Lets have a vote who would rather it be like the NFL and a team should have to contest a goal or call they do not like.
Should they lose a time out? Should they be assessed a penalty?
Should they limit the "going upstairs" to only 1 per period? 1 per game? Should the team that calls for a review be assessed a minor penalty if they are wrong?
In my opinion it takes away from a fast game to wait for what seems like forever for a play under review.
2007-02-05 07:02:00 · 8 answers · asked by mapleleafskickass 4 in Sports ➔ Hockey
To Rinkrat. If the teams were allowed to have a goal reviewed that goal you wrote about would have counted. Instead it is up to the discretion of the ref which is a problem sometimes as well.
If any of you remember the review of the Brett Hull goal to decide the Stanley Cup it was horrible. Too much like Big Brother.
2007-02-05 08:58:34 · update #1
I wish they could play a whole game without the added
help of getting tips and plays from the pressbox. Let the
players decide as they play. I like the choice of challenging
a referee call as one play might make/break the game. There
should be a time-out used for the team that challenges as it
does take up time for the referees to go back and look at the
challenged play. Coaches won't be challenging too many
either as time-outs are precious to them.
2007-02-05 07:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think so. I admit, I don't watch as much hockey since I work during the evenings, but when I do, I rarely see any goals go upstairs. And, personally, I'd rather have the refs take the time to go upstairs to make sure that it's a legal goal instead of having them take a guess. Stuff like that can change the course of the game, so you better be right on these sort of things.
2007-02-05 11:23:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Rinkrat. Let the referees do their job, their job is to officiate the game! It's not like this happens 5 or 6 times a game, far from it. The replay is a tool that shows whether the puck legally went in or not. What in the world is wrong with that? Why make the situation more complicated?
Nor do I understand your example if you meant the goal in the 1999 finals. The replay CLEARLY showed it was NOT a Goal by the rules in play at that time! It was NOT the replay that decided anything, it was that nobody had any guts to call that goal back after the celebration had already started.
2007-02-05 11:05:06 · answer #3 · answered by clueless_nerd 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't mind it when goals are reviewed. It's suspensful, and you get to try and guess yourself from the replays.
If anything, not enough goals are reviewed. The Devils got screwed out of a goal on Saturday when Miller made a save with his glove completely inside the net, but the refs didn't stop play long enough for Toronto to review it. It was a close game until the 3rd period, and that one goal could have been the difference between a win and a loss. Fortunately, it didn't matter for the Devils because they won anyway.
2007-02-05 08:54:16 · answer #4 · answered by rinkrat 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It has not really bothered me. It only seems to go up if they think someone kicked it in or it did not cross the line or if the stick is above the crossbar, It has not really affected the games I have watched this year and I have watched most of the Ranger games and usually a west coast game when I get home. I do not want it becoming like the NFL , that is a pain in the neck. If the call is in question the Refs have the best view and should go upstairs.
2007-02-05 07:30:50 · answer #5 · answered by messtograves 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a good rule because if there are 2 disputed goal in one period one team is goin to be mad. And saying you get a penalty now because you scored or you were very close to scoring? how does that work? I dont believe that reviewed goals hinder the game or ward anyoune away from the nhl. They are just trying to make the purest for on the game that they can. I like the rule and see no reason to dislike it.
2007-02-05 07:13:18 · answer #6 · answered by The Cleveland Indians 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's a shame that they go "upstairs" for a review, supposedly on the phone to the head officiating in Toronto. Then the camera angle that benefits the home team is the only one that is shown to them.
2007-02-05 07:59:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think it should have to be challanged by the team but i don't think they should be punished if they're wrong..and each team should be limited to one a period...
2007-02-05 07:20:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