Rangers and devils get he franchise players they need
- daryl stanley

honestly that lottery could not have gone worse for Flyers fans, absolute travesty.

Goals and offsides are in my mind the easiest ones to review while not taking too long to do so, but penalties are a bit more complex.
- Glak18

The offsides reviews irk me.

Did one team really get a monumental advantage just because the player beat the puck in by a centimeter, and could only be confirmed by multiple high-speed cameras? Just forget it.

I can't believe goals get called back minutes after the fact.

I'm with you on goal reviews tho. Toronto should have a team of gophers watching every goal in real-time, and call into the stadium immediately if they spot something worth reviewing. I know the referees union would probably have a big problem w/ Toronto usurping the on-ice crew, but like you said, it's not really all that common.

The other thing they need to figure out is the intent to blow the whistle and lost sight of the puck near the goal line poop. Have an official in the stadium watching monitors with a direct voice line to the refs. If the guy's shouting "it's loose, it's loose", don't blow the damned whistle.

i hate how coaches just call for goals to be reviewed out of desperation

it bores me to death
- 2Real

well thats true, and its obviously just a desperation thing. calls like last night should be reviewed, the OT goal. there were 8 other goals in that game though and they all didnt need to be reviewed. this is just a rarity where IF a goal is questionable it should be reviewed. In OT, i think it should be treated like in football with the last two minutes of a half. The last 2 minutes in a half in football, especially the second half, is of the utmost importance to have things called correctly. OT in hockey is no different IMO

Oh that's right Provorov played top pair 20+ mins a game....

You mean like how MacDonald did with the Islanders or Ron Hainsey played 20+ mins on the top pair....Better pay those guys 7 million!

Oh you mean players who play large chunks of minutes, but are good during their shifts so it must be the others who failed. Provorov's play was, not the only reason, but one of the biggest, why the Flyers season was in the toilet last year. I know people want to say how the end of the year he looked better, but realistically it didn't take much to look better then how he played the first 3 quarters of the season. The kid is young and has tons of potential, but the fact is he hasn't proven to be close to a legit number 1 defensemen yet. He struggles immensely on the PP and the PK and spends a lot of his time in his own end during 5on5. His first two years were promising, but only because of his age. If he was 26,27 or 28 years old during his first two years they would be considered ok years for a 2nd pair dman. Now if he wants to be paid like a number 1 defenseman who is proven then he needs to at least prove it first.

It's no different than say Carter Hart. He looked great as a rookie at times, but he hasn't proven anything yet to be called a number 1 goaltender.
- Glak18

Bravo.

How do you miss that call? Haha we can review an offsides that happened a minute before a goal but not a clear as day hand pass right in front of the net, directly leading to a goal.
- ClaudeFather

Great point.

In a league where players are getting bigger, stronger and faster and the systems are becoming more tactful, I always thought the cap would ruin the game. Instead the four officials system is. How do they miss it but Billington sees it as clear as day. Mind you, the officials all work as a team and they all have a different job but still, all four pair of eyes missed this.

The offsides reviews irk me.

Did one team really get a monumental advantage just because the player beat the puck in by a centimeter, and could only be confirmed by multiple high-speed cameras? Just forget it.

I can't believe goals get called back minutes after the fact.

I'm with you on goal reviews tho. Toronto should have a team of gophers watching every goal in real-time, and call into the stadium immediately if they spot something worth reviewing. I know the referees union would probably have a big problem w/ Toronto usurping the on-ice crew, but like you said, it's not really all that common.

The other thing they need to figure out is the intent to blow the whistle and lost sight of the puck near the goal line poop. Have an official in the stadium watching monitors with a direct voice line to the refs. If the guy's shouting "it's loose, it's loose", don't blow the damned whistle.
- Tomahawk

the review for an offsides the way its written is a detriment to the game, point in case the call against Landeskog in game 7. the goal should have counted, he touched up, and his skate was barely in the offensive zone, they reviewed it and called it offside as you know.

