As many of you know, the NFL can use timeouts in place of a video review. Since NHL teams only get one timeout, would it be a practical idea to have this in the NHL?
I know a complication would be that you would be unable to throw a red flag in the middle of play, but maybe they could use that timeout at the next stoppage of play. Or would this cause coaches to ask for a video review, just to rest players during icing calls?
Your thoughts please.
2007-11-21 01:47:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
Geez, I am not saying I am all for this, just a topic for discussion.
2007-11-21 02:15:05 · update #1
lol, chris, I saw that game last night. ouch. I was cheering for the Leafs. In the 1st period, I was really thinking they were going to win. bummer.
2007-11-21 02:24:45 · update #2
I think the refs just need contacts and we'll all be good
you know that during a sharks game, one of the sharks hit the ref with the puck and they had to bring in the BACK UP ref!! o no, they had a backup ref the next game just in case it happened again. You must be a reallt crappy ref to be a backup. lol. Just thought i would bring it up....
and a ref cost the sharks a game too, by getting in the way of a puck that was going to be cleared...but no!!!! He had to be there and make things difficult....ugh. Refs suck
2007-11-21 07:20:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, no sport i am aware of video reviews penalties. As far as was it or wasn't it a goal is concerned, the NHL takes a more proactive approach than the NFL, where the replay official only has the right to review something in the last two minutes of a half if he thinks it is required.
I honestly think hockey has it just about perfect as far as review goes, By limiting the number of stoppages the games do not end up taking forever and by putting the replay official in charge, there is little chance they miss a goal.
2007-11-21 02:50:31 · answer #2 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think you are onto something here. I understand and accept penalties but only if they are clear to the point that there is no doubt that a player committed the foul. Or, better said, that a player isn't sent to the box for clearly NOT being the fouling player.
I wouldn't mind one challenge per game for a penalty with no retribution along with the single timeout that is already in place.
2007-11-21 05:23:36 · answer #3 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every goal is already reviewed.
Penalties in the NFL don't get reviewed and for good reason. The NFL doesn't want people to be able to challenge plays that were called on the refs opinion. Its the same with force outs in the NFL they can't challenge them because its upt o th ref if he was forced out of bounds or not.
If they allowed coaches to challenge penalties in the NHL the games would take another 15-40 minutes longer and it would just waste everyones time.
2007-11-21 01:59:39 · answer #4 · answered by MrStamper 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
How would you use that system, to review penalties that were called, or penalties that you feel were missed? You'd be looking at some awefully long games. If, as Bill suggest, you limit it to one challenge per team, per game, the rule could work. I don't see it being a big seller, though.
2007-11-21 06:36:21 · answer #5 · answered by cme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A coach's challenge in hockey? Penalties are usually pretty obvious, and would probably take longer to review than the penalty would actually last. They do review goals in the NHL already but they are not challenged by the Coach.
2007-11-21 01:56:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Looks like it is to long to read. Your opinion is just like anybody elses.You have a right to express it but means nothing when they get on the field. I remember betting a few bucks on the Giants a few years back against the undefeated Patriots.Ohh I just wish I would have bet more a lot more. There weren't many picking the giants that is for sure
2016-05-24 21:24:27 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No need. The war room upstairs here reviews every goal in every game, and makes the appropriate call as needed.
Penalties are not, and should not be reviewable, otherwise a 3 period game will take 5 days to play!
2007-11-21 02:10:25 · answer #8 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think in no way shape or form shall a penalty be reviewable. This will cause the games to go on and on, slowing down the pace.
Now as far as reviewing goals, the offices in Toronto are "supposed" to review every goal.
2007-11-21 01:53:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think such an idea is another example of how a once wonderfully traditional sport would be watered down. I've been concerned about the path hockey has taken over the years as it is. This is a very fast game... such a concept would be the beginning of the end of hockey as long time fans, players, coaches, etc have known it.
2007-11-21 02:12:12 · answer #10 · answered by daven71 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