Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tom Wilson... Again.
(2018-12-22, 02:02 PM)trapper Wrote: Officials quite often huddle to see if they missed something but only for a major infraction. I don't want to see them using video review for that. DOPS is there for that after the game.

As we all know, this is an earlier post #109 this thread by OF83
Quote;
Player Safety has no idea what they are doing. The players don’t know what’s acceptable, coaches dont, refs don’t, and fans don’t.

End quote.

I think most of us agree on that point.

To be clear, I still stand by that statement. 

Giving on-ice officials more infractions to review would make the officiating issues with this league even worse. 

Now, not only would you have an inconsistent Department handing out discipline, you have inconsistent officials retroactively deciding whether to call penalties.
Reply
Thanks given by:
Also, GW, sorry for being a little rude to you on the last page.
Reply
Thanks given by: GWonder , GWonder , Canucksfansince1989
(2018-12-22, 01:00 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 12:50 PM)GWonder Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 03:17 AM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-21, 09:48 PM)GWonder Wrote:
(2018-12-21, 08:57 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote: A clear headshot from the comfort of your home with 14 different angles and slow motion replay.

If we can get all these replays and slow motion in our home, usually within less than a minute after the play, why can't the referees get the same information and make a call accordingly?

So we should have a delay after every whistle to ensure no hits to the head were missed?

No but during the time the medical staff are carting a player off the ice I'm sure they could take a look. In regards to the Stecher hit it took them a couple minutes just to get him off the ice because he was injured. But way to misinterpret checking to see why someone has been injured with reviewing every single play.

What about the many cases where a player skates off the ice after a hit to the head? What about instances where players appear to suffer a severe injury, only to return a few minutes later? What about the players who suffer a concussion but fail to have symptoms until after the game has ended? 

You have identified one hit and are assuming that is how every check to the head operates. It is not. 

Further, using video reviewing to retroactively call penalties after the play has ended is stupid.

TOF, 

You're saying that retroactively calling penalties, after the play ( using video review )  is "stupid" and you're entitled to that opinion... 

But to be clear, I'm only referring to "iffy" hits ( hits to the head, hits from behind, knee on knee etc ). I'm not talking about garden variety tripping calls, because reviewing those would be stupid.  

As it stands, the league allows coaches to challenge if a player is offside by 1/2 an inch ( or not ) or, if a player interfered with a goalie.   

And yes, in both instances "goals" are on the line, but when an "iffy" hit takes place and refs have a chance to correct a 2 minute minor ( or a non call ) with a simple review, the outcome could definitely change the game... just as goals do. 

And while were on the subject of refs having a chance to correct themselves... 

How many times have we seen a player get a 2 minute penalty ( or nothing at all ) for an iffy hit only to be summoned to the NHL head office the next day, where they're given suspensions, not for minutes, but for games!!!

Talk about stupid!!!  Silly


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
If the argument being made is that every missed penalty call could potentially have and impact on the outcome of the game and thus should be subject to review, then I agree...

That would be stupid. Imo

Are you all aware of how many missed calls there are in a game?, and further; are you aware of the 'judgement factor' involved in making them in the first place?

There are already waaaaay too many reviews; the offside review nonsense is already beyond ridiculous.
"I drink to make other people interesting"
~ E. Hemmingway
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 02:19 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 01:00 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 12:50 PM)GWonder Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 03:17 AM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-21, 09:48 PM)GWonder Wrote: If we can get all these replays and slow motion in our home, usually within less than a minute after the play, why can't the referees get the same information and make a call accordingly?

So we should have a delay after every whistle to ensure no hits to the head were missed?

No but during the time the medical staff are carting a player off the ice I'm sure they could take a look. In regards to the Stecher hit it took them a couple minutes just to get him off the ice because he was injured. But way to misinterpret checking to see why someone has been injured with reviewing every single play.

What about the many cases where a player skates off the ice after a hit to the head? What about instances where players appear to suffer a severe injury, only to return a few minutes later? What about the players who suffer a concussion but fail to have symptoms until after the game has ended? 

You have identified one hit and are assuming that is how every check to the head operates. It is not. 

Further, using video reviewing to retroactively call penalties after the play has ended is stupid.

TOF, 

You're saying that retroactively calling penalties, after the play ( using video review )  is "stupid" and you're entitled to that opinion... 

But to be clear, I'm only referring to "iffy" hits ( hits to the head, hits from behind, knee on knee etc ). I'm not talking about garden variety tripping calls, because reviewing those would be stupid.  

