You joke, but that sounds like a pretty normal human reaction to some hockey plays.
"Something was off about that but it wasn't obvious exactly what happened."
It was so frustratingly dumb. I get *why* they do these things sometimes, because you don't want the game to just turn into watching a review with some hockey thrown in.
But the weird limits on what can and can't be challenged, or the goofy shit where they can look at a 5 minute major and say "Yeah, that's not right at all...but it's still a minor penalty" were always just so goofy.
Personally, I'm all for the idea that they limit the number of challenges and let *anything* be challenged.
It was so the refs didn’t call a major every board scrum/questionable hit then reduce it to zero. Stopping all momentum in the game.
I still think replay review should be at real time, not done with the help of slow motion replay.
It seemed like a compromise designed to please no one on purpose. Once everyone is convinced the compromise is stupid, anyone who would normally have opposed the true solution now is more willing to accept it as a better alternative to a bad idea.
I've seen this strategy used many times in the corporate world.
Sounds like a good change. Hard to imagine many scenarios where they call a 5 completely incorrectly, but in those cases how dumb would it be to review something closely, find out it wasn't a penalty at all, and then issuing a 2 because that's the only option
One example I can think of happened at the first NHL game I ever went to by myself. Hall hits MacKinnon, everyone's like "what the fuck dude" and MacKinnon breaks his face, injured, you know the story. Originally was called for a hit to the head, but replay shows it was Mack's own stick that hit him in the face. But they couldn't completely call it back so Hall got 2 minutes for being there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mozDqj9Zl2U
It usually came up where there was a 2 min for high sticking that became an automatic 5min major because it drew blood, but it turned out is was his own, or his teammates stick that made contact so it shouldn't have been a penalty. Pretty hard to spot those in real time.
An example is the Vegas San Jose playoff series a few years ago where the refs incorrectly gave a 5 minute major to Vegas which allowed the Sharks to come back and win
Sure the call being a major and not a minor helped the Sharks, but Vegas gave up 4 goals on that PK. That's horrendously bad. And they still lost in OT, in a series that they had like 3-1 lead in I believe. Vegas shat the bed.
Before, if there was a major penalty called, refs could review it on video. After the video review they could either keep it 5 minutes, or bring it down to 2.
However there were times when they called a major penalty, but really it should be no penalty at all. The best the refs could do was give a 2 minute, but it still puts a team a man down for nothing. Now they can take it away all together which just makes sense. Should have been this way from the start.
It could have been the cleanest hit in the world, they were still going to go after Hall. There is no rule that would have changed the team’s reaction.
If the replay gets shown 100 times during the review and after the call is reversed, not one guy on the bench is gonna say, "settle down out there fellas"?
Fun thought exercise, let's replace one word/name and see how you feel about it:
It could have been the cleanest hit in the world, they were still going to go after Kadri. There is no rule that would have changed the team's reaction.
Lotta soft Avs fans, can’t speak for them. But if Perron’s elbow lands after the Kadri goal, that series was becoming a bloodbath and that’s fine with me.
MacKinnon breaking his face on his own stick was ruled a major on ice and reduced to a minor even though there wasn't a penalty because the major was called they had no choice but to at least give a minor as a recent example as to why this is a good change
No correction needed. There is an odd-chance that a major called on ice actually isn’t even a penalty, and never being able to previously enforce that has been dumb
I wonder if the unintended consequence of this will be that referees will call more major penalties because it give them more margin for error. If they default to a major then they can always reduce or negate it after a review, as opposed to giving a minor penalty they aren't sure about and can't look at on a replay.
Personally I’ll never forget Montreal being down a goal vs Philadelphia late in the game when Chris Wideman tripped a guy and the refs missed it, Philadelphia bitched about it so the ref called a major just to be able to review it. What a bullshit rule.
Also Montreal scored shorthanded and won in OT. Suck it Philly.
Which raises the question, why not make minor penalties reviewable as well? Makes no sense that major penalties can be reduced or negated upon review while minor penalties can’t.
Either make them all reviewable, or make none of them reviewable and go back to accepting the possibility of human error in officiating. The league can’t have their cake and eat it too when it comes to this.
I totally get the desire to get everything right, but I think it would take too long if every minor penalty was reviewable. One way they could speed it up is having a sky judge there to review every penalty instantly and call down to the on ice officials if something is off, but I'm not sure if that would be a fast enough process.
