Holy cow that went completely over your head. Obviously what I meant was making sure the correct call is made, especially on a play that ends with a goal, is worth sacrificing maybe a minute or two of "flow." I am all for reviewing plays that ensure that games are decided by the actions of the players, and not a referee's split-second immediate 50-50 decision on a play that is very difficult to call. Reviewing doesn't need to take as long as it does too. We don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto, just do what the NCAA does and let the referee watch the replay himself in the scorer's box and make the decision.
The NFL is different because as already mentioned, they've made things that should be simple become so complicated to the point where you almost need a law degree to know what a catch is anymore.
Imagine being a player who has worked his entire life to get better and reach the next highest level of play until eventually your hard work and training culminates with a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals and you make a borderline but legal play to score a goal but the referee has to decide right away if it counts and he thinks there was something there to negate the play you made. You'd be okay with the explanation that the play was just too exciting to be reviewed and the game must continue with a crucial call going the wrong way because it wasn't worth disrupting the flow?
Hockey is full of luck. Pucks bounce over gloves, under arms, off stick shafts, they carom off the boards strangely sometimes, they ricochet off the ice and in. Subjective calls - and by this I mean generally, penalties - are just part of the overall variance inherent to sport. There's no way you're ever going to get it right with penalties. So we just review penalties on goal scoring plays, namely interference? What about penalties that result in power plays that ultimately result in goals? Shouldn't we just go back and look at those, just to make sure they're the right call? I recognize that this is a strawman, but the point is the same - there's always going to be chance elements involved with refereeing a game, and while it'd be nice if those could go away, they can't. I'm in favor of letting the game speak, of having everything on the ice be inherently meaningful as it happens, not to be judged later, while we wait and think of other things, and then be reversed or upheld. In the NFL I don't watch the 9 replays to see if it's a catch or not - I don't care. At that point, they've lost me. I watch one good replay, make my decision on the right call, and go find something better on TV until they come back (and of course there's a commercial involved) - I refuse to get wrapped up in the courtroom drama that is review in sports. Anything that diminishes the number and duration of replays is good. Life has to be lived with imperfections.
Edited by Triumph, 09 June 2014 - 06:01 PM.