There was a time not so long ago that the referee's call was final. All the time, without them needing to be second guessed by video that clearly showed they missed a call. Fortunately for everyone we have video camera's everywhere watching everything and there is no longer the need for referees to get a call right the first time because it can simply be reviewed. Great system, right?
What can and cannot be reviewed is always in question. Goalie interference - Yes. Offside - Yes. Puck out of play - No/Sometimes. Major Penalties - No (NCAA - Yes?). Hand Pass - No, even on an OT game winning goal.
Officiating in the NHL playoffs has been a hot topic. Here are just some of the examples.
Offside:
Is he offside? Yes. Does it get called on the ice? No. Did it have anything to do with this goal being scored? Absolutely not. The player in question was not facing the play, didn't allow his replacement to gain an advantage, wasn't called Too Many Men and thus was out of the play and 'off the ice' in terms of a penalty. If it wasn't Too Many Men, how is it offside? He technically wasn't 'on the ice' or it would have been six skaters. This cannot be okay for one rule but not okay for another.
The bigger question of an 'Offside Review' is should this be allowed?
Argument FOR:
A coach or player may have been able to object to offside not being called when it happened. That is legit. This happens quite a bit. Especially in the 1st and 3rd periods when the opposing team has a clear view.
But how do they object at the time of it happening? That is what the league needs to figure out. If an objection can be made at the time of the offside and play is allowed to continue with a goal being scored it should be reviewed. Sounds like a solution, but how do you put it into practice?
Argument AGAINST:
There have been very egregious uses of this rule. Play is allowed to continue for minutes after an offside was 'missed'. A coach decides to challenge in hindsight as it is a critical point in the game. The refs have to take the goal off the board and put time back on if it is found to be offside. While the defending team had several attempts to clear the puck but failed (in some instances).
I am clearly against the 'Offside Review'. If an offside is wrongly called there is no repercussion, why? If play goes on for additional minutes it does not matter, the play gets rewound to the point that the puck entered the zone. During the reviews they even have to zoom into see pixels of the video to determine if a skate was on the ice or off. This is ridiculous. Give your officials the authority to make the right call on the ice and stick with it on this one.
Goalie Interference:
This isn't interference:
This is interference:
So is this:
In showing these examples I want to highlight that as an objective fan (or not a fan of any of the teams involved...hard to say 100% objective) these all look similar. They could go either way. From the perspective of the goalie, yes his ability to make the save was infringed upon in all the examples. But, standing in front of the net and not making contact or the simple act of making a back-door pass also infringes upon the goalie's ability to make a save.
Having a review of goalie interference does two things. One, it lets the ref off the hook for making the right call on the ice. Truly, it does not matter what he calls, it will be reviewed anyway and they can figure it out then. Bad mindset for an official to have. Operating with the 'Goalie Interference Review' has allowed refs to use replay as a crutch. Secondly, it takes away from an objective rule. The rule could be: No contact with a goalie at all. Period. Another version (which the NHL has tried) is: No attacking skaters in the blue paint. We have some grainy 1999 video to prove how well that worked out:
While goaltender interference is subjective I believe that a referee may get a greater understanding of what he saw or though he saw from a replay.
Major Penalty Review
Not a Major Penalty, but IS a suspension:
Is a Major Penalty, but is NOT a suspension:
Both of these calls had an impact on their series. Some would argue (I would not) that these calls directly led to one team winning and the other losing. It is a stretch to make that argument in both cases. However, if the NHL is serious about head hits and head injuries (I'm not sure they really are) then there is no reason not to replay penalties that are to the head and neck or leading to an injury. Other major sports leagues do this, why not the NHL. It makes no sense for one player to get a major and cause serious injury but not get suspended ( I am not one who believes a suspension was warranted for the record) and another player to get a 2 minute minor in an elimination game, then be suspended for the first game of the next round.
Review head hits to determine if they should be a minor or major. Review plays where there was an injury and a penalty was called to determine the same. This is a player safety issue and could curb these types of hits and injuries.
As a side note, I don't believe that any referee that called the Pavelski hit a major would have overturned it and made it a minor...sorry Vegas fans.
Hand Pass Review
Really, this isn't reviewable, but offside is? Brilliant!
Make the argument that the puck hit Meier's stick, or the defensman's shin pad or whatever you want but, make this reviewable. Irony is that Meier got an assist for his hand pass, so someone scoring this knows he touched it. If it is a play that can be reviewed then the refs can determine if they think he hit it with his stick or if hitting the defensman's shin constitutes control or whatever. But it gives them a chance to review this OT, game-winning goal. This is about as bad as a puck hitting the net and then being scored by these guys:
I always hate those guys out there that love to say there are all these problems but don't propose a solution. I'm not going to be that guy. Here is my two cents, feel free to disagree.
Stop reviewing offside. It is ridiculous going back to the point of entry into the zone. If you let them continue play, let the goal stand. Looking at a video that is super zoomed in only supports my point. If you have to look that closely it didn't impact the play because all the players kept playing.
Keep reviewing goalie interference. One referee with only one angle from his view is not usually enough to determine if a goalie was given a fair chance to make a save. Do some more training about what IS and IS NOT interference and continue to refine this rule. No problems with how things are, it will always be a subjective call.
Major Penalties, Head Hits and Injuries as a result of a penalty should be reviewed. These are player safety issues. Period. Most of the time you can get these right by watching the replay. The league, after the fact, usually gets it right for disciplinary purposes (only half sarcastic here). NCAA does these reviews and the NHL should too.
Extending what CAN and CANNOT be reviewed. It makes no sense that hand passes and pucks out of play cannot be reviewed, especially when a goal is scored as a direct result. Further, all goals should be reviewed. The NFL reviews all TDs. I'm not saying you should be able to call a penalty as a result of a goal being reviewed but you can certainly see if it was a good goal or not. And the reasons should not be limited for a goal reviews. The whole rule book should be eligible (except offside, no more offside reviews). Also, follow the NFL and limit the time the refs get to review the play to less than 5 minutes. Take a commercial break, make the league some money, come back and have a ruling for us.
Tear this post apart. Completely disagree with me. Pose other solutions. But agree with me that the use, misuse and failure to use replay has been an embarrassment in these playoffs.
Columbus Blue Jackets Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»