Why doesn't the NHL use instant replay to review illegal hits?

[Senser81]

The NBA and college basketball does it, so why doesn't the NHL? Especially when things get out of hand and there is actually fighting in the NHL (as opposed to the NBA or NCAA). Raffy Torres was still allowed on the ice in the Phoenix-Chicago game, when he probably should have spent a few nights in prison. The odd part is that while Hossa was being stretchered off the ice, the jumbotron was showing replays of Torres' hit to the head, so it was pretty obvious to everyone what happened...including the refs. If the NHL refs are so incompetent, then why not allow the use of replay to keep the criminals off the ice? This wouldn't only apply to players who leave the ice to deliver shoulder-to-head shots with intent to injure, it could also be used to review what happens in these mass melees that have plagued the playoffs this year.

 

[Ravin]

How many times does the NBA and College basketball use this though? With the amount of scrums, hits, fights and all that in hockey, every time something happens, someone is going to be calling for a review to try and get a man advantage. I don't want to see that. NHL has two refs on the ice, and they are human. It is part of the game. Go read Kerry Frasers book, as he basically puts it out there very easily what it is like to be an NHL ref.

It is kind of funny though that you made this about Torres hit to the head of Hossa, yet you defended Shaw's hit to the head on Smith. I fully expect Torres to get something for his hit, but you homerism is coming out. Be mindful young skywalker.

 

[PP]

How many times does the NBA and College basketball use this though? With the amount of scrums, hits, fights and all that in hockey, every time something happens, someone is going to be calling for a review to try and get a man advantage. I don't want to see that. NHL has two refs on the ice, and they are human. It is part of the game. Go read Kerry Frasers book, as he basically puts it out there very easily what it is like to be an NHL ref.

It is kind of funny though that you made this about Torres hit to the head of Hossa, yet you defended Shaw's hit to the head on Smith. I fully expect Torres to get something for his hit, but you homerism is coming out. Be mindful young skywalker.

I dont think that hit on Smith was anything like Torres's hit on Hossa. Torres has been a scummy piece of shit his entire career.

 

[Ravin]

I'm not debating the Torres hit, and that is why I said I think he will get something for it, because even though refs don't review it on ice, the NHL will. So he should get atleast a game if not three for that hit. The only reason anyone (and by that I mean Chicago homers) are saying Shaw shouldn't have got anything is because Smith "embelished the hit". It was still a hit to the head of a defenceless player, who was a goalie, and Shaw didn't slow down.

All I'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. You can't say one guy should have got nothing while the other should have his head chopped off.

 

[Senser81]

How many times does the NBA and College basketball use this though? With the amount of scrums, hits, fights and all that in hockey, every time something happens, someone is going to be calling for a review to try and get a man advantage. I don't want to see that. NHL has two refs on the ice, and they are human. It is part of the game. Go read Kerry Frasers book, as he basically puts it out there very easily what it is like to be an NHL ref.

It is kind of funny though that you made this about Torres hit to the head of Hossa, yet you defended Shaw's hit to the head on Smith. I fully expect Torres to get something for his hit, but you homerism is coming out. Be mindful young skywalker.

Yawn.

I didn't defend Shaw's hit, I had issue with the suspension length. And the hits were two completely different animals. Shaw has no history of goonishness...Torres is a goon. You could not tell if Shaw intended to hit Smith in the head...Torres' intent was pretty clear. Shaw was kicked out of the game and Phoenix was given a man advantage for 5 minutes (clearly effecting the outcome of the game). Torres was unpenalized, and the Hawks were penalized for retaliation. Smith stayed in the game. Hossa went to the hospital.

If this is the idiocy that permeates this forum, then I can see why no one bothers to venture in here.

Your "points" are laughable. One, they don't even address what I am talking about. "Go read Kerry Frasers book"...WTF? Two, they don't have no merit. "The NHL refs are human"....thats my point. Do you even understand what you are saying?

God forbid that Chicago "calls for a man advantage" when their best player is put in the hospital by a clearly illegal and malicious hit. I guess them calling for a man advantage is reason enough to allow the Raffy Torres' of the game to continue their goonishness unhindered.

