NHL Rule Changes

[MAC331]

What are everyone's thoughts on this penalty for losing an offside challenge ? Mine, if they don't want the linesmen challenged then don't have the challenge in the first place.

The whole thing has become a waste of time.

[AlbertaBoy12]

22 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What are everyone's thoughts on this penalty for losing an offside challenge ? Mine, if they don't want the linesmen challenged then don't have the challenge in the first place.

The whole thing has become a waste of time.

I see where you are coming from, but alot of coaches seemed to be calling a challenge last year as a free time out that was longer then an actual timeout if the call was hard to judge. Obviously there is no proof of that, just assumptions but it seems fair to give a penalty to me. 

[robrob74]

9 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I see where you are coming from, but alot of coaches seemed to be calling a challenge last year as a free time out that was longer then an actual timeout if the call was hard to judge. Obviously there is no proof of that, just assumptions but it seems fair to give a penalty to me. 

 

I feel like the linesman get let off the hook too much and occasionally don't call an offside anyway because the camera will catch it. 

[travel_dude]

Not a fan of the rule allowing the challenge in the first place.  Goals called back when they were so close that they make a judgement call on the review.  Was the guy's trailing skate on the ice?  Call it an offside in the first place.  People don't like it, but it's better because the play is dead.  The challenge seemed to be overreaction from the blatant Duchene missed call.

 

As for the penalty, it just makes the challenge more strategic.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

41 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I feel like the linesman get let off the hook too much and occasionally don't call an offside anyway because the camera will catch it. 

 

21 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Not a fan of the rule allowing the challenge in the first place.  Goals called back when they were so close that they make a judgement call on the review.  Was the guy's trailing skate on the ice?  Call it an offside in the first place.  People don't like it, but it's better because the play is dead.  The challenge seemed to be overreaction from the blatant Duchene missed call.

 

As for the penalty, it just makes the challenge more strategic.  

I think both of you are correct, seems like officials now a days would rather let the camera do the work for anything that they can, and screw actually doing their job.

 

Also I agree TD that game last year were 2 flames goals got called back because skates were off the ice is the defintiion of crazy, because while it is the rule technically that kind of calls ruins the spirit of the game for me. Personally I like the idea of a penalty for wasting everyones time, id rather see this penalty then the puck over the boards in your own zone.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 

I think both of you are correct, seems like officials now a days would rather let the camera do the work for anything that they can, and screw actually doing their job.

 

Also I agree TD that game last year were 2 flames goals got called back because skates were off the ice is the defintiion of crazy, because while it is the rule technically that kind of calls ruins the spirit of the game for me. Personally I like the idea of a penalty for wasting everyones time, id rather see this penalty then the puck over the boards in your own zone.

 

Thanks!

 

maybe the only challenges should be goal lines and whether goalies are interfered? 

Or Toronto already seems to know so, if they're on it, no challenge and they call on ice...

I would like the delay of game over the boards to be more discretionary. When players obviously mean it, it should be a penalty. 

[CheersMan]

I’m not a fan of allowing goals on an obvious offside.

I’m not a fan of goals being called back by zero replay evidence available to the viewer.

I’m not a fan of the time it takes for referees to review the play after a challenge.

Whether a skate is in the air or on the ice when crossing the blue line shouldn’t matter either. 

Where is the middle ground? 

Penalizing a team for delay of game when guessing wrong is a good start I suppose.

The onus is on the ref to get it right, but I have no problem offering a challenge to the team that feels they were done wrong by.  These challenges need sped up.  The Flames struggled badly last season with any kind of challenge.  This is an area the Flames need to improve on.

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Thanks!

 

maybe the only challenges should be goal lines and whether goalies are interfered? 

Or Toronto already seems to know so, if they're on it, no challenge and they call on ice...

I would like the delay of game over the boards to be more discretionary. When players obviously mean it, it should be a penalty. 

LOL just came to mind these are both delay of game type penalties which I think everyone finds annoying. I wish they would get rid of both these rules. I do like the replay call around the nets whether in or out and not left to one discretionary call by one ref. The other situation they have to clapped down on is the slashing of the arms and hands specifically.

