A hot topic of the general manager’s meetings this week is a proposed rule to change that would allow coaches to challenge for puck over glass.
But why should the coaches be challenging to see if the puck went off the glass or the opposition’s stick? Why can’t the NHL’s Situation Room buzz down to the referees on the ice and say you know what that puck did not go straight out. It went off the glass or a stick there for no penalty. Play on.
Changing NHL Overtime Format Has Unintended Consequences
As part of the proposed rule change, if the coach’s challenge for the puck over the glass and the call on the ice stands, their team will face a five-on-three powerplay. Not only does the puck over the last penalty stand, but the delay of a game penalty then goes into effect, similar to what we see for offside challenges or goaltender interference challenges when a coach challenges for those.
There’s a delay of game penalty because the officials have to stop the game to review it. This will also go for when challenging to see if a player was hit in the face with his own stick, his teammate’s stick, the puck, or the opposition’s high stick.
Remember, technology is there to help the officials. If someone calling the game for TV can ask the production team whether the puck went over the glass clean, why can’t the NHL off-ice officials tell the on-ice officials the same thing? It takes all of five seconds or less.
This spirited debate was brought on TSN Radio in Toronto, discussing the proposed rule changes to video review, including puck over glass and accidental or “Friendly Fire” High Sticks.
TSN Hockey Analyst Mike Johnson was on the show, and the debate ensued about iPads on the bench and the review process for these two penalties. Johnson brought up greats regarding whether the NHL should review the penalties or a coach’s challenge because of how quick it should be.
NHL News: Bettman Wants LTIR Feedback, and Sean Couturier’s Agent Not Really Happy
Bryan Hayes: “I would get rid of it all personally because I don’t like any of the review process, but the game has stopped already, to begin with. The pucks out of the play. Why do you need to do the goofy coaching challenge thing? Just have some guy in the booth say actually, it hit the glass. Don’t worry. Like, why do you have to go through the challenge, but if you get it wrong, it’s five on three.”
Mike Johnson: “As far as the review thing. It’s one of the other aids: either gas at all, like forget all review and just let the refs make the calls. They’re right 99% of the time, or I have zero problem adding a self-inflicted high stick or a puck over the glass reviewable things because I noticed that in there, I’ll go to our H truck, I’m like, hey, that did that hit a stick on the way over and in three seconds, I have the video that shows, no it did not hit a stick on the way over. Yes, it is a stick; it’s not a penalty.
NHL Rumors: If the NHL expands, are they at risk to watering down the league?
So if I can have it in three seconds because it’s already a stoppage, as you mentioned, it will take no time off the clock. I don’t mind one like this or whose stick hit that guy in the face, whether his teammates, his own, or the opposition. Again, it takes two seconds, and it’s very, very black and white, yes or no, and it’s easy to do.
I’d much rather you have reviews and have ones like this that take two seconds to get the right call. However, you get there, whether it’s League-driven or Team Challenge-driven. You got the right call.”
Why should coaches in the NHL be punished for something the league officials should be doing in the first place?
A debate will rage on if and when the competition committee approves these changes to video review for puck over glass and high sticking penalties.