GDT: Canes @ Bruins 8/12 11:00 am

[cmaleski2]

The NHL could fix all this if they did what the NFL did in regards to replays. Rather than saying 'you can only challenge one specific aspect of the play and you have to declare that', the review process should be changed so that the officials can correct ANY mistake that was clearly made by an official as a part of the play.

In this case all Brind'Amour should be obligated to do is say 'challenging the goal'. Then its up to the officials to review ALL of their work on that play...be it a missed hand pass or missing a puck being covered/goalie interference, etc. Offsides is as completely different category and must be specifically challenged.

With the protection of a penalty being called if the goal is not overturned, its ridiculous for reviews to not overturn goals for any missed hand pass, high stick, goalie interference, puck in netting and requiring the coaches to pick which screw up they want to challenge when one screw up depends on how the referee might have made another screw up.

Coaches challenge on the goal. Leave it at that. Referees and Toronto review the goal. If ANYTHING was CLEARLY missed, its no goal. Then this whole 'what did you call on the ice?' or 'you have say what you think the mistake was and can only review one thing' issue goes away. Its not at all complicated to do, it eliminates this controversy, and it may actually result in more correct calls.

 

[CanadaCanes]

The NHL could fix all this if they did what the NFL did in regards to replays. Rather than saying 'you can only challenge one specific aspect of the play and you have to declare that', the review process should be changed so that the officials can correct ANY mistake that was clearly made by an official as a part of the play.

In this case all Brind'Amour should be obligated to do is say 'challenging the goal'. Then its up to the officials to review ALL of their work on that play...be it a missed hand pass or missing a puck being covered/goalie interference, etc. Offsides is as completely different category and must be specifically challenged.

With the protection of a penalty being called if the goal is not overturned, its ridiculous for reviews to not overturn goals for any missed hand pass, high stick, goalie interference, puck in netting and requiring the coaches to pick which screw up they want to challenge when one screw up depends on how the referee might have made another screw up.

Coaches challenge on the goal. Leave it at that. Referees and Toronto review the goal. If ANYTHING was CLEARLY missed, its no goal. Then this whole 'what did you call on the ice?' or 'you have say what you think the mistake was and can only review one thing' issue goes away. Its not at all complicated to do, it eliminates this controversy, and it may actually result in more correct calls.

But this is the NHL...they love nothing more than over complicating their own rules, their own game, it's what they do best. I agree with you, it's not that complicated to go the route you are suggesting, many times in this league however, it's the simplest solutions that seem so hard for the NHL to grasp...

 

[NoMich]

...
In this case all Brind'Amour should be obligated to do is say 'challenging the goal'. Then its up to the officials to review ALL of their work on that play...be it a missed hand pass or missing a puck being covered/goalie interference, etc. Offsides is as completely different category and must be specifically challenged.
...

That's how they handle a challenge in cricket. If the bowling team thinks that the ball missed the batter's bat and hit his leg *and* the ball would have taken his wicket, the bowling team will challenge the umpire's call of "the ball would've missed the wicket" (called LBW, Leg Before Wicket). The third umpire, on replay, will start looking at it from the very beginning of the play. If the bowler actually stepped beyond the line during the delivery, the third umpire will declare that it was not a fair delivery and the replay is done. Stepping beyond the line during a delivery really has no bearing on what the team is challenging, but an unfair delivery is an unfair delivery, the batter is not out regardless if the ball would've hit the wickets or not. And that third umpire checks all points along the way: fair delivery, ball inline, if the ball hit the bat or not, if the ball hit any part of the batter or not, and if the ball would have taken the wickets down. That last part is very interesting because they have to rely on their Hawkeye modeling of the travel of the ball.

 

[StormChaserBH]

Lee / Charron get another gig... starting in 5 minutes.

 

[andyt]

Lee / Charron get another gig... starting in 5 minutes.

There are 10 referees in the Toronto bubble and 6 were used yesterday with our game being postponed. Lee/Charron, Pollock/Rehman and Hanson/Furlatt worked, leaving McCauley/L’Ecuyer and Dwyer/Hebert unused. We have McCauley/L’Ecuyer tonight. Dwyer/Hebert haven’t worked since the Bolts/Jackets marathon on Tuesday. Since there is no travel involved, it seems to me that Lee/Charron should have the day off with Dwyer/Hebert available.