Embellishment in the NHL

[RizzMB30]

Alternative:

Let's say a ref calls a trip on player A after player B dives.

 

Why can't someone from above call down, signal to the referees and say "hey, call player B for a diving minor/double minor"

I think this can be implemented somehow.  If you can make mic up players during the game for TV productions, I think all of the linesman should have small headsets to communicate and kind of call the game on their own lines.  But then Idk if you want to have every play or possible penalty under such scrutiny for the reason that it takes time to communicate.  You can't have one ref make a call and then they debate for 2 minutes.  Especially if this happens on every single call.  I still believe the ultimate call should lay with the head referee calling the game, not some guy up in the stands. 

[devilsfan26]

Once again, I stand firmly behind my position that the referees NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONSULT EACH OTHER (and the linesman, too!) during the game, especially after questionable penalty calls. Front ref calls a trip, back ref comes up and says, "I had a better angle, there is no question it was a dive." Call the freaking dive, not the trip!

 

They should be able to review, as it's hard to differentiate real and false at this type of speee. BUT least it isn't as bad as the NBA with PBJ flopping like a fish out of water on one side of the court with a player not in sight lol.

 

 

I agree with both of these, and I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this, but the reviews would be MUCH faster if you cut out the phone calls and video goal judges and just let the referees get a quick view of the replay in the scorer's box.  Actually, I don't know much about this technology but it would seem to me that we're not too far off from just letting the officials wear some kind of video screen on their wrist like a watch that will allow them to just see replays right after they blow the whistle rather than wait for them to skate over the scorer's box and walk in front of the monitor, although that doesn't take much time either.

Obviously adding reviews will lengthen a few stoppages, but this is vastly overstated.  Even if they could, they're not going to review every single play, it would probably only happen a couple times a game, and the process can be drastically streamlined so that each review doesn't take nearly as long as it does now.  Not to mention, a review on a penalty call wouldn't take nearly as long as a review on a goal scored by a high-stick or a kick. 

I bet a lot of the people who oppose giving the officials a chance to review plays are the same ones who go bananas when the ref makes a bad call.  People always complain about officiating being bad, well it's not like there are better refs out there so the only way to lessen blown calls is to let them get a second look at it in slow motion.  Many times whether we are watching from the stands or on TV, we don't know what exactly happened on a particular play until we see the replay, and then when we see it we go nuts once we discover it was a bad call.  Since we demand 100% accuracy, why not let the officials get the call right rather than leave it up to a guess made in a split second?

[Triumph]

I agree with both of these, and I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this, but the reviews would be MUCH faster if you cut out the phone calls and video goal judges and just let the referees get a quick view of the replay in the scorer's box.  Actually, I don't know much about this technology but it would seem to me that we're not too far off from just letting the officials wear some kind of video screen on their wrist like a watch that will allow them to just see replays right after they blow the whistle rather than wait for them to skate over the scorer's box and walk in front of the monitor, although that doesn't take much time either.

Obviously adding reviews will lengthen a few stoppages, but this is vastly overstated.  Even if they could, they're not going to review every single play, it would probably only happen a couple times a game, and the process can be drastically streamlined so that each review doesn't take nearly as long as it does now.  Not to mention, a review on a penalty call wouldn't take nearly as long as a review on a goal scored by a high-stick or a kick. 

I bet a lot of the people who oppose giving the officials a chance to review plays are the same ones who go bananas when the ref makes a bad call.  People always complain about officiating being bad, well it's not like there are better refs out there so the only way to lessen blown calls is to let them get a second look at it in slow motion.  Many times whether we are watching from the stands or on TV, we don't know what exactly happened on a particular play until we see the replay, and then when we see it we go nuts once we discover it was a bad call.  Since we demand 100% accuracy, why not let the officials get the call right rather than leave it up to a guess made in a split second?

 

Because it takes much longer to do what you are suggesting.  The replay has to be cued up.  Who does that?  Then the ref has to have the guy controlling the feed stop it at the right moment - again, who is controlling that?  The ref himself?  Well, that'll take some time getting used to.  Who controls the different angles?  How does the ref communicate this to whoever is controlling the feed?  How does the ref manage to switch between angles?   The way the NHL has it set up is really good, because they have an office that does this stuff as their job.  

