OT: No Goal Call Last Night.

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Last night was the perfect example of what I posted a few weeks back about three specific replay challenge rules I think need changed and refined.

Not offsides so much, but what is offsides. The rule as it exists, was administered correctly last night. It was offsides. But in my estimation, Drouin was not offsides, or gained any competitive advantage. The point of this is having your skates on the ice and on or behind the blue line. Drouin was well behind the offensive zone, his back skate even maybe in the neutral zone. If it was the NFL, it would not be a TD because he did not break the plane totally of the offensive zone. If you would just extend the blue line into a plane above the line, it is simple, it makes more sense, it makes it easier to review. And no competitive advantage is gained either way.

That is my point, why parse and complicate a rule if it really doesn't give someone an advantage? Now being offsides, jumping the gun, sure. For those who don't understand, the rule essentially is applied to if it was basketball and a guy going out of bounds, or trying to save a ball at the mid court line, as long as he is in the air, and doesn't touch the ground, he is not "out". Here, it doesn't matter and skating, just like running involves the act of picking up one foot after or in front of the other.

Stupid rule. But hey, it may have saved our season.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I don't like the rule either. I think your crossing the plane idea makes sense but it could be difficult administer.

Still, I think they should definitely experiment with it in the AHL next season. That was the right call given the rules but I agree, he gained no competitive advantage through it and those types of goals should count - specially for a league which has for years unsuccessfully tried to increase scoring

 

[pittdan77]

It's already a difficult rule to judge as play is moving. The fact that the blade must be on the ice is probably to take some of the difficulty out of the call. The NFL comparison would be having two feet down inbounds. Could you imaging an NFL ref trying to judge whether or not the guy made the catch with his feet within the plane of the sidelines?

 

[OriginalEther]

The canKnuckleheads on Sirius this morning were complaining about it, with one lamenting that the nhl was trying to be like the Nfl, so as far as I'm concerned, they should keep the rule as is

In all seriousness, I pretty much agree.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If we are going to tinker with the basic rules then they also ought to change the icing rule as well. The number of times in these playoffs that someone has shot the puck out of the zone right past the defenseman at the point and still got called for icing is absurd. If the guy can play the puck but doesn't it isn't icing. There was a non-Penguin game I believe in the first round where the defenseman at the point tried to play the puck and missed and the puck went past him in between his stick and skate and they still called icing. And the announcers agreed after watching the replay that it was the correct call, because after all the defenseman didn't touch the puck.

Stupid.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

If we are going to tinker with the basic rules then they also ought to change the icing rule as well. The number of times in these playoffs that someone has shot the puck out of the zone right past the defenseman at the point and still got called for icing is absurd. If the guy can play the puck but doesn't it isn't icing. There was a non-Penguin game I believe in the first round where the defenseman at the point tried to play the puck and missed and the puck went past him in between his stick and skate and they still called icing. And the announcers agreed after watching the replay that it was the correct call, because after all the defenseman didn't touch the puck.

Stupid.

Yeah honestly I am shocked at some of the plays that are called icing nowadays.

 

[PhPanther1]

Are you going to count the stick as being something that can keep you on-side by staying at the blue line? I could get a hell of an advantage by being 6 feet beyond the blue as long as I keep the toe of my blade on the blue.

 

[Pitt79]

The canKnuckleheads on Sirius this morning were complaining about it, with one lamenting that the nhl was trying to be like the Nfl, so as far as I'm concerned, they should keep the rule as is

In all seriousness, I pretty much agree.

All review should be banned from every sport! Video review ruins all sports, Just play the game and accept that there will be errors. Am I glad that it helped my team, the Pens, sure, but I'd still be in favor of eliminating all replay from every sport. I don't care that things be totally perfect.

 

[Pitt79]

Look at this thread already! You are already arguing was the blade of the skate touching the ice, where was the stick, was the guys tongue in his mouth, did the ball wobble a quarter inch when the receiver rolled across the ground! All these plays we just ENJOYED and took for granted now need a PhD thesis written about them during the 2 hour delay to review the video. It sucks.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

All review should be banned from every sport! Video review ruins all sports, Just play the game and accept that there will be errors. Am I glad that it helped my team, the Pens, sure, but I'd still be in favor of eliminating all replay from every sport. I don't care that things be totally perfect.

