Paul Stewart: Yet Again, Unintended Consequences of Coach's Challenge

Obviously these reviews (entire season) have had some impact on reduced goal scoring. Seems antithetical to NHL's stated objective of increased scoring.

The greatest impact seems to be on the flow of the game.

I think there should be a delay of game penalty assessed instead of loosing a timeout if a coaches challenge isn't successful. I think its ridiculous how teams get an extra long timeout by using it. It kills the momentum of the team who just scored. Also I agree if your offside by 6 inches who cares.

Also I agree if your offside by 6 inches who cares.
- cuethenoise

Paul never said that.

I think there should be a delay of game penalty assessed instead of loosing a timeout if a coaches challenge isn't successful. I think its ridiculous how teams get an extra long timeout by using it. It kills the momentum of the team who just scored. Also I agree if your offside by 6 inches who cares.
- cuethenoise

With that kind of logic, why not say if any part of the puck crosses the goal line it is a goal? For icings, the puck just has to make it to the goal line.

Paul never said that.
- Blackstrom2

Basically he said if you need frame by frame evidence that a player is off-side, then he isn't in real life.

Basically he said if you need frame by frame evidence that a player is off-side, then he isn't in real life.
- powerenforcer

6 inches is pretty significant.

6 inches is pretty significant.
- Blackstrom2

Agreed. I tell my wife that a lot.

Have the blue line extend above the ice like the goal line in football. If a guys skate is floating over top of it it still should count as being onsides. Also, I woul d suggest combining the above with the puck is in the zone as soon as the puck touches the blue line not once it entirely is in the zone. I think this will lead to less of these called back goals and increase "OAF"fense which is just what the doctor ordered IMHO.

Paul...I have a question, in the 1st period last night, there were two blatant slashes, one by each team....why do we have that archaic thinking that, the 1st one is ok, but the 2nd isn't? I mean, the ref stood right there and watched Cally two hand slash Malkin, and in return, Malkin two handed slashed Cally...why does he either take both players, or neither? Why does the 1st guy get away with it? Because he is 1st, that somehow makes it ok?

Malkin did the ol Johnny Appleseed tree chop slash. However Callahan plays like a rat so what goes around comes around. There's always going to be that Hudson Bay rules to some degree. More is called in the playoffs than say 18 years ago when Chewbacca Derian Hatcher whacked and hacked guys each time he was on the ice and for the most part, got away with it. If refs called everything by the book, each team would have 20 power plays per game. I think the refs use their judgment on what is an obvious penalty and will call it. The diving drives me nuts and I see refs get fooled by players. Some players are better at Bill Barbering than others.

Agreed. I tell my wife that a lot.
- TheRat14

hahah that is golden. I meant if your skate is off the ice 6 inches, but still by the line.

Malkin did the ol Johnny Appleseed tree chop slash. However Callahan plays like a rat so what goes around comes around. There's always going to be that Hudson Bay rules to some degree. More is called in the playoffs than say 18 years ago when Chewbacca Derian Hatcher whacked and hacked guys each time he was on the ice and for the most part, got away with it. If refs called everything by the book, each team would have 20 power plays per game. I think the refs use their judgment on what is an obvious penalty and will call it. The diving drives me nuts and I see refs get fooled by players. Some players are better at Bill Barbering than others.
- gergeswillems

I understand they can't call everything, but in that case, I don't know how you let one go, but call the other...both were just blatant slashes. That is what drives me crazy with refs, they will be staring right at it and let it go, then 2 seconds later call the exact same play a penalty...Why is the 1st slash ok but the 2nd isn't? I would have no issues with both of them being taken off there.

I understand they can't call everything, but in that case, I don't know how you let one go, but call the other...both were just blatant slashes. That is what drives me crazy with refs, they will be staring right at it and let it go, then 2 seconds later call the exact same play a penalty...Why is the 1st slash ok but the 2nd isn't? I would have no issues with both of them being taken off there.
- Thorny

Obviously Paul is much better equipped to answer this than me. IMO refs call one guy to put the fear into teams for taking future infractions. Like if 2 players are wrestling on the ice after the whistle, refs will usually warn them early in the game that he is only taking one guy, giving them the penalty .If you call both, teams will do this all game. Coaches will tell players like Boyle to go after Sid to draw a penalty and take him off the ice. We saw this in Game 5.