As it stands, the league allows coaches to challenge if a player is offside by 1/2 an inch ( or not ) or, if a player interfered with a goalie.   

And yes, in both instances "goals" are on the line, but when an "iffy" hit takes place and refs have a chance to correct a 2 minute minor ( or a non call ) with a simple review, the outcome could definitely change the game... just as goals do. 

And while were on the subject of refs having a chance to correct themselves... 

How many times have we seen a player get a 2 minute penalty ( or nothing at all ) for an iffy hit only to be summoned to the NHL head office the next day, where they're given suspensions, not for minutes, but for games!!!

Talk about stupid!!!  Silly

Goals or offsides are defined. You know when a play is offside. It may be a stupid because their is no impact on the play, but all subjectivity is taken out of the call. 

'Iffy' hits are subjective. What is an 'iffy' hit? What is your definition of an 'iffy' hit at real speed with no ability to see a video review of a hit?

The DOPS may be inconsistent but at least it is one entity making the decision. With in-game discretionary reviews on 'iffy' hits, you will have 44 refs with 44 different definitions of 'iffy' deciding when to or when not to call for a review. 

It is a messy system that will make problems worse than better.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 02:26 PM)Limestoner Wrote: If the argument being made is that every missed penalty call could potentially  have and impact on the outcome of the game and thus should be subject to review, then I agree...

That  would be stupid. Imo

Are you all aware of how many missed calls there are in a game?, and further; are you aware of the 'judgement factor' involved in making them in the first place?

There are already waaaaay too many reviews; the offside review nonsense is already beyond ridiculous.

Yes, I think every fan in every city gets that calls are missed... especially against their own teams... Wink 

And yes, I think every fan in every city understands that judgement is a factor and that in almost all cases, it's bad judgement against their teams..  Laugh

I just think that dirty hits might be reduced if coaches are given the ability to challenge hits they deem to be "iffy"... and hey, if they're wrong and the refs stick to their guns, then said coach won't be able to challenge the 1/2 inch offside call...


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 02:33 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 02:19 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 01:00 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 12:50 PM)GWonder Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 03:17 AM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote: So we should have a delay after every whistle to ensure no hits to the head were missed?

No but during the time the medical staff are carting a player off the ice I'm sure they could take a look. In regards to the Stecher hit it took them a couple minutes just to get him off the ice because he was injured. But way to misinterpret checking to see why someone has been injured with reviewing every single play.

What about the many cases where a player skates off the ice after a hit to the head? What about instances where players appear to suffer a severe injury, only to return a few minutes later? What about the players who suffer a concussion but fail to have symptoms until after the game has ended? 

You have identified one hit and are assuming that is how every check to the head operates. It is not. 

Further, using video reviewing to retroactively call penalties after the play has ended is stupid.

TOF, 

You're saying that retroactively calling penalties, after the play ( using video review )  is "stupid" and you're entitled to that opinion... 

But to be clear, I'm only referring to "iffy" hits ( hits to the head, hits from behind, knee on knee etc ). I'm not talking about garden variety tripping calls, because reviewing those would be stupid.  

As it stands, the league allows coaches to challenge if a player is offside by 1/2 an inch ( or not ) or, if a player interfered with a goalie.   

And yes, in both instances "goals" are on the line, but when an "iffy" hit takes place and refs have a chance to correct a 2 minute minor ( or a non call ) with a simple review, the outcome could definitely change the game... just as goals do. 

And while were on the subject of refs having a chance to correct themselves... 

How many times have we seen a player get a 2 minute penalty ( or nothing at all ) for an iffy hit only to be summoned to the NHL head office the next day, where they're given suspensions, not for minutes, but for games!!!

Talk about stupid!!!  Silly

Goals or offsides are defined. You know when a play is offside. It may be a stupid because their is no impact on the play, but all subjectivity is taken out of the call. 

'Iffy' hits are subjective. What is an 'iffy' hit? What is your definition of an 'iffy' hit at real speed with no ability to see a video review of a hit?

The DOPS may be inconsistent but at least it is one entity making the decision. With in-game discretionary reviews on 'iffy' hits, you will have 44 refs with 44 different definitions of 'iffy' deciding when to or when not to call for a review. 

It is a messy system that will make problems worse than better.


ALL penalties are subjective... whether it's a trip, or a hook, or a slash... some refs call em, some don't. 