Again, reviews are great to overturn obviously blown and missed calls. But when you start using it then to parse every 50/50 call like it is Zapruder film, well that is not or at least should not be the intent of replay.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

You would rather something like the "Hand of God" goal count and have an unjust result than have them take a few extra minutes and disrupt the flow but ultimately get the call right? I'm sorry, I do not agree with that at all. I would much rather they take their time and get it right than hurry up and make a call willy-nilly so as not to disrupt the flow of the game.

 

[Pitt79]

Again, reviews are great to overturn obviously blown and missed calls. But when you start using it then to parse every 50/50 call like it is Zapruder film, well that is not or at least should not be the intent of replay.

You're right, but it's clear that they can't restrain themselves to limit it to the OBVIOUS and they lust for the opportunity to spend an hour dissecting and discussing, then later writing a rule book that reads like a masters dissertation. So the intent was fix the obvious, but they don't have the self control to do JUST THAT and ONLY THAT.

 

[Pitt79]

You would rather something like the "Hand of God" goal count and have an unjust result than have them take a few extra minutes and disrupt the flow but ultimately get the call right? I'm sorry, I do not agree with that at all. I would much rather they take their time and get it right than hurry up and make a call willy-nilly so as not to disrupt the flow of the game.

View embedded media

Yes, I'd rather have a few super horrible calls in each generation than put up with the NONSENSE that is review, because they refuse to just limit it to the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS and want to dissect every close call thoroughly like they are a radiologist searching for a cancer cell.

 

[Jpripper88]

All review should be banned from every sport! Video review ruins all sports, Just play the game and accept that there will be errors. Am I glad that it helped my team, the Pens, sure, but I'd still be in favor of eliminating all replay from every sport. I don't care that things be totally perfect.

No. That would be disastrous in the day and age where HD TV is king and replay and highlights/lowlights are on loop (literally with gifs and vines) day and night. The public outcry would be terrible. TV and the internet is what fuels replay.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yes, I'd rather have a few super horrible calls in each generation than put up with the NONSENSE that is review, because they refuse to just limit it to the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS and want to dissect every close call thoroughly like they are a radiologist searching for a cancer cell.

But there weren't just "a few super horrible calls in a generation." There were many, many horrible calls in that generation. That's what necessitated instant replay in the first place.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I agree with you in spirit. The replay stuff can get over the top. However, I think there is a happy medium that can be struck.

I have always favored a time limit. For example, if they can't make a determination within a minute whether or not a pass was caught or dropped, or whether the receiver has his feet in bounds, then it is not obvious enough to be overturned and they should stick with the original call.

However, intentionally developing an inferior system for making judgments so as to stay on schedule is not at all smart, IMO.

 

[Pitt79]

I agree with you in spirit. The replay stuff can get over the top. However, I think there is a happy medium that can be struck.

I have always favored a time limit. For example, if they can't make a determination within a minute whether or not a pass was caught or dropped, or whether the receiver has his feet in bounds, then it is not obvious enough to be overturned and they should stick with the original call.

However, intentionally developing an inferior system for making judgments so as to stay on schedule is not at all smart, IMO.

I think it is smart, I'm really attracted more and more to soccer, precisely because they don't succumb to BS and never change the rules and never have adopted replay. I think adhering to a strict ONE MINUTE LIMIT is an OK compromise. To me if it isn't obvious enough to see clearly in one minute or less, then it's perfectly reasonable to just let the call on the field stand. Have a clock where everyone can see it, have a super loud buzzer go off, if the ref still can't decide? Tough shht, it's done, play on. With that system you'd easily see your "Hand of God" without digging 200 miles deep into a gazillion can of worms.