This is where the logic breaks down. A. if he is considered offside, he was technically a player on the ice. if they call him offside, technically there's 6 men on the ice and it also should have been a too many men call. the rule should not be in place for cases like this, offsides should only be called on the players on the ice going into the zone. I agree with the reviews for offsides like this should be called, but the one on Landeskog was about as bullpoop as you can get.

The offsides reviews irk me.

Did one team really get a monumental advantage just because the player beat the puck in by a centimeter, and could only be confirmed by multiple high-speed cameras? Just forget it.

I can't believe goals get called back minutes after the fact.

I'm with you on goal reviews tho. Toronto should have a team of gophers watching every goal in real-time, and call into the stadium immediately if they spot something worth reviewing. I know the referees union would probably have a big problem w/ Toronto usurping the on-ice crew, but like you said, it's not really all that common.

The other thing they need to figure out is the intent to blow the whistle and lost sight of the puck near the goal line poop. Have an official in the stadium watching monitors with a direct voice line to the refs. If the guy's shouting "it's loose, it's loose", don't blow the damned whistle.
- Tomahawk

Offsides is a rule though. If it's a cm off then it's offsides, but if there is going to be judgement then just remove it all together then. I do agree with Don Cherry that benches should be opposite of each other which would cut down offsides from line changes a lot.

I personally believe the easiest solution is instead of going to Toronto to rely on them for the call just have a 5th official that has access to all cameras and/or angles in the building and they should have a communication line directly to the refs.

Agreed on the intent of the whistle. I don't have an exact answer, but with technology I am sure someone can come up with a solution that gets rid of the whistle all together. Maybe a device on the wrist or leg that triggers a horn or electronic whistle in the building that has a shorter distance to travel. The one thing that needs to be fleshed out though is delay timeframe. Some refs have an intent of 5 secs while others can take up to 20-30 secs to blow the whistle. There needs to be a standard time frame at least.

I think coaches should get 3 challenges per game on anything...

Possible Hand pass, you get a challenge.
Was that offsides, you get a challenge.
Goalie interference, yup, you get a challenge.

Anytime they use it and are wrong they get a minor penalty called against the team.

Last night was a joke in every way as I just cant see how 4 on ice officials missed a clear hand pass.

I think coaches should get 3 challenges per game on anything...

Possible Hand pass, you get a challenge.
Was that offsides, you get a challenge.
Goalie interference, yup, you get a challenge.

Anytime they use it and are wrong they get a minor penalty called against the team.

Last night was a joke in every way as I just cant see how 4 on ice officials missed a clear hand pass.
- opeth_pa

I'm not a fan of the coach's challenges. To me it is very hokey, not hockey, and tries to add a game show gimmick to the game.

Why not put more accountability on the officials? They still get paid pretty good for what they do. If there is a questionable call or an official is uncertain about the call they made or even another official saw something others didn't they can make the judgement call to review. This way if they are given the option to double check something they may have a doubt about, remember the game is quick, they can step up and ask for a review. Now if you have a blatant miscall and choose not to use the options available to them then they have to answer why they didn't use it.

Here's where we draw the line, where there are rules in the NHL rule book, hand passes being one of them, high sticks another, delays of game, those should be able to be reviewed. goalie interference and offsides are, so why not the others?? I dont know what high horse you're referring to, in no way shape or form have I ever alluded to myself being on any type of high horse, im not putting you down, just saying your stubborn, which you are. everyone would agree with that, you know how people think of MJL here, don't take it out on me that Im just pointing out the obvious


- sjk540

The very fact that you made it personal, is what has put you on your high horse and the tone of the comments you used. Just so we're clear, in this or any other future conversation, I don't give a rat's ass for one single second what anyone thinks of me. Clear?

As far as the actual subject, you're making my point for me. Now we're going to review hand passes, high sticks and delay of games. Where does it end?

This is your biggest issue. Just because its been part of the game for however long doesn't mean it needs to continue to be to uphold the integrity of the game. These best of 7 series are in place to really show who the better team is over that long of a series, thats why series aren't just one game in Hockey. Refs continue each year to have a bigger say in the game when it comes to mistakes, and that isn't right to the two teams putting it all out there. Disagree about this simple sentiment? Fine, but you're wrong if you do, there's no two ways about it.