And as you say, Iffy hits are as well..., whether it's a hit from behind, or a cross check to the neck, or a blatant elbow to the head... sometimes they're called , sometimes they're not. 

As far as defining an Iffy hit is concerned... 

How bout this.  A major... as in , anything other than a regular 2 minute minor. You don't see 5 minutes and a game for a trip... or a delay of game.  

Let's say a player get's speared... I'm talkin a real Lucic of a spear, you know, behind the play when none of the officials have any reason to be watching... and naturally none of the officials see it happen, but the coaches and the players do. 

If coaches could challenge this type of play and it's plain as day to see on tape , why not allow the coach to challenge? 

His team would have a 5 minute power play, the other team would be down a man for the rest of the game... The only loser in this scenario would be the poor sod with an ice pack on his junk...  Shocked 

Or how about a high speed hit where it MIGHT have been shoulder to shoulder, but upon further review it's clear that it's shoulder to head... 

Anyways, I think we can all agree , things could be better.


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 03:11 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 02:33 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 02:19 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 01:00 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 12:50 PM)GWonder Wrote: No but during the time the medical staff are carting a player off the ice I'm sure they could take a look. In regards to the Stecher hit it took them a couple minutes just to get him off the ice because he was injured. But way to misinterpret checking to see why someone has been injured with reviewing every single play.

What about the many cases where a player skates off the ice after a hit to the head? What about instances where players appear to suffer a severe injury, only to return a few minutes later? What about the players who suffer a concussion but fail to have symptoms until after the game has ended? 

You have identified one hit and are assuming that is how every check to the head operates. It is not. 

Further, using video reviewing to retroactively call penalties after the play has ended is stupid.

TOF, 

You're saying that retroactively calling penalties, after the play ( using video review )  is "stupid" and you're entitled to that opinion... 

But to be clear, I'm only referring to "iffy" hits ( hits to the head, hits from behind, knee on knee etc ). I'm not talking about garden variety tripping calls, because reviewing those would be stupid.  

As it stands, the league allows coaches to challenge if a player is offside by 1/2 an inch ( or not ) or, if a player interfered with a goalie.   

And yes, in both instances "goals" are on the line, but when an "iffy" hit takes place and refs have a chance to correct a 2 minute minor ( or a non call ) with a simple review, the outcome could definitely change the game... just as goals do. 

And while were on the subject of refs having a chance to correct themselves... 

How many times have we seen a player get a 2 minute penalty ( or nothing at all ) for an iffy hit only to be summoned to the NHL head office the next day, where they're given suspensions, not for minutes, but for games!!!

Talk about stupid!!!  Silly

Goals or offsides are defined. You know when a play is offside. It may be a stupid because their is no impact on the play, but all subjectivity is taken out of the call. 

'Iffy' hits are subjective. What is an 'iffy' hit? What is your definition of an 'iffy' hit at real speed with no ability to see a video review of a hit?

The DOPS may be inconsistent but at least it is one entity making the decision. With in-game discretionary reviews on 'iffy' hits, you will have 44 refs with 44 different definitions of 'iffy' deciding when to or when not to call for a review. 

It is a messy system that will make problems worse than better.

Anyways, I think we can all agree , things could be better.

A team who challenges these plays could be punished for a hit that one ref deems dirty and another does not. Offside review works because it is not a discretionary call. Goaltender interference does not work because it is a discretionary call. Iffy hit review would not work because no one can define what 'iffy hit' is.

Really, all you are advocating for is that a system considered by most -- if not all -- as problematic to be expanded.

Things could get better by setting out a standard everyone understands. Not by implementing video review for hits that are or may be 'iffy'. That will not lead to clarity.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 03:27 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 03:11 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 02:33 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 02:19 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 01:00 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote: What about the many cases where a player skates off the ice after a hit to the head? What about instances where players appear to suffer a severe injury, only to return a few minutes later? What about the players who suffer a concussion but fail to have symptoms until after the game has ended? 

You have identified one hit and are assuming that is how every check to the head operates. It is not. 

Further, using video reviewing to retroactively call penalties after the play has ended is stupid.

TOF, 

You're saying that retroactively calling penalties, after the play ( using video review )  is "stupid" and you're entitled to that opinion... 

But to be clear, I'm only referring to "iffy" hits ( hits to the head, hits from behind, knee on knee etc ). I'm not talking about garden variety tripping calls, because reviewing those would be stupid.  

