coach"s challenge....like it? hate it?

[offsides]

Don't like it. It will start with one challenge but grow. A coach will use his challenge but another bad play will happen and it just won't be fair if they can't challenge it. Someone will lose a game on a bad call after using their challenge and the cry will come for allowing more challenges. I like the way hockey is now. Just accept the good with the bad, play through the bad stuff and take advantage of the good stuff. In the playoffs a best of 7 will not be lost on one bad call.

[MRandall25]

Don't like it. It will start with one challenge but grow. A coach will use his challenge but another bad play will happen and it just won't be fair if they can't challenge it. Someone will lose a game on a bad call after using their challenge and the cry will come for allowing more challenges. I like the way hockey is now. Just accept the good with the bad, play through the bad stuff and take advantage of the good stuff. In the playoffs a best of 7 will not be lost on one bad call.

I don't buy that. The coaches, like in the NFL, would know exactly how many challenges they have. They know the risk of using it.

Tough **** if they waste it.

[Rylan]

And I don't buy that there is a need for coach's needing to challenge. Honestly, what things would the board propose be reviewable?

[yubb]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

[pittsoccer33]

one thing i wish could be reviewed is high sticking.

imagine tonight late in the 3rd period, tied game, and schenn clips giroux with his stick. except the blame it crosby. now we have a 4 minute penalty kill to deal with.

[Faubert5]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?

[shmenguin]

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

this reasoning would say that the instant replay has no place in the NFL either. which is about as untrue as it gets.

[Idoit40fans]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?

I have never seen a game in which there were two plays like that Briere play or the Duchene play. In the event that there were two of them though, I'd suggest that you can use your timeout for one challenge. If you win that challenge, you get a second challenge, and if you use that and lose, you take a delay of game penalty. If you take a timeout, you cannot challenge. If you're arguing that it hardly ever happens, exactly. Why not have the challenge their to correct it when that call is blown?

[yubb]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?

Very good point. But it depends on the scope of what a coach can challenge. If you can only challenge off-sides like the examples we've been using, then 1) it wouldn't happen that much, so having the challenge wouldn't make a big difference. but 2) is that really all we're talking about? Are we only worried about goals scored on off-sides plays?

[yubb]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?

I have never seen a game in which there were two plays like that Briere play or the Duchene play. In the event that there were two of them though, I'd suggest that you can use your timeout for one challenge. If you win that challenge, you get a second challenge, and if you use that and lose, you take a delay of game penalty. If you take a timeout, you cannot challenge. If you're arguing that it hardly ever happens, exactly. Why not have the challenge their to correct it when that call is blown?

If the challenge could be thrown only on those plays, then it not only wouldn't occur often, but then it would slow the overall pace of most games down. I can conceed that would be the case. But I still don't think it's worth it. And I think the scope of the challenge would be expanded (much like governemnt) over time to where more than just an offsides goal is being challenged.

I believe that there are calls that go both ways, ones that are missed, ones that are called when no penalty takes places and that it generally evens out. It has to; it's just odds, like gambling, where overall the numbers even out. Because of that no one has an advantage. And making rules changes and throwing red flags on the ice all seems silly for something that just doesn't happen that often.

And what effect will this have on the on-ice refereeing? The more you take the game out of their hands, the worse it's going to make their officiating. If you're a ref and you know you can go to video replay, if you know you have a backup, you won't be as sharp. It's human nature to be as good as you have to be, not the best you can be (of course and as always, with exceptions).

[shmenguin]

I believe that there are calls that go both ways, ones that are missed, ones that are called when no penalty takes places and that it generally evens out. It has to; it's just odds, like gambling, where overall the numbers even out

blech. go back to 1999 and tell the sabres not to worry because things will even out after hull's crease goal.

[Idoit40fans]

If the ruling would be that they lose a timeout with the challenge, there is no argument against it.

To another point...Bad penalty calls even themselves out and don't directly cause a problem, egregious missed calls that lead to goals don't and can't even up.

[Faubert5]

I don't agree with the slippery slope idea.

However, adding one challenge won't eliminate missed and blown, game-changing calls. If you add the coach's challenge, will everything work perfect? If not, why add it, and in that case, what should be done instead? Two challenges? Automatic review of every play, scoring chance or goal?

And there's just not enough of a need for the coach's challenge. It sounds like we're really discussing the review of plays with major impact on the game. i.e. plays where goals were scored (or almost scored) But how many times has that really happened? And how many times has that happened where the play wasn't already reviewed?

The coach's review is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that really doesn't happen that often.

So, if it doesn't happen that often and the coaches have one challenge to use in a critical situation then how does it ruin the pace of the game?

Very good point. But it depends on the scope of what a coach can challenge. If you can only challenge off-sides like the examples we've been using, then 1) it wouldn't happen that much, so having the challenge wouldn't make a big difference. but 2) is that really all we're talking about? Are we only worried about goals scored on off-sides plays?

I would think that with one challenge a game you'd have to be judicious in the use of your challenge. You might challenge an icing call late in a game with a one-goal lead, or a missed offsides that resulted in a goal, or a closing the hand on a puck in the crease. As in the NFL, there would be some calls that wouldn't or couldn't be challenged. An offsides that is called could hardly be challenged because the whistle blows, you might exempt a penalty-shot call on a breakaway as that's a judgement call and boarding might be similar. At some point you study what can and can't be challenged, implement the rule, and then the league has to trust the coach to use his challenge wisely. How well he does it is just one more part of his overall performance evaluation.

The NFL manages it and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and they're still tweaking it. Sometimes it can changes the outcome of a game and sometimes it doesn't. I think it gives the league at least a chance to avoid a situation where a clearly blown call decides or appears to decide a game. I think there's more to gain than there is to lose and it won't have much effect on the lackluster and inconsistent performance of the current officiating.