PGT - Canucks-3: NYRefs-4: Shit happens.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Hey man. I’m just using verbiage that Tocchet uses.

[stawns]

Just now, Huggy Bear said:

how much longer did games get when they added review for offsides?

So you add reviews for penalties.......how many in a game?

[Gawdzukes]

22 minutes ago, Barnstorm said:

6 skaters on the ice, 4 awfficials…still can’t get it right. 

Something has to change.

 

 

Watching the rugby final and world cup games they have video replay and coordinated efforts to get the call right down pretty darn good. Maybe hockey could take some lessons there.

[Silent Man]

21 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

Agreed.

The players can move on, the coach can move on... the 95% of fans on Facebook can move on...

But most on cdc can't. You'd think after a night of rest most would be able to let it go.

I'm just here for the whining now.

Sorry, can't resist. 

 

[Cuzzizzle]

Tough loss, but the boys played really hard. Got a point, let’s move on. If they continue to play and battle the way they are we will be in good shape. Once we get teddy back in the line up we’re going to be rolling. 

[Joe King]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

Maybe an ot rule for review, but they can't have multiple stoppages in a game.......games are already far too long with reviews, commercial breaks etc.

At least for goals a review would be nice. Or just check with the coaches if both sides are good with it no review. All it would take is a nod of the head.

[SilentSam]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

Maybe an ot rule for review, but they can't have multiple stoppages in a game.......games are already far too long with reviews, commercial breaks etc.

With you Stawns,  

I think with a GOAL  in OVERTIME ,

the opposing team should be allowed to have a review of any single incident brought up thought to be a penalty to the last stoppage OR offside upon entry.

 

At least give the Refs the opportunity to correct a mistake or miss.

as it is, the refs don’t have the opportunity to correct something they might even question.

 

[Silent Man]

14 minutes ago, stawns said:

So, game management is acceptable then, no?

What is it you think they should do?  There's not a pool of officials out there better than the ones already in the NHL 

At very least try to get everybody on the same page in terms of what is a penalty and what is not. And then make officials accountable for their calls/non calls.

[EdgarM]

12 hours ago, GrammaInTheTub said:

RT is so real with it and you can tell him and the coaches have buy in - this a level that we can say we didn’t have in 2011 that if these guys can take the next step… we’ll see!

This type of hockey has not been played here in a long time. Many complained about JR and RTcoming here, but now I think they can see these guys actually know what they are doing.

[Rekker]

25 minutes ago, tas said:

sure, by all means, complain away. see where it gets ya. 

 Venting is good, healthy. For the record though I don't like blaming losses on officials. We had opportunities to put the game away. The first five on three was all on us, but that doesn't mean we can't vent and get the frustration out. 

[Huggy Bear]

Just now, stawns said:

So you add reviews for penalties.......how many in a game?

You dodged the question there. How many do you see each game now, and how much time is it adding to the games?

I can remember one challenge in 8 Canucks games so far this season (goalie interference against Garland in Philly). How long did that take? 2 minutes max? So an average 15 sec per game?
 

To answer your question, I’d like to see them expand it for any call or non-call that results in a goal. 

 

Coaches get 1 per game. If they lose, a penalty, and no more challenges. If they win the challenge, they preserve the right to challenge again. This has been effective so far at limiting superfluous challenges.

 

If it’s a GWG it should be open to review regardless of if you have a challenge left. 

[PhillipBlunt]

10 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

Watching the rugby final and world cup games they have video replay and coordinated efforts to get the call right down pretty darn good. Maybe hockey could take some lessons there.

It’s a faster paced game though, don’t ya know. 

[Canuckle]

54 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

This is why the NBA approach of video reviews followed by refs explaining their revised (or original) ruling is so good.

 

They let us understand what they see with the same footage, and it improves our understanding of the rules.

 

I didn't see your original exchange, but to expand on "reviews"...

 

My question is what could they actually review to potentially overturn a goal ala the Pettersson trip last night.

 

What would the conditions be? If it leads directly to a goal... within a certain time frame? When does the potential expire? (eg. puck leaving the offensive zone with a pending potential offside review call) What would that look like in this case?

 

I don't know if anyone was advocating for this, but I feel like this is a can or worms we don't want open, tbh.

 

How many times a game do little hooks, tie ups, hits, interference/picks, etc. happen and players getting unfair advantage over eachother-- Hockey is a fast heavy game with players crashing into eachother holding a piece of lumber. So much happens so fast and refs can't see everything. And these missed infractions happen ALL the time. Do we call the game 100% by the book? If so, what wouldn't be on the table for dispute?

 

Hockey would essentially turn into a non-contact sport if everything you do could potentially overturn a goal (especially considering the often context lacking frame by frame Zapruder film approach we take to reviews.) If everything is under the microscope the game itself is essentially dead.

 

Again, I don't know if anyone was advocating for this... but... interesting to think about.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Canuckle

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Officiating is by people. Hard to have consistency across so many different guys working games. 

 

For sure. I look at baseball eg and an AI strike zone make a lot of sense to me given how bad some umpires are, there has to be similar things in hockey where we can improve things 

[Huggy Bear]

16 minutes ago, stawns said:

Maybe an ot rule for review, but they can't have multiple stoppages in a game.......games are already far too long with reviews, commercial breaks etc.

