Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NHL revamps review rule to permit disallowed penalties

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Won't fix anything unless the decision is taken out of the refs' hands altogether, unless you believe scum like Sutherland are merely incompetent instead of corrupt.  This rule still assumes the refs working the game are trying to conduct themselves like professionals.  The only way to solve the officiating issue is to actually hold problem refs accountable.

  • Cheers 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might actually lead to more majors being called. Since if it looks bad, but the ref isn’t 100% sure he saw the whole thing, calling the major allows him to confirm it. Previously if he wasn’t 100% sure, the ref may have called a minor or double-minor to offset his uncertainty.

 

I think it’s a good thing. Seen far too many dirty plays that were deliberate attempts to injure just get minors.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to speed up the review.

We all want them to get it right, even when it's against us.

The refs job is to protect the players; they forget that objective all the time.

Maybe they call more majors, but if the reviews were quick and decisive, we would end up with proper outcomes.

Twenty officials in multiple locations, looking at it for 15 minutes is Marchanding ridiculous!

More reviews to get it right; but make them "Quickies".

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

One ref one vision one tone to the game. Two refs we don't really know who's in charge out there. 

Plus that means the pool of refs gets worse.   Not to mention another body on an otherwise crowded ice surface.    Just let linesman call majors that aren't seen.    Agree one ref was better.  It seems like every game the one way back just needs to call something lol,    Let the guys play, missed calls are part of the game.   And no team is getting an imaginary advantage over the other.   There is a reason the playoffs provide the best hockey ... miss the days of Paul Stewart and even Kerry Fraser.    Stewart often just let the guys play.   And Fraser who seemed whistle happy at the time, really wasn't.   

Edited by IBatch
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

They need to speed up the review.

We all want them to get it right, even when it's against us.

The refs job is to protect the players; they forget that objective all the time.

Maybe they call more majors, but if the reviews were quick and decisive, we would end up with proper outcomes.

Twenty officials in multiple locations, looking at it for 15 minutes is Marchanding ridiculous!

More reviews to get it right; but make them "Quickies".

Go back to one ref.   Let linesman call majors that are missed.   And put the other ref so he can keep his job, somewhere with a bunch of TV angles so he can advise the on ice ref if he got it right.  Basically a supervising ref off the ice ...win win win.  It's idiotic to expect these guys to see all the angles TV allows.   Same with linesman - split tiny second at full speed... actually hate the coaches call on offsides, so many great goals have been disallowed.   And virtually none of them were affected by an inch here and there of cheating lol. 

Edited by IBatch
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

One ref one vision one tone to the game. Two refs we don't really know who's in charge out there. 

It also takes away some of the accountability...if no one is directly "responsible". One ref is the way to go. 

 

I also feel that the refs shouldn't be so "involved" in the game...call them, period. The interaction with players, the grudges that carry over, etc. They sometimes make it personal but each game should be a new slate with no bias.

 

It is a tough gig....but that doesn't mean there isn't a standard to uphold and, at times, it's garbage. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

It also takes away some of the accountability...if no one is directly "responsible". One ref is the way to go. 

 

I also feel that the refs shouldn't be so "involved" in the game...call them, period. The interaction with players, the grudges that carry over, etc. They sometimes make it personal but each game should be a new slate with no bias.

 

It is a tough gig....but that doesn't mean there is a standard to uphold and, at times, it's garbage. 

The refs are taking things way too personally out there. It makes them look like they care about the outcome of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hairy Kneel said:

The refs are taking things way too personally out there. It makes them look like they care about the outcome of the game.

some of them do, e.g., Sutherland loves being part of the outcome. 

 

Hopefully with more tech we can take ref's more and more out of the game. Game management is at an all time high. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

They need to speed up the review.

We all want them to get it right, even when it's against us.

The refs job is to protect the players; they forget that objective all the time.

Maybe they call more majors, but if the reviews were quick and decisive, we would end up with proper outcomes.

Twenty officials in multiple locations, looking at it for 15 minutes is Marchanding ridiculous!

More reviews to get it right; but make them "Quickies".

Yep... frustrating if the team is flying... the whole thing is delayed for a substantial amount of time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...