There were some absolutely awful calls in the game the New York Rangers lost to the Islanders Thursday night. Is it time to expand video review so blown calls don’t affect the outcome of games?
Imagine this scenario. It’s game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals. With ten minutes left in the third period, the Rangers are clinging to a one goal lead against the Nashville Predators. On a rush, Nick Bonino is cut by a high stick and Mika Zibanejad is called for a double minor since it draws blood. But the replay clearly shows that it is Colton Scisson’s stick that caused the damage. The Predators score twice on the power play to take the lead and hold on to win the Stanley Cup. There is rioting in the streets as Ranger fans storm the NHL offices.
It has happened before. Brett Hull’s Stanley Cup winning goal in 1999 while his skate was in the crease will be debated for years. In Game Two of the 2014 Finals, Dwight King clearly interfered with Henrik Lundqvist when he scored a crucial goal that led to a third period comeback by the L.A. Kings. That play led to goalie interference becoming a review-able play. In that same game, 30 seconds before the Kings scored the winning overtime goal, they shot the puck into the stands, but it was ruled a deflection. Now, that is a review-able play. The referee for that Finals game was Dan O’Halloran, the same referee who made the wrong call on Zibanejad in Thursday’s Islander game.
Take advantage of the technology
Folks, it’s the 21st century. There are a dozen cameras covering every game. In the Situation Room in Toronto, every game is monitored by off-ice officials. Why doesn’t the NHL take advantage of this technology to get the calls right?
Here’s an idea. Assign an off-ice referee to every game. That ref’s job is to look at every penalty and goal and advise the on-ice officials if they got it wrong. As soon as the whistle blows, the off-ice referee reviews the play, but doesn’t get involved unless a mistake is made. This would easily eliminate any questions when it comes to high sticking and tripping penalties. On judgement calls, the off-ice official would not get involved.
In the Islander game there was no doubt that it was Valterri Filppula’s stick that struck Leo Komarov’s face. In the replay you could actually see the look of horror on Filppula’s face when he realized what he had done. The mistake was so cut and dried that O’Halloran actually apologized to David Quinn for blowing the call. As Quinn said after the game, “Whoop-di-do.”
By instituting an immediate review, the game would be minimally delayed. The process now is too time consuming. A coach has to initiate a challenge and the on-ice officials have to stop the game and review the play on a tablet. By the time the refs stop the game, the review is requested and the refs or linesmen review the play, the off-ice official could have looked at the play ten times on a 100-inch monitor.
MLB does it
The ALDS between the Yankees and Red Sox was a perfect example of the need for video replay. Angel Hernandez made three wrong calls in one game and each was overturned on video replay. The downside was the time it took at get those calls right. It took a long time because the replay didn’t happen until the manager challenged the call. If the video review was immediate the delays would be much shorter.
There are 13 circumstances in MLB that video review can be used on a team’s challenge. The umpires have the discretion of going to replay on four more circumstances if they feel it needs clarification. The NHL basically uses video reviews for goals, off-sides and pucks shot over the glass into the stands.
Interestingly enough, the NHL reviews all goals anyway. As soon as a goal is scored, it is reviewed and confirmed by a video goal judge. The puck is not dropped until the on-ice referee gets the okay from the video goal judge. That okay comes after the video reviewer confirms that the goal was legitimate, crossed the goal line and was not kicked in or hit with high stick. Has anyone noticed a delay in resuming play after a goal? No, because it is automatic and happens as soon as a goal is scored. Last season, the Situation Room was given responsibility for ruling on goalie interference when a team challenges and the NHL hired a few retired referees to monitor games.
Why not?
Hockey purists argue that video reviews take too long and take the game out of the hands of the referees and linesmen. Their protests incorporate images of “Big Brother” in a video room changing the flow of games. Sure, the process is much too slow right now (as it is with every league using review) . But the delay is caused by the need for a coach to actually challenge the call, starting the whole process. By incorporating the video review as an automatic part of the officiating of the game it would minimize delays, besides creating jobs and eliminating controversy. And it would mean that they would get more calls right and isn’t that want everyone wants?