Game length is such a tired counterpoint to video review. Commercial breaks are their own separate issue, and have nothing to do with improving consistency in reffing.

 

Other leagues have expanded reviews and their games haven’t become too long. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

My questions are ...

 

Why do these issues with refs seem to be getting worse rather than better? 

 

And ... Is it possible for solutions/improvements to be implemented? 

[Huggy Bear]

5 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

I didn't see your original exchange, but to expand on "reviews"...

 

My question is what could they actually review to potentially overturn a goal ala the Pettersson trip last night.

 

What would the conditions be? If it leads directly to a goal... within a certain time frame? When does the potential expire? (eg. puck leaving the offensive zone with a pending potential offside review call) What would that look like in this case?

 

 

That’s a really good question. Maybe limited to the last whistle/stoppage or even line change?

 

They could test this out in preseason and work out the kinks.

[Gawdzukes]

5 minutes ago, Rekker said:

 Venting is good, healthy. For the record though I don't like blaming losses on officials. We had opportunities to put the game away. The first five on three was all on us, but that doesn't mean we can't vent and get the frustration out. 

 

I hate blaming the refs too. Most of the times its just poor sportsmanship to complain. Especially constant complainers, it looks so petty and childish. You'll get a bad call from time to time. You just have to accept its part of sport and suck it up. Complaining doesn't make it any better and the calls even themselves out if you just keep your nose down and play hard.

 

Hey we got a point out of a tough game. On to the next one.

[TheGuardian]

Lots of chatter about reviewing missed calls etc.

 

Can't do it. Game management. Games used to go up to 3 hours sometimes.

I don't know if anyone was watching but all three Canadian games 1rst period ended within one minute of each other, game management does that.

Networks love that, scripted finality, they can schedule better.

That is probably behind the push to have playoff games end in a shootout.

 

Hey, it was a really good game for the Canucks, they got a point. Myer's shorthanded goal was crucial.

 

Petey should not skate around with his legs 3.5 feet apart, almost as wide as he can. He missed the pick on Krieder too.

Edited October 29, 2023 by TheGuardian

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

That’s a really good question. Maybe limited to the last whistle/stoppage or even line change?

 

They could test this out in preseason and work out the kinks.

And combine the review with a TV commercial? Length of game doesn’t change. 

[Canuckle]

Just now, Huggy Bear said:

That’s a really good question. Maybe limited to the last whistle/stoppage or even line change?

 

They could test this out in preseason and work out the kinks.

 

I don't think they can even try, tbh.

 

It opens a can of worms which calls the entire game of hockey into question.

 

As I stated previously, how many times a game do little hooks, tie ups, hits, interference/picks, etc. happen and players getting unfair advantage over eachother-- Hockey is a fast heavy game with players crashing into eachother holding a piece of lumber. So much happens and refs can't see everything. Missed infractions happen ALL the time.

 

Do we call the game 100% by the book? If so, what wouldn't be on the table for dispute?

 

Hockey would essentially turn into a non-contact sport if everything you do could potentially overturn a goal (especially considering the often context lacking frame by frame Zapruder film approach we take to reviews.) If everything is under the microscope the game as we know it is essentially dead.

[Huggy Bear]

15 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

With you Stawns,  

I think with a GOAL  in OVERTIME ,

the opposing team should be allowed to have a review of any single incident brought up thought to be a penalty to the last stoppage OR offside upon entry.

 

At least give the Refs the opportunity to correct a mistake or miss.

as it is, the refs don’t have the opportunity to correct something they might even question.

 

Yes, even this small extension of video review into OT would be a good place to start.

 

Refs are human and make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn’t directly impact the outcome of the game. Start with OT, where every goal is a GWG.

 

[JayDangles]

Tochet should have done a coaches challenge for offside on the winning goal.

Even though it was clearly onside, it would have forced the refs to stay on the ice longer, and further delay things. Just as a dick move.

Would have been hilarious.

[Huggy Bear]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

 

I don't think they can even try, tbh.

 

It opens a can of worms which calls the entire game of hockey into question.

 

As I stated previously, how many times a game do little hooks, tie ups, hits, interference/picks, etc. happen and players getting unfair advantage over eachother-- Hockey is a fast heavy game with players crashing into eachother holding a piece of lumber. So much happens and refs can't see everything. Missed infractions happen ALL the time.

 

Do we call the game 100% by the book? If so, what wouldn't be on the table for dispute?

 

Hockey would essentially turn into a non-contact sport if everything you do could potentially overturn a goal (especially considering the often context lacking frame by frame Zapruder film approach we take to reviews.) If everything is under the microscope the game as we know it is essentially dead.

Other leagues have tried and it’s working. 
 

The NHL added video reviews, and it’s working. Has that changed  hockey into a non-contact sport. 
 

Your argument portrays a slippery slope that’s simply not backed by evidence.

[TheGuardian]

12 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

For sure. I look at baseball eg and an AI strike zone make a lot of sense to me given how bad some umpires are, there has to be similar things in hockey where we can improve things 

See this is an issue, I see Pettersson trying to do a fancy between the legs pass splitting his legs apart INTO Krieder's path. EP's leg moved more towards Krieder than Krieder's moved towards him.