[travel_dude]

I still have a problem with the way the calls are reviewed and ruled on.

 

If the call on the ice is goal or no goal, there has to be overwhelming proof to overturn.  Guilty unless proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt.  

If the call on the ice is onside and results in a goal, the proof is not always beyond doubt.  It's a judgement call.

A called offside has no ability to be challenged.  Seems one-sided.

 

Just go back to the way off-sides used to be called.  A review could be called by NHL war room on a scoring play if the miss was blatant.  It should only ever be the immediate zone entry just before a goal, not a minute of cycling later.    

[robrob74]

50 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I still have a problem with the way the calls are reviewed and ruled on.

 

If the call on the ice is goal or no goal, there has to be overwhelming proof to overturn.  Guilty unless proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt.  

If the call on the ice is onside and results in a goal, the proof is not always beyond doubt.  It's a judgement call.

A called offside has no ability to be challenged.  Seems one-sided.

 

Just go back to the way off-sides used to be called.  A review could be called by NHL war room on a scoring play if the miss was blatant.  It should only ever be the immediate zone entry just before a goal, not a minute of cycling later.    

 

That makes a lot of sense 

[cross16]

I personally hate the offside challenge. I understand the principle of it that you don't want an obvious offside call deciding the outcome of the game but that was a minor occurrence to begin with and IMO it's brought along far more negatives. Now, in a league starved for goals, you are having goals taken off the board due to a slow motion reply and what could amount to centimeters of inches. I don't believe that should be the spirit of the rule, let alone the fact that it is really slowing the game down IMO which is not a good thing for a game that should pride themselves on speed.

 

I don't think they'll ever take it away so because of that I agree with the idea of a penalty if you get it wrong so we stop seeing these "Hail Mary" challenges but I still wish they'd remove it all together. 

 

 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

I personally hate the offside challenge. I understand the principle of it that you don't want an obvious offside call deciding the outcome of the game but that was a minor occurrence to begin with and IMO it's brought along far more negatives. Now, in a league starved for goals, you are having goals taken off the board due to a slow motion reply and what could amount to centimeters of inches. I don't believe that should be the spirit of the rule, let alone the fact that it is really slowing the game down IMO which is not a good thing for a game that should pride themselves on speed.

 

I don't think they'll ever take it away so because of that I agree with the idea of a penalty if you get it wrong so we stop seeing these "Hail Mary" challenges but I still wish they'd remove it all together. 

 

 

 

But who wants to see lots of illegitimate goals for the sake of seeing more goals?  I think a better answer is technology inside the puck and sensors on the goal line and blueline. Get it right digitally.

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

But who wants to see lots of illegitimate goals for the sake of seeing more goals?  I think a better answer is technology inside the puck and sensors on the goal line and blueline. Get it right digitally.

The game is played @ a very fast pace & everyone watching has to go by what the eye sees. If a skate might be a micron over the blue line & result in a goal the players are unaware & both sides play as if the guy was in legit. That goal may be a minute or more later & play went on but a desperation challenge after multiple replays finally finds that 1 that can result in an overturned goal. The players on the ice are surprised as they were merely playing hockey. The clock is reset, the pace is gone & it feels like a game stopped due to ice conditions & continued the next day.

I'm OK with goalie interference challenges as they happen after play is stopped. With your idea stop the game every time the war room has a beeper go off. There are so many cameras that those are mostly indisputable. There are false positives even in the medical field (which is more life & death).

 

Or, we could also go back to the "glow puck" & add a glow to skates & a contrasting 1 to the lines to make even offsides obvious.

 

IMO we've added way to many rules to hockey already. A large part of the excitement was the pace. Now a lot of games seem to drag.

***********************************************************************

A bit off topic but technology is a 2 edged sword. Now the media reports in the immediate (& puts their own spin on it) while in the days before computers only the trully earth shaking events were of the "stop the presses" variety. Your average city had 2 newspapers that tinted the story slightly depending on the owners take but by reading both you got more or less the true story.

In sports teams were eager to keep fans informed/interested so local media were indeed imbedded & THN ran their columns in their weekly mag. Now hockey teams are taught like rookies to give bland answers & THN is just another site.