- sjk540

Who the better team is in a 7 game series does not come down to one blown call. Thank you for helping to make my point. It's about the spirit of the game. We now have situations where a team brings the puck into the zone, cycle the puck for a minute or so or longer, generate some shots and score a goal. Now we have to go back two minutes earlier to look at video review from 6 separate angles where it's even hard to tell from that and see that maybe the players front skate was two inches over the line before the puck or that the player's front skate is a millimeter off the ice and take back a legitimate play that happened after that. That's minutia. Blatant blown calls are one thing but we now have very close plays being overturned that in the spirit of the game should count. Close enough with the human eye in real time. Disagree about this, that's fine but you're wrong if you do. Let the human element remain and let's not get carried away with replay.

And here's an even crazier point, why do you have to stick with something just because it's been the norm for so long? Remember when coke was added to coca cola, that changed. Remember when people didn't know what cigarette's were doing to them, wow, we've changed from that too. Remember when gas was thought of as the only fuel to power cars, now we have electric cause its "cleaner" Your stubborness has shown through time and time again. You say the human element is a part of the game, like its in the rulebook or something. things change, times change, people change. Other than you apparently, you just sit back, throw your hands up, and say well its been part of the game so we can't change it. open your eyes bro.
- sjk540

You're right it is a crazy point. We should stick with it because it's about the spirit of the game.Your comments about Coke, gas, etc are asinine and irrelevant.

Here is one final thought. Man up and stand on your own. If you need to invoke what others think in your points, well then that's because you don't have much to stand on your own with.

The very fact that you made it personal, is what has put you on your high horse and the tone of the comments you used. Just so we're clear, in this or any other future conversation, I don't give a rat's ass for one single second what anyone thinks of me. Clear?

As far as the actual subject, you're making my point for me. Now we're going to review hand passes, high sticks and delay of games. Where does it end?

Actually, the only personal thing I said, was that your stubborn, which is just what I think. Im sure you dont care, but I rarely let what I think other people think about me stop me from voicing my opinion. Me bringing up what everyone else thinks about discussing points with you, is not my opinion at all, im just making visible others opinions, im just putting it out there. it literally has nothing to do with my opinion at all, as before this convo, i didn't share that sentiment actually. but you dont care and i dont care, so we'll move on

Yes, we're going to review hand passes, high sticks, and delay of games. Thats where it ends. right there. you can put things in the rulebook that can be reviewed, and things that can't be reviewed. as simple as that, you're making it more completed by making it seem like there would be an infinite amount of things that can be reviewed. No. thats three things. Write it down, these are reviewable, end of story. why is this so hard?

Who the better team is in a 7 game series does not come down to one blown call. Thank you for helping to make my point. It's about the spirit of the game. We now have situations where a team brings the puck into the zone, cycle the puck for a minute or so or longer, generate some shots and score a goal. Now we have to go back two minutes earlier to look at video review from 6 separate angles where it's even hard to tell from that and see that maybe the players front skate was two inches over the line before the puck or that the player's front skate is a millimeter off the ice and take back a legitimate play that happened after that. That's minutia. Blatant blown calls are one thing but we now have very close plays being overturned that in the spirit of the game should count. Close enough with the human eye in real time. Disagree about this, that's fine but you're wrong if you do. Let the human element remain and let's not get carried away with replay.

Actually Im not wrong, since opinion isn't wrong. its not right, but its not wrong. you can disagree all you want, but your opinion isn't wrong or right, i just disagree with it. Allowing the human element in this specific capacity to remain in the game, while these games are being decided on results that should never have been, thats wrong. Thats robbing a team from what should have happened. A hand pass in an offensive zone from one attacking player to another, is illegal. play is dead. end of story. that is fact. yet a goal was scored even though this happened. you think is right due to the excuse that human element is needed in the game? ha, your opinion is not only laughable but as antiquated as it gets.

