leg. For instance, let’s take a look at a Tyler Bozak goal in 2013, in a game against the Carolina Hurricanes.
Clearly, the puck simply bounced off of Bozak’s leg and in. Any motion of his legs turning in the direction of the net is during his battle to establish position in front of the net, in hopes that a rebound will come out and he’ll get the chance to tap it in. Instead, the puck hits him directly on the leg and bounces in. The play gets reviewed for several minutes as the Toronto-based announce team goes over the fact that the goal should count and… the goal is disallowed. Or take the case of Zach Parise‘s goal against the St. Louis Blues from a game this season:
Another difficult situation that could have gone either way and came down to Toronto deciding. The replay in this clip shows Parise scoring by having the puck knock off his skate and in. Once reviewed, you can hear the referee say the goal was waived off due to the puck being directed into the net by the foot. Yet, we’ve heard time and time again that there is a difference between directing a puck in and kicking a puck in.
Again, this is something that can’t be changed with a coach’s challenge but with a tweak in the rulebook to clarify a difference between kicking and directing.
What the coach’s challenge should also include is the other variety of penalties that were not initially called during play and eventually resulted in a goal against. We’ve all seen it before. Player gets dragged down to the ice by a blatant two-handed hook, no penalty is called and the play goes the other way leading to a goal. With a coach’s challenge issued on the play, referees can then go to review, see their missed penalty call and overturn the goal, instead handing the penalty to the rightful culprit and correcting their wrong.
In making it accessible to challenge a play that may have been missed, coaches will have the ability to bring a referee’s integrity into question. It may slow down the game a bit more and some may say that calling out referees every time they miss a penalty can hurt the character of an individual, but having that option of issuing a challenge could also turn something into a positive. Referees will have their eyes peeled on the play more, knowing that their ability to do their job correctly can be publicly displayed without any fine handed out to a coach, once or twice a game, every game.
With that knowledge, things can change.
As for pucks crossing the line and being called back because of inconclusive evidence, that’s a tough cookie to crumble. The people in Toronto have all the available footage and angles to determine whether or not that puck crossed the line. However, we have heard of cases of certain broadcast teams retaining angles within their booth to hide a possible angle that could have changed the outcome. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a possibility and once the decision has been made and the puck has been dropped, it’s final. So if there could have been footage made available five minutes later, and the coach’s challenge was issued in that time window, a second review with no angles changes everything.
But again, it’s a very slippery slope.
For now, what the league is offering is decent, but it could be better. With more advanced technology, a tweak or two to the rulebook to add clarity and maybe some tinkering to the proposed coach’s challenge and I believe we have a recommendation that can change the game for the better, for years to come. In the future, we may never have to worry about another 2004 Calgary-Tampa Bay miscall ever again.
Main Photo:
