Agreed, even though I prefer The Bastard Executioner.
- kingcong39

I think that shows not being renewed.

Yep. And that's good because they'll either be challenging a more obvious offsides like last night or trying to get lucky on one that might be mere inches. And if they gamble and lose they get hit with what should be called a Delay of a Game penalty. It's an accurate call, right?
- Khymlev13

I think so as well.

But really, I'd prefer to just have challenges removed altogether. I don't think they were necessary. In a game that's a fluid and fast paced as this one, calls are never going to be perfect and things will get missed. It comes with the territory IMO.

I think that shows not being renewed.
- jochfr

He won't have time to write for that, The Original 8 and the Mayans show. Too much to handle and ratings will be better for those two. Even though BE is a great show.

I think that shows not being renewed.
- jochfr

Correct.

http://tvline.com/2015/11...executioner-cancelled-fx/

I think so as well.

But really, I'd prefer to just have challenges removed altogether. I don't think they were necessary. In a game that's a fluid and fast paced as this one, calls are never going to be perfect and things will get missed. It comes with the territory IMO.
- HonkFortheGoose

And with how fast it is the only missed 2% over the last 5 years i think? Thats thousands upon thousands of plays and they missed 2%. There was no need for a fix, there was never a problem.

Yup. So by penalizing a team for challenging something that is in actuality a good goal, you prevent teams from challenging just for the sake of it.
- HonkFortheGoose

Unless it's the end of the game and there's little repercussion. Risk vs reward.


Just abolish the challenges all together. No one asked for them. We don't need them.

Agree with all except Kane and Eichel are horrible with each other. They both like to have the puck and Eichel does not shoot when Kane is on his line he always tries to feed him the puck and then Kane shoots high and wide. Rather see Kane with ROR
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Have we seen Kane with ROR yet? That could be very interesting. Reinhart is also a set up guy so maybe you try him with Kane and ROR?

Have we seen Kane with ROR yet? That could be very interesting. Reinhart is also a set up guy so maybe you try him with Kane and ROR?
- SabreWest

That's exactly what i want to see.

And with how fast it is the only missed 2% over the last 5 years i think? Thats thousands upon thousands of plays and they missed 2%. There was no need for a fix, there was never a problem.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Good ole NHL. Can't get out of their own way.

Last year how many times did you say to yourself, after a goal "Hey that guy was offside 3 minutes ago, we need to fix this problem!!!"


I'll wait....

Last year how many times did you say to yourself, after a goal "Hey that guy was offside 3 minutes ago, we need to fix this problem!!!"


I'll wait....
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

You'll be waiting a long time.

Yup. So by penalizing a team for challenging something that is in actuality a good goal, you prevent teams from challenging just for the sake of it.
- HonkFortheGoose

How about if they lose the challenge, they lose a timeout, if they already used their timeout, then they are issued a minor

How about if they lose the challenge, they lose a timeout, if they already used their timeout, then they are issued a minor
- sbroads24

They already lose the TO, but by challenging they are getting a 5 minute TO instead of 30 seconds. It makes no sense.

You'll be waiting a long time.
- Buffalo--Sabres

How about if they lose the challenge, they lose a timeout, if they already used their timeout, then they are issued a minor
- sbroads24

Being that teams are used to only having 1 time out, that doesn't fix the issue of teams challenging a goal just to get the extended time out that will essentially occur while the refs are reviewing the goal.

Let's take last night for example, but we're going to change it and say that Ennis wasn't offside. The Sabres scored two quick goals. It would be a time that you traditionally would see a coach take their time out, because the team surrendered their lead on goals 50 seconds apart and now the game is tied.

In order to give his team a longer period to settle down as well as take momentum away from the team that just tied it up, the coach issues a challenge, even though he knows he's going to lose. He now gets more than 30 seconds to settle his team and the momentum the other team gained is now at a screeching halt because the refs need at minimum probably 2-3 minutes to make sure they get it right.

Shouldn't there be something to dissuade a team from doing something like that? That's where a failed challenge results in a 2 minute minor. It (should) prevent a coach from issuing the challenge in situations where it's clearly a good goal.

I think so as well.

But really, I'd prefer to just have challenges removed altogether. I don't think they were necessary. In a game that's a fluid and fast paced as this one, calls are never going to be perfect and things will get missed. It comes with the territory IMO.
- HonkFortheGoose

Agreed. My preference is that it's gone. I can live with goalie interference challenges because it happens when the goal is scored. But I'd be fine allowing it to be a call on the ice. If challenges remain then I hope they put in the minor penalty

Being that teams are used to only having 1 time out, that doesn't fix the issue of teams challenging a goal just to get the extended time out that will essentially occur while the refs are reviewing the goal.

Let's take last night for example, but we're going to change it and say that Ennis wasn't offside. The Sabres scored two quick goals. It would be a time that you traditionally would see a coach take their time out, because the team surrendered their lead on goals 50 seconds apart and now the game is tied.

In order to give his team a longer period to settle down as well as take momentum away from the team that just tied it up, the coach issues a challenge, even though he knows he's going to lose. He now gets more than 30 seconds to settle his team and the momentum the other team gained is now at a screeching halt because the refs need at minimum probably 2-3 minutes to make sure they get it right.

Shouldn't there be something to dissuade a team from doing something like that? That's where a failed challenge results in a 2 minute minor. It (should) prevent a coach from issuing the challenge in situations where it's clearly a good goal.
- HonkFortheGoose

I have less of an issue with the amount of time than I do the amount of times play is stopped.

If it's an obvious goal, it should take a minute tops to review.

I have less of an issue with the amount of time than I do the amount of times play is stopped.

If it's an obvious goal, it should take a minute tops to review.
- sbroads24

Aren't all goals already reviewed by the stick figures in Toronto ?

I have less of an issue with the amount of time than I do the amount of times play is stopped.

If it's an obvious goal, it should take a minute tops to review.
- sbroads24

Like I've said a few times now. I just don't understand how the NHL uses the AHL to test these rule changes prior to bringing them into the NHL rule book, yet didn't follow that protocol for this particular change.

Hybrid Icing was tested in the AHL first. The change to 3 on 3 in OT was done in the AHL first. Hell, even making visors mandatory happened in the AHL first. Yet something as complicated and really game changing as having coaches challenges just got put right into the NHL with absolutely no testing?

It's a freaking joke.

Aren't all goals already reviewed by the stick figures in Toronto ?
- cabin

I'm not sure if they look at all goals or just ones where they're asked to by someone locally at the game.

The reason it's being suggested is because there have been teams that have used the challenge after a goal just to get a time out but have it be longer than the standard 30 seconds. The coaches fully know they're going to lose the challenge, but all that's happening is they're losing their time out, which is really the purpose of them challenging the goal at that point in time anyway. They want a time out to rally the troops, but get an extended one since it takes the refs time to review the goal.
- HonkFortheGoose

It's going to be just like the stick measurement challenge in the 90's. Teams aren't going to use it unless they are 100% certain the call would be overturned, just like teams never called for a stick measurement unless they were 100% sure the curve was illegal. The success rate on those was almost perfect.

1 season and done
- stashu

I hope so. Sons of Anarchy it is not.

Sabres89 looks like you were right about Daley with his name being out there. 2 days later EK reports it, but no Sabres mention. You hear anything else?

I hope so. Sons of Anarchy it is not.
- Pierceme69

Cant wait for the Mayans and The Original 8

How about if they lose the challenge, they lose a timeout, if they already used their timeout, then they are issued a minor
- sbroads24

How about we just get rid of challenges?