If both teams know only 1 will go to the box, it acts as a deterrent for any future scrums. It sets the tone for the rest of the game.

Two easy ways to fix it.

One: The blue line is a 3D box, not a flat 2D plane, just like EVERY OTHER LINE ON THE ICE. (I expect this rule change to actually occur as soon as the season is over. Like, Bettman could announce it while whoever wins the Cup is skating around on the ice, and it would be too slow of an announcement.)

Two: During a review, no more of this frame-by-frame nonsense. If you can't tell at full speed (ie, just like during the action) if the call is explicitly wrong, then call on the ice stands. (Probably wishful thinking, but I think it would waaaay minimize the constant throwing the linesmen under the bus that the current system has become.)

I just hope the Cup winning goal in triple overtime isn't called back because of an offside by mere inches. Then the other team ends up scoring the game winning goal on an offside which was not called offside. I'm almost expecting it. Then like back in 1999, Wayne Gretzky can tell everyone he thought it was a good goal.

Paul, the biggest problem I have is with the powers that be making hairbrained changes to the game and then instead of realizing the errors of their ways, they decide to make minor changes to their rule to try to save face. Case in point: 3 point games decided via a shootout (SUCKS), which gave us 3 on 3 and less shootouts but still we have shootouts(SUCKS, but a little better). Think ALL scenarios through before instituting stupid changes. Here's another, what was the original intent of icing? I believe it was to stop teams under pressure from throwing the puck down to get a break. If memory serves errant passes were not called icing, now they are, why? Talk about stopping the flow of the game.

Obviously Paul is much better equipped to answer this than me. IMO refs call one guy to put the fear into teams for taking future infractions. Like if 2 players are wrestling on the ice after the whistle, refs will usually warn them early in the game that he is only taking one guy, giving them the penalty .If you call both, teams will do this all game. Coaches will tell players like Boyle to go after Sid to draw a penalty and take him off the ice. We saw this in Game 5.

If both teams know only 1 will go to the box, it acts as a deterrent for any future scrums. It sets the tone for the rest of the game.
- gergeswillems

I can see where you are coming from, but it still baffles me, how Cally gets away with it....Malkin should have skated away, and it was a stupid thing for him to do...but if Refs are going to allow it to happen, then shouldn't they allow it both ways? Its so archaic to call the retaliation penalty...that the 2nd person is more guilty than the first is just stupid thinking. Perhaps the ref was going to tell Cally that was his free one...I don't know what his thought process was, thats why I asked Paul.

As far as your theory on why only one gets called....if Malkin skates away, should Cally have not been called? If the original penalty is called, its not even an issue...because Malkin looked right at the ref and when no arm was up, he took his baseball swing to Cally. There are plenty of times off setting penalties are called, that play should have been one. I just don't understand how the retaliation is more of a penalty than the initial slash.

Answer: Because Malkin is Russian. Like it or not, many in hockey still dislike Russian players.

Malkin does not control his emotions well and that is well known, hence why thugs like Callahan go after him. Malkin and Crosby--because they spent the better part of their careers whining about non-calls--get no favors from the refs.

I've seen countless games where Malkin gets mugged, bludgeoned, assaulted, etc... and nothing is called, then he hooks someone in the offensive zone and BAM the arm goes up. Its soooo frustrating as a fan. Malkin is often guilty of penalties, Im certainly not saying he isnt, but sometime too much is let go.

As fans we are looking for consistency (if we are honest)... IF its called at one end, it had better be called at the other. Let go at one end, better be let go on the other end.
That is where the Malkin slash is so frustrating. Watching the replay, Its clear to me the ref didnt see the Callahan slash, but when you wind up like a baseball player and swing your stick at someone, you can bet the house the refs will see that. Again, very frustrating.

AS a ref in the sports of soccer and basketball--and I think the same applies here--we dont Ignore the first infraction, we normally just dont see it. But for some reason, we ALWAYS seem to see the retaliation.