You're right it is a crazy point. We should stick with it because it's about the spirit of the game.Your comments about Coke, gas, etc are asinine and irrelevant.

No they are not irrelevant because they bring up the general fundamental of change, which is the root of my very opinion here of that change is necessary to uphold the integrity of the game, to protect the warriors out there battling 82 games in a year, then however many games in the playoffs, playing injured, putting their blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes lives on the line for this game. And a play that never should have been allowed now will dictate the series instead of the talented players on the ice? No, shouldnt be like that, argue all you want but there are A LOT of people who agree with me.

Here is one final thought. Man up and stand on your own. If you need to invoke what others think in your points, well then that's because you don't have much to stand on your own with.

thanks, but i tend not to take advice from such obtuse people.

Actually, the only personal thing I said, was that your stubborn, which is my opnion of you. Me bringing up what everyone else thinks about discussing points with you, is not my opinion at all, im just making it visible, im just putting it out there. it literally has nothing to do with my opinion, as before this convo, i didn't share that sentiment. but you dont care and i dont care, so we'll move on


- sjk540

If you're posting it, it's on you. Again, man up and accept responsibility. You went there, I didn't. I didn't have to.

Yes, we're going to review hand passes, high sticks, and delay of games. Thats where it ends. right there. you can put things in the rulebook that can be reviewed, and things that can't be reviewed. as simple as that, you're making it more completed by making it seem like there would be an infinite amount of things that can be reviewed. No. thats three things. Write it down, these are reviewable, end of story. why is this so hard?


- sjk540

LOL, because it won't end there. Something else will happen and you'll be back on the soap box saying that needs to be reviewed. Why is that so hard of a point for you to grasp?

Actually Im not wrong, since opinion isn't wrong. its not right, but its not wrong. you can disagree all you want, but your opinion isn't wrong or right, i just disagree with it. Allowing the human element in this specific capacity to remain in the game, while these games are being decided on results that should never have been, thats wrong. Thats robbing a team from what should have happened. A hand pass in an offensive zone from one attacking player to another, is illegal. play is dead. end of story. that is fact. yet a goal was scored even though this happened. you think is right due to the excuse that human element is needed in the game? ha, your opinion is not only laughable but as antiquated as it gets.


- sjk540

I think it's hysterical how you just contradicted yourself. I threw that line in because you used it to comment on my opinion. Now it's opinion is not wrong. Look in the mirror. Illegal plays happen all the time in games that are let go, missed etc. We see it all the time in the 3rd period of tight games. It's a human element and the spirit of the game. Referees are human and will make mistakes. That won't change no matter how many elements you add to the reviewable list. Until you eliminate refs all together and use a non human element. It's not an antiquated view at all, it's a sports view. I understand sports and the spirit of competition. You apparently don't so you comments calling my opinion laughable lacks any credibility.

No they are not irrelevant because they bring up the general fundamental of change, which is the root of my very opinion here of that change is necessary to uphold the integrity of the game, to protect the warriors out there battling 82 games in a year, then however many games in the playoffs, playing injured, putting their blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes lives on the line for this game. And a play that never should have been allowed now will dictate the series instead of the talented players on the ice? No, shouldnt be like that, argue all you want but there are A LOT of people who agree with me.


- sjk540

Yea, completely irrelevant. Not all change is automatically good. You should learn that. The integrity of the game is still intact despite a blown call. The players know and understand that refs are human and will make mistakes. Just part of it. Again, you need to invoke the opinion of others rather than standing on your own. I form my opinions rather than follow along in group think.

thanks, but i tend not to take advice from such obtuse people.
- sjk540

I didn't expect you to follow it. Just words you needed to here. Man up.

I'm obtuse because I don't think the NHL should expand replay due to one blown call. That claim on your part shows a lack of intelligence.

