Eklund: NHL Was Playing With Fire with Coach’s Challenge and Got Burned. Buzz@1

I think you made a couple typos in there but I get the gist of what you're asking. I thought the Sens one went clear out, no touching the boards. But you couldn't see definitively and the boards shaking the glass from body checks and blah blah. The hilarity of that one is Marc Savard (who I think is from the ottawa area) acting like a lunatic behind the bench. He's a funny little spud. He's gonna catch Garrioch if he's not careful.

The flip side is they do what the refs do when there's been a high stick. Err on the side of 'ya we have a hit face -- major penalty' look at the replay and confirm we do. So if you apply that to the puck over glass teams have no risk. Nor do they get to stop play with a time out to see if it went out. The penalty happens. Then the refs decide if it went out clean.

Just do away with offside replay. It would raise the amount of goals scored and keep the flow of the game. Gambling will never be a 100 sure bet. That's the nature of Gambling. You all take that risk when you do it. And the Gambling lines will be more lucrative the more riskier the sport is. So make the NHL high risk high reward for gamblers. And make it more fun by scoring more goals.

On top of this I'd say why should the NHL be like other sports. Being the same won't grow hockey in the USA. You want to be different. that way fans can see the league as the alternative to the other soft, slow paced, low action, over regulated, over hyped, over payed leagues like the NBA or MLB . Fans don't like these things and coping thier weaknesses will just lead the NHL to less growth

The puck over the glass should not be a two minute penalty ,should be the same as icing .

Just do away with offside replay. It would raise the amount of goals scored and keep the flow of the game. Gambling will never be a 100 sure bet. That's the nature of Gambling. You all take that risk when you do it. And the Gambling lines will be more lucrative the more riskier the sport is. So make the NHL high risk high reward for gamblers. And make it more fun by scoring more goals.

On top of this I'd say why should the NHL be like other sports. Being the same won't grow hockey in the USA. You want to be different. that way fans can see the league as the alternative to the other soft, slow paced, low action, over regulated, over hyped, over payed leagues like the NBA or MLB . Fans don't like these things and coping thier weaknesses will just lead the NHL to less growth
- Eman87654

I seen the Hawks lose game 7 of the western final to two Blanton offside goals .

I seen the Hawks lose game 7 of the western final to two Blanton offside goals .
- oldduffman

It's fine. They lost because they didn't score enough or play enough defense. If you need reply to win then your team probably didn't deserve win win anyways.

The puck over the glass should not be a two minute penalty ,should be the same as icing .
- oldduffman

It became a penalty because d-men would just sent it over the glass in a panic moment too often.

Ok that metaphor was a giant stretch. Everyone wanted replay to make sure things were fair and the right call was made. Coaches started using replaY as a defacto time
Out. People’s time was being wasted . I like the way it is. You call out the officials for being wrong, but you are incorrect about it, you should get punished for wasting everyone’s time.

It's fine. They lost because they didn't score enough or play enough defense. If you need reply to win then your team probably didn't deserve win win anyways.
- Eman87654

Game went to OT ,decided by a defection off a D man . Them are the breaks .Glad to see them getting it right now .

It became a penalty because d-men would just sent it over the glass in a panic moment too often.
- 77emac77

Same as icing .Flip it over the boards, face off back in your end ,no changing .

What I’m saying has nothing to do with how close the games were really. That just makes it more apparent. My point is this is a responsibility that should not be placed on the coaches.

I think you made a couple typos in there but I get the gist of what you're asking. I thought the Sens one went clear out, no touching the boards. But you couldn't see definitively and the boards shaking the glass from body checks and blah blah. The hilarity of that one is Marc Savard (who I think is from the ottawa area) acting like a lunatic behind the bench. He's a funny little spud. He's gonna catch Garrioch if he's not careful.

The flip side is they do what the refs do when there's been a high stick. Err on the side of 'ya we have a hit face -- major penalty' look at the replay and confirm we do. So if you apply that to the puck over glass teams have no risk. Nor do they get to stop play with a time out to see if it went out. The penalty happens. Then the refs decide if it went out clean.
- Octavarium

But the point is here that the refs don’t look at the replay unless they’re told to at risk of of a team. It should just be about getting it right. Especially Layton games are in the playoffs.

But the point is here that the refs don’t look at the replay unless they’re told to at risk of of a team. It should just be about getting it right. Especially Layton games are in the playoffs.
- Eklund

Yeah but getting it right is getting in the way of the overall enjoyment and growth of the game.