I may be feeling my age but given the general illiteracy of the media (& their proof readers/editors) I tend to have little faith in any. I've always tended to make up my mind by what I see & by trying to hear opposing views but that gets harder when many quoted are media stars that were school dropouts or spent their lives singing/play acting/being athletes.

[conundrumed]

25 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The game is played @ a very fast pace & everyone watching has to go by what the eye sees. If a skate might be a micron over the blue line & result in a goal the players are unaware & both sides play as if the guy was in legit. That goal may be a minute or more later & play went on but a desperation challenge after multiple replays finally finds that 1 that can result in an overturned goal. The players on the ice are surprised as they were merely playing hockey. The clock is reset, the pace is gone & it feels like a game stopped due to ice conditions & continued the next day.

I'm OK with goalie interference challenges as they happen after play is stopped. With your idea stop the game every time the war room has a beeper go off. There are so many cameras that those are mostly indisputable. There are false positives even in the medical field (which is more life & death).

 

Or, we could also go back to the "glow puck" & add a glow to skates & a contrasting 1 to the lines to make even offsides obvious.

 

IMO we've added way to many rules to hockey already. A large part of the excitement was the pace. Now a lot of games seem to drag.

***********************************************************************

A bit off topic but technology is a 2 edged sword. Now the media reports in the immediate (& puts their own spin on it) while in the days before computers only the trully earth shaking events were of the "stop the presses" variety. Your average city had 2 newspapers that tinted the story slightly depending on the owners take but by reading both you got more or less the true story.

In sports teams were eager to keep fans informed/interested so local media were indeed imbedded & THN ran their columns in their weekly mag. Now hockey teams are taught like rookies to give bland answers & THN is just another site.

I may be feeling my age but given the general illiteracy of the media (& their proof readers/editors) I tend to have little faith in any. I've always tended to make up my mind by what I see & by trying to hear opposing views but that gets harder when many quoted are media stars that were school dropouts or spent their lives singing/play acting/being athletes.

No kidding with the rules killing all pace and momentum.

As for media, I see The Athletic has moved into Canada. They charge a monthly fee, but they're also grabbing up the most respected writers.

Former SI guys trying to change sports journalism by losing the hacks.

I'll be keeping an eye on the expansion into hockey and will do the $40/yr subscription just to get away from the noise.

 

https://theathletic.com/

 

Screw it, I just joined.

The Canadian NHL is just underway, figure I might as well get in on the ground floor. LeBrun and Duhatschek already.

This is looking like the place respectable journalists go, in all sports.

The best part, is if you want to freelance (crzydrvr), they welcome reading what you got to see if it cuts it (sorry Francis, no soup for you)!

This looks like a great startup, just getting into Canada now, grab LeBrun and Duhatschek.

They cover all sports but are looking to expand quickly.

I'm going a-reading. Looks fantastic. $3.50/mth for a 1 yr currently.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The game is played @ a very fast pace & everyone watching has to go by what the eye sees. If a skate might be a micron over the blue line & result in a goal the players are unaware & both sides play as if the guy was in legit. That goal may be a minute or more later & play went on but a desperation challenge after multiple replays finally finds that 1 that can result in an overturned goal. The players on the ice are surprised as they were merely playing hockey. The clock is reset, the pace is gone & it feels like a game stopped due to ice conditions & continued the next day.

I'm OK with goalie interference challenges as they happen after play is stopped. With your idea stop the game every time the war room has a beeper go off. There are so many cameras that those are mostly indisputable. There are false positives even in the medical field (which is more life & death).

 

 

That's all I was getting at.  They create a rule to enforce a time limit for a challenge.  The challenge was a dumb idea to begin with.  The linesmen have one job and that is to enforce the lines.  And then we throw it back in their face and tell them we didn't like the call because it ended up in our net.  But, the biggest problem is the stoppage to get it right.  

 

Considering we have seen many cases where a high stick on a goal is reviewed and not called, I don't see the offside challenge review to be any more correct.  IN fact it looks like a different standard of proof is used.  It's not beyond doubt (like a ref's call on the ice has to have to be overturned)), it's just the opinion of the viewer based on what they see on a little screen.