Kakko just scored an absurd goal.
How many years will it take him to score 30 points in the NHL.
- PLindbergh31

how many goals will hughes score on hart

well thats true, and its obviously just a desperation thing. calls like last night should be reviewed, the OT goal. there were 8 other goals in that game though and they all didnt need to be reviewed. this is just a rarity where IF a goal is questionable it should be reviewed. In OT, i think it should be treated like in football with the last two minutes of a half. The last 2 minutes in a half in football, especially the second half, is of the utmost importance to have things called correctly. OT in hockey is no different IMO
- sjk540

if you're going to review the goal the whole play has to be reviewed and a trip on J Bo has to be called too

how many goals will hughes score on hart
- 2Real

How much longer will this rebuild go on?

The penalties should call themselves. The reviews should reflect that.

An offsides that needs you to zoom in on in super slow motion to determine is ridiculous. If he is a foot off and missed, the review will show it. It calls itself.

Same with this ridiculous hand pass. That kind of penalty should have called itself.

Same with goalie interference. If you have to watch it over and over to get the call, then it doesn't need to be reviewed. It should call itself.

They need to throw out the review rule and start over from scratch.

If you're posting it, it's on you. Again, man up and accept responsibility. You went there, I didn't. I didn't have to.



LOL, because it won't end there. Something else will happen and you'll be back on the soap box saying that needs to be reviewed. Why is that so hard of a point for you to grasp?





I think it's hysterical how you just contradicted yourself. I threw that line in because you used it to comment on my opinion. Now it's opinion is not wrong. Look in the mirror. Illegal plays happen all the time in games that are let go, missed etc. We see it all the time in the 3rd period of tight games. It's a human element and the spirit of the game. Referees are human and will make mistakes. That won't change no matter how many elements you add to the reviewable list. Until you eliminate refs all together and use a non human element. It's not an antiquated view at all, it's a sports view. I understand sports and the spirit of competition. You apparently don't so you comments calling my opinion laughable lacks any credibility.




Yea, completely irrelevant. Not all change is automatically good. You should learn that. The integrity of the game is still intact despite a blown call. The players know and understand that refs are human and will make mistakes. Just part of it. Again, you need to invoke the opinion of others rather than standing on your own. I form my opinions rather than follow along in group think.




I didn't expect you to follow it. Just words you needed to here. Man up.

I'm obtuse because I don't think the NHL should expand replay due to one blown call. That claim on your part shows a lack of intelligence.
- MJL

Whats with all the man up sayings. i mean yeah say it once, say it twice, but youve said damn near over 10 times, this signals some kid of issue which Im not gonna try to get into, but please, stop saying it. Its just annoying and it has no bearing here. i stated an obvious fact, have an issue with it all you want, you are clearly proving everything right by this ridiculous back and forth.

I didnt contradict myself, I clearly made points that are specific enough for the majority of people to get, you just dont want to. you dont want to accept the possibility of change. whether good or bad, change is necessary. its happening every where with everything. you can live in the past if you want to but its not gonna do anything for you.

You fail to comprehend that when I say a finality of something, thats the finality of it. so when you ask where it stops, and I tell you, thats where in my opinion it can stop. you keep saying that well something else will come up, and if it does, they can look at it too. but its pretty black and white what i said, so you obviously just cant wrap your mind around it, which is fine, your capacity for understanding change is clearly at zero so im not surprised.

when you say illegal plays are let go, well when talking about penalties, of course. they are left up to the judgment of the refs, thats where the human side comes in. one ref may think a slash is a slash, another my not. thats not the issue. the issue is when there is a blatant error that was missed by a ref. when a call is missed, is the real injustice, such as instances like last night. even the puck that was cleared by Perron, which should have been a delay of game, robbed SJ of a power play. it should not be allowed to be let go that a defensive player ended the opposing teams attack by doing something the rulebook clearly says is a delay of game. but if youre ok with just saying, whelp, this is how its always been so everything is fine, well then be my guest. i disagree.

i also never said ALL change is good but im not surprised you say that i said it, you really are baffling to me.

keep on saying inaccurate things, keep on with your semantics, etc etc etc. it really is true when they say its like talking to a wall with you, you can make as many points as you want but you still keep on with the same old nonsense. nonsense of which i have no time for.