Paul, the biggest problem I have is with the powers that be making hairbrained changes to the game and then instead of realizing the errors of their ways, they decide to make minor changes to their rule to try to save face. Case in point: 3 point games decided via a shootout (SUCKS), which gave us 3 on 3 and less shootouts but still we have shootouts(SUCKS, but a little better). Think ALL scenarios through before instituting stupid changes. Here's another, what was the original intent of icing? I believe it was to stop teams under pressure from throwing the puck down to get a break. If memory serves errant passes were not called icing, now they are, why? Talk about stopping the flow of the game.
- jtb3rd

Please explain why shootouts suck? Have you been to an NHL arena during a shoot out? The fans are on their feet and the arena is electric. The fans actually enjoy the shoot out, its the archaic OLD GUARD types who don't. A few years ago, when the PHI/NYR spot was decided by a shoot out and when someone noticed DET was 0-13 in shoot out games a couple years ago, the media got up in arms with the shoot out. All of a sudden, it was a farce, a bad way to decide a game basically because 2 BIG MARKET teams were adversely affected by the way their teams played shoot outs those years. You think the Canadian press would have cared if Arizona or Florida went 0-13 in shoot out games? But 2 original 6 teams...o man we gotta change that.

Please explain why shootouts suck? Have you been to an NHL arena during a shoot out? The fans are on their feet and the arena is electric. The fans actually enjoy the shoot out, its the archaic OLD GUARD types who don't. A few years ago, when the PHI/NYR spot was decided by a shoot out and when someone noticed DET was 0-13 in shoot out games a couple years ago, the media got up in arms with the shoot out. All of a sudden, it was a farce, a bad way to decide a game basically because 2 BIG MARKET teams were adversely affected by the way their teams played shoot outs those years. You think the Canadian press would have cared if Arizona or Florida went 0-13 in shoot out games? But 2 original 6 teams...o man we gotta change that.
- Amanion

I think it takes away from the sport to have an exhibition event decide a game, plain and simple. I believe the fact they instituted the 3 on 3 was because they realize the shootout is not the event they had hoped it would be and are seeing the errors of their ways. I personally hated it from day one and don't care if my team is 13-0 or 0-13, the shootout sucks and takes away from the 'GAME'. Will I take the extra point, of course, but shootouts take away from the game, plain and simple, come up with a better solution. Most people I talk to would LOVE to get rid of the shootout.

I think it takes away from the sport to have an exhibition event decide a game, plain and simple. I believe the fact they instituted the 3 on 3 was because they realize the shootout is not the event they had hoped it would be and are seeing the errors of their ways. I personally hated it from day one and don't care if my team is 13-0 or 0-13, the shootout sucks and takes away from the 'GAME'. Will I take the extra point, of course, but shootouts take away from the game, plain and simple, come up with a better solution. Most people I talk to would LOVE to get rid of the shootout.
- jtb3rd

What takes away from the game is the constant hooking, holding, clutching and grabbing that fails to allow the stars to showcase their abilities. I fail to see how breakaways--which are part of the game--because a "exhibition".
If they hated it and realized what a mistake it was, why did it take so long to have them make changes? And if it wasnt the event theyd hoped for, why do arenas get so electric and amped when a shoot out occurs? The only people I hear hating shoot outs are media types. I dont hear many common fans at all complaining about it

You guys are all pretty thick in the head. If your offsides its no goal. How hard is it to understand. Theres 20,000 ghost hooking penalties called a year but lets all female dog when a rule is clearly broken. Geeesh!

I don't think anyone realized just how close the calls are and how many plays are technically offside. If you keep the challenge it has to be an either or type thing. Either where you have to be completely behind the line like you did in the 90's making it a faster, easier call to make, or you have the blue line extend up. Because with some camera angles you can't tell whether a player's skate is off the ice or not. Or if a guy has black tape the puck blends in or the blade of the stick obstructs the total view which is needed to make a determination. It won't be perfect, nothing is.

There are very simple fixes to the rule, but knowing the NHL they'll make it more convoluted.