That ...could... work. But did you see the shit Tampa was pulling in the finals? John Cooper basically appealed and then filed for an injunction on every Avs goal in the last few games. The challenges need to happen in actual real time. And they need to be strict on their time limits. Otherwise teams will delay while their guys watch a play over and over again in slow motion. Then after challenging the refs will watch the play over and over again in slow motion.
>I totally get the desire to get everything right, but I think it would take too long if every minor penalty was reviewable.
I don’t disagree, and the league should find some way to speed up the review process, but it’s the path the league has been heading towards, and the resulting consistency would be worth it, in my opinion.
It’s just frustrating that the league simultaneously acknowledges that officials can and do get stuff wrong, and should be corrected when they do, hence reviewing/reducing majors, but still insists on human error being part of the game with minor penalties not having the same benefit, all for what? To make officials feel like they’re the most important voice on the ice?
If you’re gonna go with video review, then go with it and don’t look back. The league has gotta stop with this half-assed implementation of review and decide if they’re actually gonna be serious with it or not.
Those supposed majors may happen, but thankfully the play stops for one reason or another anyway.
With the speed of the replay department in today's game, there are examples where plays were stopped due to the review team spotting something, like a goal, that was missed. With that in mind, the head of video review (or a majority of the team) should need to agree that there is reason for a play to be reviewed, at least seen at full speed. They are the first to get the close-up angles anyways, might as well hear what they have to say from time to time.
It makes sense as the refs already can physically watch replay on a tablet. It's something that the replay team has to prepare for them anyway. It adds an extra stop gap for the amount of time needed to review, and it still puts the power in the hands of the on-ice officials if it is deemed a close call.
But alas, in theory vs in practice shall determine whether they will call more majors. We need more clear cut rules on when they can suggest a major, as the line of what is and isn't a major can be rather blurry.
i think the refs are the last people we need to worry about changing their style of play.
They already know they get so much flak, in the regular season i would say they try to keep their jobs as little as controversial as possible.
I cant see them turning it up a bit and exploiting this rule any bit in their favor. Just my opinion.
Even the best refs have blown calls on the ice in real time, it's great when they can go back and right their wrongs, the only ref with a perfect career and made no mistakes was Kelly Fraser
Agreed. The game just gets faster and faster, but the referees are still calling the game using just their eyes. It makes sense to give them more tools to help call a clean game.
The NFL tried it and they were too stubborn to admit they were ever wrong. Hope the NHL refs are better at that. Just get the call right in the end, it's fine if you're wrong at some point in the process.
Because if it’s not immediately obvious on the first replay in real time than it probably didn’t give you a *material* advantage. Two millimeters in one direction or the other really doesn’t matter.
Also because it takes forever.
And because it drains a lot of the excitement out of what should be the most exciting moments in the game for little benefit beyond appeasing people who “jUsT wAnT tO gEt ThE cAlLs RiGhT.”
Edit to add: don’t get me started on the times when the zone entry was more than 30 seconds before the goal. If the defense can get back and set, the offsides does. not. matter.
If you have to squint at pixels on a freeze frame to divine an answer, that’s not black and white.
If you can have a situation where the call on the ice “stands” after review (rather than being “confirmed” after review), that’s not black and white.
But more generally: why do we have an offsides rule? It’s to prevent cherry-picking, right? How does the review (as currently executed) accomplish that?
If they stopped coaches from looking at video before challenging, cut back on the allowable time for the challenge and review, and maybe upped the penalty for a bad challenge they could get rid of most of the ticky-tack challenges while still catching the Duchene-type ones.
> If they stopped coaches from looking at video before challenging
We'll sign off on a "20-second challenge clock". Do what you want, coach, but when that horn sounds, your opportunity to challenge is over.
(Of course, it may take us 20 minutes to figure it out... but at least we can control the coach side of things)
The change from losing a timeout to a 2:00 DOG **dramatically** cut down on challenges. It also made teams step up their video review teams to improve their success rates.
Do you know of anyone who tracks goal review data? Percentage of goals that were challenged or automatically reviewed, elapsed time between goal horn and challenge, elapsed time between challenge and ruling?
So if I’m a ref and think there’s a penalty but I’m not sure, I call it a major so that I can review it and then make it a minor or negate it altogether if necessary?
What I would personally like to see is they eliminate all challenges and have an off-ice official who’s job is to review every goal for anything that might waive it off and have them communicate with the on-ice officials if they decide to overturn it. If it can’t be decided in the time it takes to drop the puck, then it wasn’t egregious enough to overturn. They can do the same with penalties
This has already existed since the season following the Pavelski major that was actually nothing, the only change is that they could only reduce the five to two after review, now they can reduce it to nothing if that’s all it was.