As it stands, the league allows coaches to challenge if a player is offside by 1/2 an inch ( or not ) or, if a player interfered with a goalie.   

And yes, in both instances "goals" are on the line, but when an "iffy" hit takes place and refs have a chance to correct a 2 minute minor ( or a non call ) with a simple review, the outcome could definitely change the game... just as goals do. 

And while were on the subject of refs having a chance to correct themselves... 

How many times have we seen a player get a 2 minute penalty ( or nothing at all ) for an iffy hit only to be summoned to the NHL head office the next day, where they're given suspensions, not for minutes, but for games!!!

Talk about stupid!!!  Silly

Goals or offsides are defined. You know when a play is offside. It may be a stupid because their is no impact on the play, but all subjectivity is taken out of the call. 

'Iffy' hits are subjective. What is an 'iffy' hit? What is your definition of an 'iffy' hit at real speed with no ability to see a video review of a hit?

The DOPS may be inconsistent but at least it is one entity making the decision. With in-game discretionary reviews on 'iffy' hits, you will have 44 refs with 44 different definitions of 'iffy' deciding when to or when not to call for a review. 

It is a messy system that will make problems worse than better.

Anyways, I think we can all agree , things could be better.

A team who challenges these plays could be punished for a hit that one ref deems dirty and another does not. Offside review works because it is not a discretionary call. Goaltender interference does not work because it is a discretionary call. Iffy hit review would not work because no one can define what 'iffy hit' is.

Really, all you are advocating for is that a system considered by most -- if not all -- as problematic to be expanded.

Things could get better by setting out a standard everyone understands. Not by implementing video review for hits that are or may be 'iffy'. That will not lead to clarity.

So, let's say a player takes out another player and the refs believe it was a shoulder to shoulder hit and not even 2 minutes are handed out... the receiver of the hit is on a heap, on the ice... and after about 2 minutes he is helped off the ice and then taken directly into the dressing room.

During this down time ( see what I did there  Wink ) the coach of the hittee has seen a replay on his IPad and it is CLEARLY a hit to the head... the hitter might not have intended to injure the player, in fact he might have been going for a clean hit, but it went wrong.

Now, wouldn't it make sense, in this sort of circumstance, to allow the coach to challenge and let the refs have a chance to change their obvious mistake... If it turns out that the refs determine it was NOT worthy of a major, then the challenging team takes a delay of game penalty... AND they can no longer challenge any other plays.  This would ensure coaches wouldn't be challenging the refs every time a player ended up on the ice... but it would give them the opportunity to try.


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by: Highstyx , Highstyx
(2018-12-22, 04:47 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote: So, let's say a player takes out another player and the refs believe it was a shoulder to shoulder hit and not even 2 minutes are handed out... the receiver of the hit is on a heap, on the ice... and after about 2 minutes he is helped off the ice and then taken directly into the dressing room.

During this down time ( see what I did there  Wink ) the coach of the hittee has seen a replay on his IPad and it is CLEARLY a hit to the head... the hitter might not have intended to injure the player, in fact he might have been going for a clean hit, but it went wrong.

Now, wouldn't it make sense, in this sort of circumstance, to allow the coach to challenge and let the refs have a chance to change their obvious mistake... If it turns out that the refs determine it was NOT worthy of a major, then the challenging team takes a delay of game penalty... AND they can no longer challenge any other plays.  This would ensure coaches wouldn't be challenging the refs every time a player ended up on the ice... but it would give them the opportunity to try.

It would not make sense.  Not all hits to the head are a penalty. The fact a player is clearly hit to the head does not make it a penalty. Video review does not change this. Further, major v minor is subjective. It is far too inconsistent to be open to challenge. This is why offsides work. they are not subjective. 

The best course of action is to let the DOPS deal with these hits. They can hand out supplementary discipline that will have a more tangible impact on behaviour. 

You could also have the indirect effect of refs not calling hits. If a hit is a 5-minute major, then challenge it. Refs are not going to look for those hits. If you use your time out on a play that we decide is not a 5-minute, tough shit. The next hit that would be a major is going to go uncalled.

This proposal does not solve a problem. It actually creates more problems in the form of delays, inconsistent calls, and a potential decrease in the calling of penalties 'in the moment'.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 04:57 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 04:47 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote: So, let's say a player takes out another player and the refs believe it was a shoulder to shoulder hit and not even 2 minutes are handed out... the receiver of the hit is on a heap, on the ice... and after about 2 minutes he is helped off the ice and then taken directly into the dressing room.