and for the record i dont need to hear anything from you or anyone else, stop with the little nuggets of what you think is advice, youre just wasting your time, as am i with you.

if you're going to review the goal the whole play has to be reviewed and a trip on J Bo has to be called too
- 2Real

see thats where i disagree. im not saying to go back and review penalties. penalties are the only instance where i believe the human element should come into play. now, once a penalty is called, can you review the excessiveness of it? sure, why not. because the ref didnt feel as if it was a trip, the play went on. thats when the hand pass, which is in the rulebook as being not allowed, should have been reviewed and the goal not count.

now of course with delay of game penalties, its more black and white than a trip. if the ref felt as if the player had control of his stick and it was the other player who initiated the contact and was tripped as a result, well thats where we need the refs, to interpret what happens on the ice. but a delay of game call is black and white, and that should be able to be reviewed. hand passes are black and white, pucks hit by a high stick is black and white. these are where change should happen, to ensure things are being called accurately, the things that are black and white and that should be called accurately

see thats where i disagree. im not saying to go back and review penalties. penalties are the only instance where i believe the human element should come into play. now, once a penalty is called, can you review the excessiveness of it? sure, why not. because the ref didnt feel as if it was a trip, the play went on. thats when the hand pass, which is in the rulebook as being not allowed, should have been reviewed and the goal not count.

now of course with delay of game penalties, its more black and white than a trip. if the ref felt as if the player had control of his stick and it was the other player who initiated the contact and was tripped as a result, well thats where we need the refs, to interpret what happens on the ice. but a delay of game call is black and white, and that should be able to be reviewed. hand passes are black and white, pucks hit by a high stick is black and white. these are where change should happen, to ensure things are being called accurately, the things that are black and white and that should be called accurately
- sjk540

I want a penalty review every time Hagg is called for a high sticking penalty. He is called for guilt by association more than any player ever. Gets four minutes because a players own team mate sticked him in the face.

i dont have a problem with the offside review, i have have a problem with the offside rule. The blue-line should be extended as a plane and not a flat surface. As long as a part of the player is touching the "plane", he remains onside. Call it the way football determines a TD, if any point of the ball breaks the plane, its a TD

common sense 101....NHL cant comprehend

Whats with all the man up sayings. i mean yeah say it once, say it twice, but youve said damn near over 10 times, this signals some kid of issue which Im not gonna try to get into, but please, stop saying it. Its just annoying and it has no bearing here. i stated an obvious fact, have an issue with it all you want, you are clearly proving everything right by this ridiculous back and forth.


- sjk540

It has plenty of bearing based on your comments. Stand on your own. What you think other people think about me or this subject is what has no bearing in a conversation between you and I.

I didnt contradict myself, I clearly made points that are specific enough for the majority of people to get, you just dont want to. you dont want to accept the possibility of change. whether good or bad, change is necessary. its happening every where with everything. you can live in the past if you want to but its not gonna do anything for you.


- sjk540

Sure you did. Do I need to copy and paste your comments? You stated that my opinion was wrong and then when I threw that back at you, you claimed that opinions are opinions and aren't wtrong. Your mistaken to think that I don't get or understand your point. Not the case. I just disagree with you which you can't handle. It's not living in the past, it's living in the present. Again, change just for sake of change is not automatically better. I happen to believe increasing the number of plays that are reviewable would be bad for the game and outside of the spirit of competition.

You fail to comprehend that when I say a finality of something, thats the finality of it. so when you ask where it stops, and I tell you, thats where in my opinion it can stop. you keep saying that well something else will come up, and if it does, they can look at it too. but its pretty black and white what i said, so you obviously just cant wrap your mind around it, which is fine, your capacity for understanding change is clearly at zero so im not surprised.