I'd also add taking away coaches challenges, I'd have a review ref in the booth who watches every play and is instructed to review only those that are SUPER OBVIOUS, that he is sure he can clearly decide pretty much instantly. Anything that is so close that you have to look at a super slow motion HD video 10 times and keep thinking about it over and over is so close that the call on the field just standing is the right call.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

What I think is ludicrous is the way some leagues administer instant replay.

For example, I think the NHL does the best job of all professional sports in administering it's instant replay. The centralized system is definitely the model all of the rest of the leagues will follow going forward.

I also love the way the NHL explains its disciplinary decisions. I don't always (or even often) agree with those decisions but I do appreciate their efforts to communicate their rationale. That is very thorough and it is an excellent example of communication and transparency. The NFL and MLB would be well advised to follow that exact same model when administering it's discipline.

I think coaches challenges are stupid in all sports. Why should you lose a timeout because of someone else's incompetence that may or may not be conclusively proven?

Also, sending an on-field official under a little make shift photo booth on the sidelines to make a determination whether or not a ball was fumbled a split second before the runner hit the ground or whether or not the receiver caught the football with his second foot in bounds makes no sense.

I just don't understand how the people making the decision could have a worse view of something than the millions of people watching it at home on their big screen televisions?

The other night, to determine Drouin's offsides, they were looking at the play on a little iPad type of device. How is that efficient?

So I definitely agree that replay needs to be improved across the board in all sports. However, I do not favor abolishing it altogether just because it is an imperfect system. That would represent a clear step backwards.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I agree with you in spirit. The replay stuff can get over the top. However, I think there is a happy medium that can be struck.

I have always favored a time limit. For example, if they can't make a determination within a minute whether or not a pass was caught or dropped, or whether the receiver has his feet in bounds, then it is not obvious enough to be overturned and they should stick with the original call.

However, intentionally developing an inferior system for making judgments so as to stay on schedule is not at all smart, IMO.

That's my opinion also. The Hand of God, obvious mistakes, for sure. But you know, especially a 50/50 play where there then they spend 5 minutes trying to determine if the call is correct, to me, if you can't reverse it in a minute, then it is too close for further review. When you start looking at a replay like it is a Zapruder film, again to me, the call as stands should be correct.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

What I think is ludicrous is the way some leagues administer instant replay.

For example, I think the NHL does the best job of all professional sports in administering it's instant replay. The centralized system is definitely the model all of the rest of the leagues will follow going forward.

I also love the way the NHL explains its disciplinary decisions. I don't always (or even often) agree with those decisions but I do appreciate their efforts to communicate their rationale. That is very thorough and it is an excellent example of communication and transparency. The NFL and MLB would be well advised to follow that exact same model when administering it's discipline.

I think coaches challenges are stupid in all sports. Why should you lose a timeout because of someone else's incompetence that may or may not be conclusively proven?

Also, sending an on-field official under a little make shift photo booth on the sidelines to make a determination whether or not a ball was fumbled a split second before the runner hit the ground or whether or not the receiver caught the football with his second foot in bounds makes no sense.

I just don't understand how the people making the decision could have a worse view of something than the millions of people watching it at home on their big screen televisions?

The other night, to determine Drouin's offsides, they were looking at the play on a little iPad type of device. How is that efficient?

So I definitely agree that replay needs to be improved across the board in all sports. However, I do not favor abolishing it altogether just because it is an imperfect system. That would represent a clear step backwards.

What blows my mind, and I think college football is most guilty of this, is when the replay is fairly obvious and they STILL get the call wrong. Baseball is also great at this. How?

 

[Pitt79]

Then they try to make the clock PERFECT, let's look at the replay for 3 MORE minutes (after the 1st 7 minute delay) to decide if it should be 5:35 or 5:37!

 

[pittdan77]

You would rather something like the "Hand of God" goal count and have an unjust result than have them take a few extra minutes and disrupt the flow but ultimately get the call right? I'm sorry, I do not agree with that at all. I would much rather they take their time and get it right than hurry up and make a call willy-nilly so as not to disrupt the flow of the game.

View embedded media

Those shorts.....LOL

Perfect example.