 

Reviewing penalties is a disaster.  Good god.  I just can't see being in favor of that.  I don't understand someone who likes sports being in favor of that.

 

Dives should be reviewed by the league and fines given out and a list published.  It's very difficult to call diving in real time - refs should not be watching for diving any more than they do now, because they have a million other things to actually watch for.

[devilsfan26]

Because it takes much longer to do what you are suggesting.  The replay has to be cued up.  Who does that?  Then the ref has to have the guy controlling the feed stop it at the right moment - again, who is controlling that?  The ref himself?  Well, that'll take some time getting used to.  Who controls the different angles?  How does the ref communicate this to whoever is controlling the feed?  How does the ref manage to switch between angles?   The way the NHL has it set up is really good, because they have an office that does this stuff as their job.  

 

Reviewing penalties is a disaster.  Good god.  I just can't see being in favor of that.  I don't understand someone who likes sports being in favor of that.

 

Dives should be reviewed by the league and fines given out and a list published.  It's very difficult to call diving in real time - refs should not be watching for diving any more than they do now, because they have a million other things to actually watch for.

I'm sure they can figure out a way to have the options laid on the screen for the ref to choose different camera angles, pause it when he wants to, etc.  I'm sure every NHL official knows how to operate a DVD player, I can't see this being that much more complicated than that.

I like sports and I don't like bad calls, that's why I am in favor of allowing for more reviews.

[squishyx]

I'm sure they can figure out a way to have the options laid on the screen for the ref to choose different camera angles, pause it when he wants to, etc.  I'm sure every NHL official knows how to operate a DVD player, I can't see this being that much more complicated than that.

I like sports and I don't like bad calls, that's why I am in favor of allowing for more reviews.

Really though, what value does this bring to the game? The idea is to stop diving/embellishment not just catch and punish players; and if it can be done in an non-game altering fashion, shouldn't that be the primary method? I doubt ref's would even want this task anyway. "yea let me stop the game for 3 minutes and try to figure out if this guy was faking it or not". 

 

[devilsfan26]

Really though, what value does this bring to the game? The idea is to stop diving/embellishment not just catch and punish players; and if it can be done in an non-game altering fashion, shouldn't that be the primary method? I doubt ref's would even want this task anyway. "yea let me stop the game for 3 minutes and try to figure out if this guy was faking it or not". 

 

Well I was just talking about reviews in general, guess I was veering off topic a bit.  I don't think it would take 3 minutes to look at something like this, but I wouldn't mind seeing the punishments for diving given out after the game in the form of fines/suspensions.

[Devilsfan118]

Okay so then rather than have every play reviewable, why not have a coach's challenge system implemented?

It seems like there are so many viable solutions here...yet the NHL continues to really do nothing to tackle the issue.

[Triumph]

Okay so then rather than have every play reviewable, why not have a coach's challenge system implemented?

It seems like there are so many viable solutions here...yet the NHL continues to really do nothing to tackle the issue.

 

Because it slows down the game.  It does nothing to enhance the entertainment value of the game.  Eventually they will succumb to the crybaby GMs and implement this, but it would do nothing for the game overall.

[Daniel]

Because it slows down the game.  It does nothing to enhance the entertainment value of the game.  Eventually they will succumb to the crybaby GMs and implement this, but it would do nothing for the game overall.

 

I would, at most, in addition to what refs choose to review on their own right now, allow coach challenges for bright-line calls -- high sticking and puck over the glass.  You get one challenge a game, and lose your timeout if you lose the challenge.  These types of challenges would probably be rare, and should not slow down the game in any significant way. 

 

But even if they take it to more of an extreme and make things like goaltender interference reviewable, it won't slow things down nearly as much as replay does in the NFL.  A questionable goalie interference call or noncall that impacts whether or not a goal is scored does not happen all that often.  For each team it's maybe ten times in an entire season, and that's pushing it.  In an average NFL game it seems like there are no less than 3 times where there's a question about whether there's a first down or whether there's a completed pass.  That's inevitable when even two non-hurry up teams will have a total of something like 80 individual plays (and that might even be a low number) where several different things are happening at once. 

[David Puddy]

I don't agree with reviews, but it seems so simple and obvious to allow the referees to consult on close or questionable calls. There's not going to be a huddle on every call. I don't understand why they're not allowed to do this like in the NFL.