- sjk540

Again, you're incorrect in stating that I don't comprehend your statement of finality. I understand it, I just don't believe it. If your in favor of making those plays reviewable, when other issues come up, it's inevitable that someone wanting those plays to be reviewed will also want other plays reviewed. Human nature, in the name of change. LOL

when you say illegal plays are let go, well when talking about penalties, of course. they are left up to the judgment of the refs, thats where the human side comes in. one ref may think a slash is a slash, another my not. thats not the issue. the issue is when there is a blatant error that was missed by a ref. when a call is missed, is the real injustice, such as instances like last night. even the puck that was cleared by Perron, which should have been a delay of game, robbed SJ of a power play. it should not be allowed to be let go that a defensive player ended the opposing teams attack by doing something the rulebook clearly says is a delay of game. but if youre ok with just saying, whelp, this is how its always been so everything is fine, well then be my guest. i disagree.


- sjk540

So your telling me that in the 3rd period of tight game when an obvious trip or some other infraction is let go, it's the ref making a judgement that it's not a trip? LOL. No it's the ref "swallowing the whistle" and letting the players decide the game. I mean it's in the rule book. That's worse then a call that is missed. Missed means the ref didn't see it.

i also never said ALL change is good but im not surprised you say that i said it, you really are baffling to me.


- sjk540

You're hanging your hat on the ridiculous notion that I can't accept change and that I'm living in the past. You simply are making a poor argument with that because you don't have anything better to go with.

keep on saying inaccurate things, keep on with your semantics, etc etc etc. it really is true when they say its like talking to a wall with you, you can make as many points as you want but you still keep on with the same old nonsense. nonsense of which i have no time for.

and for the record i dont need to hear anything from you or anyone else, stop with the little nuggets of what you think is advice, youre just wasting your time, as am i with you.
- sjk540

Nothing I've said has been inaccurate. Nor is it semantics. Again, you're making a week argument. Stick to the subject. You're the culprit here who has moved the discussion off of the actual subject. You're losing it and you know it. Look at what my simple disagreement over increasing video review has done to you? Might want to stick to SSB.

i dont have a problem with the offside review, i have have a problem with the offside rule. The blue-line should be extended as a plane and not a flat surface. As long as a part of the player is touching the "plane", he remains onside. Call it the way football determines a TD, if any point of the ball breaks the plane, its a TD

common sense 101....NHL cant comprehend
- KINGKENZO

I agree with changing the rule.

Krug is another little douche nugget. Marchand gets all the publicity but Krug's a real ass.

I'm not a fan of the coach's challenges. To me it is very hokey, not hockey, and tries to add a game show gimmick to the game.

Why not put more accountability on the officials? They still get paid pretty good for what they do. If there is a questionable call or an official is uncertain about the call they made or even another official saw something others didn't they can make the judgement call to review. This way if they are given the option to double check something they may have a doubt about, remember the game is quick, they can step up and ask for a review. Now if you have a blatant miscall and choose not to use the options available to them then they have to answer why they didn't use it.
- Glak18

Wow! Lots said on this topic. I am not targeting you with this comment but rather all of the posters. I like this idea of doing away with coaches challenges. Perhaps they could have 2 time outs. If something is really bugging them, they can take one to plead their case with the officials.

I love the idea of a video official. Maybe also a coordinator with a headset at rink side to signal the linesman when a review needs to happen. And whatever things they decide, it needs consistency. Offsides, goals, penalties...with technology it really shouldn’t delay the game more than what happens now. I think the best sell would be to the officials themselves. Give them the tools to do their jobs and make the right calls. Trust, accountability and respect.

Wow! Lots said on this topic. I am not targeting you with this comment but rather all of the posters. I like this idea of doing away with coaches challenges. Perhaps they could have 2 time outs. If something is really bugging them, they can take one to plead their case with the officials.

I love the idea of a video official. Maybe also a coordinator with a headset at rink side to signal the linesman when a review needs to happen. And whatever things they decide, it needs consistency. Offsides, goals, penalties...with technology it really shouldn’t delay the game more than what happens now. I think the best sell would be to the officials themselves. Give them the tools to do their jobs and make the right calls. Trust, accountability and respect.
- NC Flyers Fan

I don't think refs would like the idea of someone with the benefit of video review on everything looking over their shoulders. I see that as a tough sell to officials.