[cross16]

16 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

But who wants to see lots of illegitimate goals for the sake of seeing more goals?  I think a better answer is technology inside the puck and sensors on the goal line and blueline. Get it right digitally.

 

I don't consider a goal illegitimate because a guys skate is a Cm over the line or slightly in the air etc. I think that's within a reasonable margin of error that even technology can't completely remove. 

Sure you can go the digital route but I would wonder about the cost/benefit there. A lot of money and time to fix a problem that really wasn't large to begin with. 

 

 

[Flyerfan52]

13 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

That's all I was getting at.  They create a rule to enforce a time limit for a challenge.  The challenge was a dumb idea to begin with.  The linesmen have one job and that is to enforce the lines.  And then we throw it back in their face and tell them we didn't like the call because it ended up in our net.  But, the biggest problem is the stoppage to get it right.  

 

Considering we have seen many cases where a high stick on a goal is reviewed and not called, I don't see the offside challenge review to be any more correct.  IN fact it looks like a different standard of proof is used.  It's not beyond doubt (like a ref's call on the ice has to have to be overturned)), it's just the opinion of the viewer based on what they see on a little screen.

That's what I garnered from your comments. You'll note I singled out goalie interference as the 1 case I was OK with a challenge because it's usually fairly blatant but can still happen when none of the zebras have a clear sight line.

As to a goal with a high stick the stick is usually minimumally high & it pretty well takes triangulation to determine. If it's a lot higher an official will see it even from down ice while the players & bench of the team scored on explode. Those are usually called & if not the war room should call it in (they watch every game in real time & don't just do out of context reviews).

[Flyerfan52]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't consider a goal illegitimate because a guys skate is a Cm over the line or slightly in the air etc. I think that's within a reasonable margin of error that even technology can't completely remove. 

Sure you can go the digital route but I would wonder about the cost/benefit there. A lot of money and time to fix a problem that really wasn't large to begin with. 

 

 

You don't like my glow puck, skates & lines idea?

[The_People1]

Goalie interference is subjective.  Offside is not.  Offside is offside.  I'm OK giving a tie to the runner but if it's marginal, then review it to get it right.

[The_People1]

I actually feel goalie interference should NOT be reviewable.  Same with holding the stick, slashing, player interference, etc.  If it's missed then it's missed.

[cross16]

36 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

You don't like my glow puck, skates & lines idea?

 

It gave me flashbacks and nightmares.... 

[The_People1]

1996 technology though.

 

I wonder how much better it can be in 2017+.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

That's what I garnered from your comments. You'll note I singled out goalie interference as the 1 case I was OK with a challenge because it's usually fairly blatant but can still happen when none of the zebras have a clear sight line.

As to a goal with a high stick the stick is usually minimumally high & it pretty well takes triangulation to determine. If it's a lot higher an official will see it even from down ice while the players & bench of the team scored on explode. Those are usually called & if not the war room should call it in (they watch every game in real time & don't just do out of context reviews).

 

I hate the rules surrounding the high stick on a goal.  I can't remember many that looked to be called properly on the ice or even after a review,  No, I don't think you can challenge it, but man I wish they would get that one right.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

Whos happy to see the crack down on slashing?

 

I can say I am without a doubt, its about time and not only because it happens to johnny. Im honestly really tired of seeing all the slashing it ruins the flow of the game for me,and in my opinion is a lazy play. 

[travel_dude]

40 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Whos happy to see the crack down on slashing?

 

I can say I am without a doubt, its about time and not only because it happens to johnny. Im honestly really tired of seeing all the slashing it ruins the flow of the game for me,and in my opinion is a lazy play. 

 

It's setting the bar early enough for the teams to adapt and the refs to figure out how to call it.

The face-off violation is a bit of a head-scratcher.  It used to be cheating by gloving it that was called or interferring with the player to gain advantage.  Now it's being called on foot placement after the first warning.

 

The Flames were good for most of their centers.  Janko was pretty decent for a rookie.  Bennett was very good.  Just one game so I can't really tell how the penalties will impact the overall game.