During this down time ( see what I did there  Wink ) the coach of the hittee has seen a replay on his IPad and it is CLEARLY a hit to the head... the hitter might not have intended to injure the player, in fact he might have been going for a clean hit, but it went wrong.

Now, wouldn't it make sense, in this sort of circumstance, to allow the coach to challenge and let the refs have a chance to change their obvious mistake... If it turns out that the refs determine it was NOT worthy of a major, then the challenging team takes a delay of game penalty... AND they can no longer challenge any other plays.  This would ensure coaches wouldn't be challenging the refs every time a player ended up on the ice... but it would give them the opportunity to try.

It would not make sense.  Not all hits to the head are a penalty. The fact a player is clearly hit to the head does not make it a penalty. Video review does not change this. Further, major v minor is subjective. It is far too inconsistent to be open to challenge. This is why offsides work. they are not subjective. 

The best course of action is to let the DOPS deal with these hits. They can hand out supplementary discipline that will have a more tangible impact on behaviour. 

You could also have the indirect effect of refs not calling hits. If a hit is a 5-minute major, then challenge it. Refs are not going to look for those hits. If you use your time out on a play that we decide is not a 5-minute, tough shit. The next hit that would be a major is going to go uncalled.

Your proposal does not solve a problem. It actually creates more problems in the form of delays, inconsistent calls, and a potential decrease in the calling of penalties 'in the moment'.



Again, if the coach BELIEVES it is a penalty worthy of a major, he can make that challenge... If the refs decide, on further review , that they missed a major call... then alls good, the offender gets 5 and a game and justice is served when it should be... If, on the other hand, they don't agree it's major worthy, then the challenging coach takes a bench minor and he can't make another challenge the rest of the game, even if Offside MaGee is clearly 3 feet over the blue line on the winning goal. 

If you truly believe that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR penalty is called correctly and not one is ever missed, then you might have a point. But if even one major penalty is missed and the league has a way to correct it , at the time of the incident, then they should utilize it.

Or, perhaps the refs in the NHL never ever, ever, ever have, or will miss a major call...  Laugh

PS - this is a Tom Wilson thread and ironically, he concussed a Penguin last year and broke his jaw. He got ZERO minutes for this head shot, where the first point of contact was the head. There was a camera angle that CLEARLY shows this should have been called a major on the ice... and as it turned out, Wilson was given a 3 game suspension in the PLAYOFFS. This is a perfect example of how a missed MAJOR could have been taken care of AT THE TIME... Yes, he got suspended, but he should have been tossed that night as well.


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 05:10 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote: If you truly believe that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR penalty is called correctly and not one is ever missed, then you might have a point. But if even one major penalty is missed and the league has a way to correct it , at the time of the incident, then they should utilize it.

I don't. But if a hit/play is severe enough that it should have been given a major, then DOPS can intervene and hand out the appropriate discipline. 

A call during the game is not the way to do this for the reasons listed. The purpose of the officials is to manage the game as it happens, not to look back and see if they missed anything.

They are too many variables and too much subjectivity for the officials to review hits that occur in the ordinary course of play. Some of these decisions take the DOPS hours to analyse and determine. What is the value in rushing referees to make decision in a manner of minutes when there are endless number of considerations that come into play. How many blown 5-minute majors are going to be called because of the refs having to make a call after the fact? 

If there is a missed penalty, DOPS can deal with it. It is a much more effective and appropriate system that allows the game to flow better. 

This is not going to result in a positive experience for fans, players, or the NHL. So why should the NHL want to implement a new rule that is not overly effective or well-received?
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 05:50 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 05:10 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote: If you truly believe that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR penalty is called correctly and not one is ever missed, then you might have a point. But if even one major penalty is missed and the league has a way to correct it , at the time of the incident, then they should utilize it.

I don't. But if a hit/play is severe enough that it should have been given a major, then DOPS can intervene and hand out the appropriate discipline. 

In this day and age, they COULD IMO intervene on game night... They have guys that check out goals from Toronto, they could do the same for hits like the Wilson hit I cited. It would take less time than it might to check a goalie interference call.  

A call during the game is not the way to do this for the reasons listed. The purpose of the officials is to manage the game as it happens, not to look back and see if they missed anything.

And I disagree. They should get it sorted out at the time of the infraction... and if the refs are there to simply manage the game as it happens, then why do they "look back" at missed offsides or goalie interference, or when a player hits one off both posts??? Why???   

