Instant replay in the NHL
ANDREW JOHNS
imputted into the game of hockey. What ever happened to tradition and loyalty
to the founders of the game. I am a hockey player myself and am glad that there
is no such thing as instant replay in my league. I think that before instant
rplay came into effect, no team had benifit from the errors of a referee's call
more than another. Take instant replay out of the NHL.
John Caraher
bc...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brian Fox) wrote:
> 3. It's not as bad as the NFL system. In the last season of the instant
> replay in the NFL, refs were going upstairs ON EVERY PLAY it seemed. This
> slowed down the game dramatically. At least in hockey, it's only for goals.
> It doesn't slow down the game too much.
Really, the NFL should have kept the replay but found some way to curtail
its use - as Brian says, it became an excuse not to make a call. I thought
the NFL threw out the baby with the bathwater - they could have limited it
to some number of challenges alloted each team, or maybe charge a time-out
for coach-initiated reviews that were not upheld - rather than spending 5
minutes reviewing some inconsequential play. The hockey version is
sufficiently limited in scope that it does not routinely interrupt games.
> All in all, I think the video replay is a good investment, and should be kept.
--
John Caraher
car...@umich.edu
S. Spencer Sun
[a lame attempt at criticizing instant replay]
In <Cy6Mw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, bc...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brian Fox) writes:
>So, here are my points FOR instant replay.
>
>1. Basically, to make sure every goal scored or not scored is called. Now,
>off-hand, I can't name any game that has been won or lost on a botched goal
>call by the ref. But still, this is not a reason to not have it. I remember
>one night Al MacInnis blasted a shot that left the net as soon as it entered
>the net. The play went on, but the video judge caught it and it was called
>a goal. So, if we had no video replay, Al MacInnis (and probably more like
>him) and gotten credit for goals they would have never got w/o video replay.
If I remember correctly it happened more recently, in the Cup finals
this past year. Someone's shot struck the center bar and came right
back out. They caught it on replay and everything that happened after
the missed goal was cancelled.
-- ____
\ /
Tengo un peinado increible. \/
Neal Lavon
(Stuff deleted>
BF> So, here are my points FOR instant replay.
BF> 1. Basically, to make sure every goal scored or not scored is called.
BF> Now, off-hand, I can't name any game that has been won or lost on a
BF> botched goal call by the ref. But still, this is not a reason to not
BF> have it. <Stuff deleted>
BF>
BF> 2. Fairness. It is fair to know whether or not every goal went in or
BF> not. That's what we all want, a fair game.
BF>
BF> 3. It's not as bad as the NFL system. In the last season of the
BF> instant replay in the NFL, refs were going upstairs ON EVERY PLAY it
BF> seemed. This slowed down the game dramatically. At least in hockey,
BF> it's only for goals. It doesn't slow down the game too much.
All right, I'll take a crack against what looks like a pretty reasonable
argument for instant replay in the NHL. ;-)
First of all, I do remember a game where a botched call actually cost a team a
series along with the game. It was an LA Kings-Calgary Flames Stanley Cup
series of a few years back. It was the year in which the Kings got to knock
out the Edmonton Oilers while they were still champs (1991?). Anyway, the
Flames had a lead in the series, I believe, and one late game in the series was
in overtime and the Flames apparently scored the winning goal on a goalmouth
pileup but the ref signalled no goal in a hugely controversial call.
The Kings went on to win the game and eventually the series. Then, I believe
videotape replays tended to support the Flames' position. So, yes, there have
been games decided by a ref's botched call on a goal.
But I think it's not going to be as cut and dried as you make it out when it
comes to deciding if a goal is scored. I watch the Caps games here and the
instant replays are often inconclusive. It's just as difficult to tell if the
puck is in during a replay than in real time. And can't television angles be
deceiving? And speaking of deceiving, who controls how the video is shot? The
home team's network? Can't you envision a situation where the video could be
influenced by whomever is in charge of shooting it?
Lastly, I foresee a bit of a Pandora's box here. Sure, we're just talking
about using instant replays for goals now. But just as baseball "experimented"
with night games for the World Series, and then only planned to have "one or
two" games played at night, the pressure to use video for more official
decisions will grow. Teams will next want to see offsides reviewed (which
might not be a bad idea, actually) and then maybe penalties checked.
Eventually, refs will be hesitant to call anything at all if they always run
the risk of looking foolish via a video replay. I could see it having an
inhibiting effect on the human official.
Sure there are going to be bad calls, but it seems to me most of hockey
officiating is judgement anyway and a video replay system can't help that, but
it could sure hurt it.
My .02...
"No good deed goes unpunished"...
an old Washington political proverb
--Neal Lavon, neal....@f70.n109.z.1.fidonet.org