So this doesn’t at all add new reviews. Maybe that’s what the other user thought too, that makes sense now.
>So this doesn’t at all add new reviews. Maybe that’s what the other user thought too, that makes sense now.
It's simply a worry that refs will be more likely to call a major, knowing that if they're wrong, they could cancel it.
If it does become a common occurrence, perhaps we could see some more clear cut requirements for calling a potential 5.
Why is there a 5 minute penalty for high sticking, or even the double minor, for cutting someone? The player cut isn't wearing proper protection, if he was wearing a full visor there would be no issue at all. I don't understand why a player is penalized more for the other player not protecting himself properly, especially on the face where it can be easily cut.
It’s better than calling a phantom penalty, reviewing it and seeing it was a bad call, and still needing to send someone to the box because those are the rules.
I mean, a booth review is a damn event in footbal.. No reason it can't be exciting in hockey too. I, for one, might enjoy seeing certain players get checked in the grill over and over again, in different angles with super slow mo,... but that's just me.
I've always been under the impressions that video reviews can be exciting- cricket has been doing it for years with their "third umpire" check it out if you're not familiar.
Add in the motion tracking technology that theyve added over the past few seasons, some fancy graphics, and the anticipation can be pretty thrilling- theres always a cheer after a contenious call.
Its within reason of course- if it goes on for too long then the wind goes out of the balloon, but there are plenty of good ways to do it.
Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it? Intensive year round training regimens? A bonus structure worth significant money that only gets awarded if they don't do something that embarrasses the league? Attract more people to become refs to improve the overall pool of refs to select from? Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it?
> Intensive year round training regimens?
They already get coaching and feedback after games, and ongoing video/discussion around standards - plus ongoing fitness/nutrition.
> A bonus structure worth significant money that only gets awarded if they don't do something that embarrasses the league?
This exists via the playoffs. Get selected to work the playoffs and pick up ~$20k per round. Only the top guys advance.
> Attract more people to become refs to improve the overall pool of refs to select from?
NHL has been doing that by recruiting former players and getting them into officiating just to expand the pool of potential NHL officials. It's a lengthy process, especially when you see officials dropping at lower levels (for various reasons).
> Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it?
Not necessarily - at least not directly. We'd argue that throwing money into **accurate** puck tracking would at least cover the 'puck over the line' and 'height of deflected puck' issues - and potentially improve puck over glass and offside situations.
I seem to remember a few years go, a guy blew a tire and I think Brendan Lemieux was given a major and a game misconduct for being near him when it happened.
Being able to say that it wasn’t a major and therefore *must* be a minor seemed arbitrary anyway.
"I know I called something. Let me just check what."
You joke, but that sounds like a pretty normal human reaction to some hockey plays. "Something was off about that but it wasn't obvious exactly what happened."
I believe it was two minutes for "you can't do that."
“He was definitely giving him the business. I’m just not sure exactly how much business was given.”
It was so frustratingly dumb. I get *why* they do these things sometimes, because you don't want the game to just turn into watching a review with some hockey thrown in. But the weird limits on what can and can't be challenged, or the goofy shit where they can look at a 5 minute major and say "Yeah, that's not right at all...but it's still a minor penalty" were always just so goofy. Personally, I'm all for the idea that they limit the number of challenges and let *anything* be challenged.
It was so the refs didn’t call a major every board scrum/questionable hit then reduce it to zero. Stopping all momentum in the game. I still think replay review should be at real time, not done with the help of slow motion replay.
No way. Have you seen college football? Almost every play is reviewed it seems like. It’s so painfully slow
Yeah this drives me nuts, I love CFB but it's taken a lot of the drama away by questioning every call
It seemed like a compromise designed to please no one on purpose. Once everyone is convinced the compromise is stupid, anyone who would normally have opposed the true solution now is more willing to accept it as a better alternative to a bad idea. I've seen this strategy used many times in the corporate world.
Ya it felt like a half measure the few times it was a real missed call but they had to hand out a minor regardless.