They are too many variables and too much subjectivity for the officials to review hits that occur in the ordinary course of play. Some of these decisions take the DOPS hours to analyse and determine. What is the value in rushing referees to make decision in a manner of minutes when there are endless number of considerations that come into play. How many blown 5-minute majors are going to be called because of the refs having to make a call after the fact? 

Not many, which is the point... It doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, the resulting injury and non call can be a bigger factor than ONE goal. At least IMO. 

If there is a missed penalty, DOPS can deal with it. It is a much more effective and appropriate system that allows the game to flow better. 

This is not going to result in a positive experience for fans, players, or the NHL. So why should the NHL want to implement a new rule that is not overly effective or well-received?

This is your opinion... perhaps that might alter in the future... 


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
I hate to disagree with my man Sav and good fellow Canucks posters, but I don’t see a future for instant replay on hits to the head. In the case of Troy Stecher, both refs were there and saw the play and still called a 2 minute penalty rather than 5. Having spoken to a few NHL players on the issue of reffing, there is so much cheap crap that goes on in a game, it’s almost impossible to stop it without players intervening. Us fans only realize the cheapness when somebody gets hurt and that is what would happen if you instituted instant replay for headshots. It wouldn’t be about punishing intent, but it would be about punishing results.

I’m not for removing the instigator rule, but I am for removing suspensions for too many instigator penalties. We need a balance between supplemental discipline and self-policing.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-23, 03:22 AM)Canucksfansince1989 Wrote: I hate to disagree with my man Sav and good fellow Canucks posters, but I don’t see a future for instant replay on hits to the head. In the case of Troy Stecher, both refs were there and saw the play and still called a 2 minute penalty rather than 5. Having spoken to a few NHL players on the issue of reffing, there is so much cheap crap that goes on in a game, it’s almost impossible to stop it without players intervening. Us fans only realize the cheapness when somebody gets hurt and that is what would happen if you instituted instant replay for headshots. It wouldn’t be about punishing intent, but it would be about punishing results.

I’m not for removing the instigator rule, but I am for removing suspensions for too many instigator penalties. We need a balance between supplemental discipline and self-policing.

No worries about the disagreement CF... 

Whether it's an on ice review or penalties that match the crime... Whatever the solution, I think most fans would prefer to see something done to deter needless head injuries. 

So far, whatever the league and the referees are doing , it isn't really working all that well.


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2018-12-22, 07:17 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 05:50 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-12-22, 05:10 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote: If you truly believe that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR penalty is called correctly and not one is ever missed, then you might have a point. But if even one major penalty is missed and the league has a way to correct it , at the time of the incident, then they should utilize it.

I don't. But if a hit/play is severe enough that it should have been given a major, then DOPS can intervene and hand out the appropriate discipline. 

In this day and age, they COULD IMO intervene on game night... They have guys that check out goals from Toronto, they could do the same for hits like the Wilson hit I cited. It would take less time than it might to check a goalie interference call. 

You are advocating for a coaches challenge. This suggestion has nothing to do with challenging a missed penalty.   


A call during the game is not the way to do this for the reasons listed. The purpose of the officials is to manage the game as it happens, not to look back and see if they missed anything.

And I disagree. They should get it sorted out at the time of the infraction... and if the refs are there to simply manage the game as it happens, then why do they "look back" at missed offsides or goalie interference, or when a player hits one off both posts??? Why???   

The reason they review whether a goal counts is kind of self-explanatory. I’m not sure debating the merits of a review for goals needs to happen. 

They are too many variables and too much subjectivity for the officials to review hits that occur in the ordinary course of play. Some of these decisions take the DOPS hours to analyse and determine. What is the value in rushing referees to make decision in a manner of minutes when there are endless number of considerations that come into play. How many blown 5-minute majors are going to be called because of the refs having to make a call after the fact? 

Not many, which is the point... It doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, the resulting injury and non call can be a bigger factor than ONE goal. At least IMO. 

Are you arguing the importance of a missed penalty or the importance of getting hitting to the head out of the game?

If there is a missed penalty, DOPS can deal with it. It is a much more effective and appropriate system that allows the game to flow better. 

This is not going to result in a positive experience for fans, players, or the NHL. So why should the NHL want to implement a new rule that is not overly effective or well-received?

This is your opinion... perhaps that might alter in the future... 

We aren’t talking about what fans may want in the future. We are talking about now. 
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)