Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Columbus Blue Jackets head coach John Tortorella had some strong words about the way the coach's challenge has been a failure this season in the NHL. Torts knocked two in a row out of the park in expressing his frustration with a play he challenged -- and lost his lone timeout of the game -- in arguing that a Boston goal should be disallowed on the basis of forward Loui Eriksson interfering with Columbus goaltender Joonas Korpisalo.
First all, I do not think the right decision was reached here. Tortorella had a legitimate beef. However, I understand WHY, in many cases, coaches challenges have produced incorrect outcomes.
I have said it before and will say it again: the technology the NHL has given its on-ice officials to use -- basically an iPad -- is insufficient to make judgment calls on many goaltender interference and offside situations. Generally, it takes a definitive view to overturn an initial ruling. It's also maddening to try to determine subtle nuances -- all white or a bit of paint underneath a puck before the goalie reels it back or a stick brings it over the line, an incidental bump on or just over the edge of the crease right as (or is it just after) the goalie's opportunity to make a save.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the NHL persists in sticking with those mini-screens that are insufficient for what they're needed to do. Put a large, ultra-high def screen at ice level inside the box, and have the on-ice official view it there. Other leagues do it.
If you have a flat tire at road side and you have access to either a donut or a full-size spare tire, which one would you choose? It's a no-brainer, or should be. Maybe the donut (i.e. the small screen) works adequately much of the time for local driving but there's an old saying that rings true here: Prepare for the storm, not for the norm.
Secondly, the machination of the coach's challenge -- basing it on gambling a time out -- simply makes no sense. There may be two 50-50 plays, one in the first period and one in the third. If the timeout is gone, there is no ability to have the second one reviewed.
Lastly, we need better communication between the on-ice officials and the NHL Hockey Ops controlled "Situation Room" in Toronto. I am all in favor of on-ice officials being directly involved in reviews but there's nothing wrong with the process being cooperative, especially because they have state-of-the-art technology in Toronto compared to what the refs are given to use on the ice.
The communication is lacking. Pay attention to the terminology that is used when a referee announces a coach's challenge versus a Toronto-generated replay. In the former, the referee says, "The ruling on the ice is X. The call is being challenged by Team Y for (goaltender interference or the play being off-ice)." When Toronto calls to say it's looking at a play, the official only says "Play is under review." No further explanation. Why isn't something this basic made uniform? It makes no sense.
Basically, what we have right now in the NHL are two different replay systems, with two different sets of technology, two different means of announcing said reviews, on-ice officials having no say in one type of review and Toronto not offering assistance on the other. The bottom line is that too many reviews of both types have ended up with the wrong call being made.
This should not be about ego or territory. Re-think the replay system, establish consistent standards for how they are implemented, work together during the reviews and get the damn call rights or scrap the whole thing because what we have now are a lot excessive delays, wasted timeouts and unacceptable rates of missed calls.
Better consistency starts with good leadership. I really hope that Gary Bettman and Bill Daly recognize there's a problem here and not wait to correct it. If a change is going to be made in-season -- as it was some years ago regarding penalty shot criteria, but then not communicated by the league to teams after officials were instructed to adjust how they made such rulings -- it needs to done so in the open.
Until then, I have to side with Tortorella's comments in his postgame press conference on Saturday.
"Just get rid of the coach's challenge," Tortorella said. "Just get rid of it. The whole being of the coach's challenge is to get it right. If we can't get it right on that call, then get rid of the coach's challenge because all I did was waste a timeout. It's discouraging.... I think we should just get rid of it and let the refs make the call. If we spend two or three minutes and a coach wastes his timeout to try to get the call right, and we still get it wrong, why have it?
"I wanted my timeout back, quite honestly. Listen, I respect the referees. It is a really tough job, but I thought this was for that reason -- to make their job easier. It gives them a chance to look at it again, get some information from hockey ops, but to get that one wrong, it's just beyond belief to me.
"I don't know what the hell is going to happen [when I use a challenge], quite honestly. I don't. I don't know. I was nervous about that.... It's a box of chocolates -- you never know what you're going to get. It's very frustrating that we can't get it right, and that's what this is all about, so get rid of the thing. Let's just get back to where we were before."
A reporter then asked Tortorella if he thinks the Situation Room (meaning NHL Hockey Operations) should make the ruling on a challenge. Torts nailed it again with this response:
"I don't agree with taking the call away from the ref, but if Hockey Ops is helping and they see it the way it happened, how can't you get that call right? I totally disagree with taking it away from the refs. It's their job to handle the situation, but the way it's gone with some of the other ones that I've seen -- and I'm not trying to disrespect anybody here -- it's just frustrating for a coach and his team to spend the timeout, to take two or three minutes to look at that, and we still get the call wrong. That's frustrating."
Tortorella spoke the truth here. It may unpleasant to hear or read. It may ruffle feathers. It may be fodder for the message to disregarded simply because of who said it; it's no secret that there are some folks around hockey who dislike Tortorella. That doesn't make it any less true, however, and Tortorella simply stated the frustrations many people -- on various sides of the game -- have with the system. He just did it bluntly. I hope it makes the NHL take notice.
Final thought: If you own a restaurant where the chef's recipes are ill-considered (we're talking filet mignon stuffed with anchovies and smothered in orange marmalade), the cooking is inconsistent and critics reviews are bad, wouldn't you change those things? Or would you insist you are doing everything right and people just need to get used to it?
************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC at both the Division 1 and Division 3 levels.
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»