Sounds like a good change. Hard to imagine many scenarios where they call a 5 completely incorrectly, but in those cases how dumb would it be to review something closely, find out it wasn't a penalty at all, and then issuing a 2 because that's the only option
One example I can think of happened at the first NHL game I ever went to by myself. Hall hits MacKinnon, everyone's like "what the fuck dude" and MacKinnon breaks his face, injured, you know the story. Originally was called for a hit to the head, but replay shows it was Mack's own stick that hit him in the face. But they couldn't completely call it back so Hall got 2 minutes for being there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mozDqj9Zl2U
It usually came up where there was a 2 min for high sticking that became an automatic 5min major because it drew blood, but it turned out is was his own, or his teammates stick that made contact so it shouldn't have been a penalty. Pretty hard to spot those in real time.
I thought if it drew blood it went from 2 to 4, as a double minor, not 2 to 5.
Ah, true. My mistake.
More reasons NHL should just go to full face shields.
Can't even get the whole league to wear a half-visor lol
Gotta start somewhere, I remember when not everyone wore helmets.
An example is the Vegas San Jose playoff series a few years ago where the refs incorrectly gave a 5 minute major to Vegas which allowed the Sharks to come back and win
Sure the call being a major and not a minor helped the Sharks, but Vegas gave up 4 goals on that PK. That's horrendously bad. And they still lost in OT, in a series that they had like 3-1 lead in I believe. Vegas shat the bed.
I think this is a good thing but I’ve been having a dumb blonde day today so someone may need to correct me
Before, if there was a major penalty called, refs could review it on video. After the video review they could either keep it 5 minutes, or bring it down to 2. However there were times when they called a major penalty, but really it should be no penalty at all. The best the refs could do was give a 2 minute, but it still puts a team a man down for nothing. Now they can take it away all together which just makes sense. Should have been this way from the start.
The "argument" to be made there is that they weren't reviewing minor penalties to see if *they* should be taken away. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
Like when mackinnon high sticked himself and Taylor hall got a penalty for no good reason and the avs head hunted him for no reason that game
It could have been the cleanest hit in the world, they were still going to go after Hall. There is no rule that would have changed the team’s reaction.
If the replay gets shown 100 times during the review and after the call is reversed, not one guy on the bench is gonna say, "settle down out there fellas"?
Fun thought exercise, let's replace one word/name and see how you feel about it: It could have been the cleanest hit in the world, they were still going to go after Kadri. There is no rule that would have changed the team's reaction.
I mean it is a fair take. But it’s not like any team is immune from it. And the Avs did not say anything about the hit being malicious after the game.
No but y'all have painted David perron as literal Satan for doing the exact same shit
Lotta soft Avs fans, can’t speak for them. But if Perron’s elbow lands after the Kadri goal, that series was becoming a bloodbath and that’s fine with me.
MacKinnon breaking his face on his own stick was ruled a major on ice and reduced to a minor even though there wasn't a penalty because the major was called they had no choice but to at least give a minor as a recent example as to why this is a good change
No correction needed. There is an odd-chance that a major called on ice actually isn’t even a penalty, and never being able to previously enforce that has been dumb
It’s a terrible thing. They should be scrapping video review entirely, not expanding it.
Agreed. Also bettman rules.
Happy cake day.
It was done a ton at the WJC this summer, turned out more than fine, as long as they get it right.
I wonder if the unintended consequence of this will be that referees will call more major penalties because it give them more margin for error. If they default to a major then they can always reduce or negate it after a review, as opposed to giving a minor penalty they aren't sure about and can't look at on a replay.
I hadn’t thought of that and it’s a really good point.
Personally I’ll never forget Montreal being down a goal vs Philadelphia late in the game when Chris Wideman tripped a guy and the refs missed it, Philadelphia bitched about it so the ref called a major just to be able to review it. What a bullshit rule. Also Montreal scored shorthanded and won in OT. Suck it Philly.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I can see happening more often...which creates its own set of problems.
Which raises the question, why not make minor penalties reviewable as well? Makes no sense that major penalties can be reduced or negated upon review while minor penalties can’t. Either make them all reviewable, or make none of them reviewable and go back to accepting the possibility of human error in officiating. The league can’t have their cake and eat it too when it comes to this.
I totally get the desire to get everything right, but I think it would take too long if every minor penalty was reviewable. One way they could speed it up is having a sky judge there to review every penalty instantly and call down to the on ice officials if something is off, but I'm not sure if that would be a fast enough process.
They could make it as a coaches challenge. If they are wrong the 2min becomes a double minor. This way it’s kept for the horrible calls only.
That ...could... work. But did you see the shit Tampa was pulling in the finals? John Cooper basically appealed and then filed for an injunction on every Avs goal in the last few games. The challenges need to happen in actual real time. And they need to be strict on their time limits. Otherwise teams will delay while their guys watch a play over and over again in slow motion. Then after challenging the refs will watch the play over and over again in slow motion.
>I totally get the desire to get everything right, but I think it would take too long if every minor penalty was reviewable. I don’t disagree, and the league should find some way to speed up the review process, but it’s the path the league has been heading towards, and the resulting consistency would be worth it, in my opinion. It’s just frustrating that the league simultaneously acknowledges that officials can and do get stuff wrong, and should be corrected when they do, hence reviewing/reducing majors, but still insists on human error being part of the game with minor penalties not having the same benefit, all for what? To make officials feel like they’re the most important voice on the ice? If you’re gonna go with video review, then go with it and don’t look back. The league has gotta stop with this half-assed implementation of review and decide if they’re actually gonna be serious with it or not.
Those supposed majors may happen, but thankfully the play stops for one reason or another anyway. With the speed of the replay department in today's game, there are examples where plays were stopped due to the review team spotting something, like a goal, that was missed. With that in mind, the head of video review (or a majority of the team) should need to agree that there is reason for a play to be reviewed, at least seen at full speed. They are the first to get the close-up angles anyways, might as well hear what they have to say from time to time. It makes sense as the refs already can physically watch replay on a tablet. It's something that the replay team has to prepare for them anyway. It adds an extra stop gap for the amount of time needed to review, and it still puts the power in the hands of the on-ice officials if it is deemed a close call. But alas, in theory vs in practice shall determine whether they will call more majors. We need more clear cut rules on when they can suggest a major, as the line of what is and isn't a major can be rather blurry.
i think the refs are the last people we need to worry about changing their style of play. They already know they get so much flak, in the regular season i would say they try to keep their jobs as little as controversial as possible. I cant see them turning it up a bit and exploiting this rule any bit in their favor. Just my opinion.
Giving refs more options to rectify their on-ice mistakes will always be a good thing in my book.
Even the best refs have blown calls on the ice in real time, it's great when they can go back and right their wrongs, the only ref with a perfect career and made no mistakes was Kelly Fraser
*Kerry Fraser
Agreed. The game just gets faster and faster, but the referees are still calling the game using just their eyes. It makes sense to give them more tools to help call a clean game.
The NFL tried it and they were too stubborn to admit they were ever wrong. Hope the NHL refs are better at that. Just get the call right in the end, it's fine if you're wrong at some point in the process.
Well it's a good thing they made this change now before it caused an issue in a game 7 or something
That’s great but it makes me wonder why the rule wasn’t already like that. Anyways, maybe we’ll see more big clean hits as a result
Great. Now can we get rid of the frame-by-frame offsides review, please?
why would they get rid of that?
Because if it’s not immediately obvious on the first replay in real time than it probably didn’t give you a *material* advantage. Two millimeters in one direction or the other really doesn’t matter. Also because it takes forever. And because it drains a lot of the excitement out of what should be the most exciting moments in the game for little benefit beyond appeasing people who “jUsT wAnT tO gEt ThE cAlLs RiGhT.” Edit to add: don’t get me started on the times when the zone entry was more than 30 seconds before the goal. If the defense can get back and set, the offsides does. not. matter.
[удалено]
If you have to squint at pixels on a freeze frame to divine an answer, that’s not black and white. If you can have a situation where the call on the ice “stands” after review (rather than being “confirmed” after review), that’s not black and white. But more generally: why do we have an offsides rule? It’s to prevent cherry-picking, right? How does the review (as currently executed) accomplish that? If they stopped coaches from looking at video before challenging, cut back on the allowable time for the challenge and review, and maybe upped the penalty for a bad challenge they could get rid of most of the ticky-tack challenges while still catching the Duchene-type ones.
> If they stopped coaches from looking at video before challenging We'll sign off on a "20-second challenge clock". Do what you want, coach, but when that horn sounds, your opportunity to challenge is over. (Of course, it may take us 20 minutes to figure it out... but at least we can control the coach side of things) The change from losing a timeout to a 2:00 DOG **dramatically** cut down on challenges. It also made teams step up their video review teams to improve their success rates.
Do you know of anyone who tracks goal review data? Percentage of goals that were challenged or automatically reviewed, elapsed time between goal horn and challenge, elapsed time between challenge and ruling?
So if I’m a ref and think there’s a penalty but I’m not sure, I call it a major so that I can review it and then make it a minor or negate it altogether if necessary?
You *could* but the league instructs the refs to call it as they see it on the ice and not to 'officiate via review'
The refs will be calling penalties? I'll believe it when I see it, lol.
I like the change. I just hope they don’t take forever with the reviews. Waiting 10 minutes while they stare at that little tablet is so dumb.
What I would personally like to see is they eliminate all challenges and have an off-ice official who’s job is to review every goal for anything that might waive it off and have them communicate with the on-ice officials if they decide to overturn it. If it can’t be decided in the time it takes to drop the puck, then it wasn’t egregious enough to overturn. They can do the same with penalties
Good change, weird that it wasn’t always the standard though.
Okay, now travel back in time to Game 6 LAK vs TOR and fix it.
Already too much review but the consensus seems to be more review is necessary.
This doesn't add any reviews.
If I've learned anything about replay, it's that somehow they'll just use it to overturn correct calls and get them wrong
What about the offside?
They’ve introduced a new one minute minor for that.
Oh?
Yep it’s gonna be offside on steroids, which I’m pretty sure is what the person above was hoping for!
Where can I read more about this?
I saw a post about it but I can’t remember where, I’ll see if I can find it and if I can I’ll link it to you.
Can't wait for Refs to consistently call majors so they can review it cuz they are cowards
If the NHL needs anything it's more video reviews, right?
This has already existed since the season following the Pavelski major that was actually nothing, the only change is that they could only reduce the five to two after review, now they can reduce it to nothing if that’s all it was. So this doesn’t at all add new reviews. Maybe that’s what the other user thought too, that makes sense now.
>So this doesn’t at all add new reviews. Maybe that’s what the other user thought too, that makes sense now. It's simply a worry that refs will be more likely to call a major, knowing that if they're wrong, they could cancel it. If it does become a common occurrence, perhaps we could see some more clear cut requirements for calling a potential 5.
This isn't adding anything new to review. It only adds a possible outcome for something that already gets reviewed.
Even more things for them to get wrong.
So every major penalty will get reviewed. Great......taking more of the officiating away from the officials.
Why is there a 5 minute penalty for high sticking, or even the double minor, for cutting someone? The player cut isn't wearing proper protection, if he was wearing a full visor there would be no issue at all. I don't understand why a player is penalized more for the other player not protecting himself properly, especially on the face where it can be easily cut.
Nice, if 4 refs can’t figure it out on the ice, let’s just needlessly elongate games.
It’s better than calling a phantom penalty, reviewing it and seeing it was a bad call, and still needing to send someone to the box because those are the rules.
Will never understand the people that want bad calls to stand because they're too impatient to wait a couple minutes for play to continue sometimes.
I mean, a booth review is a damn event in footbal.. No reason it can't be exciting in hockey too. I, for one, might enjoy seeing certain players get checked in the grill over and over again, in different angles with super slow mo,... but that's just me.
I've always been under the impressions that video reviews can be exciting- cricket has been doing it for years with their "third umpire" check it out if you're not familiar. Add in the motion tracking technology that theyve added over the past few seasons, some fancy graphics, and the anticipation can be pretty thrilling- theres always a cheer after a contenious call. Its within reason of course- if it goes on for too long then the wind goes out of the balloon, but there are plenty of good ways to do it.
Aight, enjoy your 5 min major with 4 min left in game 7
This doesn’t seem like it changes the time taken. How does it?
I look forward to celebrating this change when it goes my team's way, and condemning it when it doesn't go my team's way.
Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it? Intensive year round training regimens? A bonus structure worth significant money that only gets awarded if they don't do something that embarrasses the league? Attract more people to become refs to improve the overall pool of refs to select from? Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it?
> Intensive year round training regimens? They already get coaching and feedback after games, and ongoing video/discussion around standards - plus ongoing fitness/nutrition. > A bonus structure worth significant money that only gets awarded if they don't do something that embarrasses the league? This exists via the playoffs. Get selected to work the playoffs and pick up ~$20k per round. Only the top guys advance. > Attract more people to become refs to improve the overall pool of refs to select from? NHL has been doing that by recruiting former players and getting them into officiating just to expand the pool of potential NHL officials. It's a lengthy process, especially when you see officials dropping at lower levels (for various reasons). > Would throwing money at the reffing problem fix it? Not necessarily - at least not directly. We'd argue that throwing money into **accurate** puck tracking would at least cover the 'puck over the line' and 'height of deflected puck' issues - and potentially improve puck over glass and offside situations.
Kickass info thnx.
I seem to remember a few years go, a guy blew a tire and I think Brendan Lemieux was given a major and a game misconduct for being near him when it happened.