 

[Ravin]

And if you throw instant reply into the game for coaches to call whenever they want, you are going to have tons of stops while refs check the video, and every single hit is going to be reviewable just because someone will want to get a man-advantage. That is why I said, the refs are human, calls are missed, that is the NHL. This isn't the NFL where you throw a little flag and challenge the play. Hell, look at the Detroit game last night. A clear goal taken away and they didn't even both to go upstairs for it. Surely if they can't review goals right, then illegal hits shouldn't even be talked about from a review stance.

You could not tell what Shaw's intention was? Let's see, going full out behind the net where the goalie is, not slowing down or trying to move, and then shoulder to his head (and Smith is a big guy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g4jD3_nmFs

Seems fairly clear to me, and I have no invested interest in this game. Shoulder came up into the head and what made it worse, it was the goalie. Shouldn't have even been coming up to begin with.

I'm not debating the Torres hit. He left his feet, hit to the head, and Hossa got laid out. Refs didn't make the call. It happens. I'm sorry to say but "thats hockey" is an answer here because it happens. Refs miss calls. 10 guys out there skating fast, shit happens. You can't see everything.

My issues with bringing in review would be as I said, it would slow the game down as people would call for review on every hard hit, scrum, fight, etc looking for the man up. And the refs don't need to sit at the penalty box waiting for the War Room guys to make the call for them. They make the call on the ice, and that is that. It is the way the game has always been played. Think about all the shit they missed in a one referee system back in the day.

 

[killgod]

I think it would be pretty difficult to do this without then going to instant replay for every physical infraction. How do you review hits, but not review, as an example, a player who gets cut by an errant stick that is missed? Where do you draw the line? Head shots? Injury? What's an injury? Do cuts count? Will players start to sell injuries to get stoppages when their top line is gassed? I think this is a huge mistake to go down this road.

Slowing down the game for more stoppages is not something the NHL likes to do, the speed and flow of the sport is one of it's selling points. It's killing the fun of watching the NFL, so I hope this never comes to be, but the constant stoppages of play that sports like the NFL are including just don't fit with hockey IMO.

Mistakes by the officials are part of sports, always has been and I think always should be that way. If they want to get every single detail perfect, take the refs off the ice and just put the game in constant review. So many famous incidents come to mind where refs either failed to screwed up a call, it happens, that's sports/hockey to me. Sports are played and ruled on by humans and we're not perfect. As long as they get the goals right, I say leave the rest as it is.

 

[Senser81]

You could not tell what Shaw's intention was? Let's see, going full out behind the net where the goalie is, not slowing down or trying to move, and then shoulder to his head (and Smith is a big guy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g4jD3_nmFs

Jeez, perhaps you were one of the refs in last night's Coyotes-Hawks game. You watched the replay, and your conclusion was that Shaw intended to hit Smith in the head? You say that the intention to deliver a hit to the head was the same in the Shaw hit as it was in the Torres hit? Wow. I guess there is no point in discussing this further.

 

[Senser81]

I think it would be pretty difficult to do this without then going to instant replay for every physical infraction. How do you review hits, but not review, as an example, a player who gets cut by an errant stick that is missed? Where do you draw the line? Head shots? Injury? What's an injury? Do cuts count? Will players start to sell injuries to get stoppages when their top line is gassed? I think this is a huge mistake to go down this road.

Injury. What's an injury? Two examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAQs8lq6KJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE5Nz2efcW8


Players already sell injuries to get stoppages and penalties (see Mike Smith). This year's playoffs have already been slowed down due to fights and injuries from dirty hits. It seems like every Flyers-Pens game takes 5 hours. Reviewing AND punishing the offenders would in the end speed up the game, not slow it down. The NHL already has replay to review goals...do you want to get rid of that in order to speed up the game?

This isn't a 'ref missed the call' issue, its a player safety issue.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

F it, get rid of the refs altogether, let them play the game out, whatever happens, happens and we'll fine everybody accordingly at the end

 

[Ravin]

If you are going to be as black and white as "intention is intention" then yes, they are the same. But every situation is different. When you watch the reply of the Shaw hit, you see his should come up to the head. First off, he shouldn't have even been in that situation because it is a goalie, let alone a hit to the head. So really all this intention crap is just extra bonus. He charged a goalie, put his shoulder into him. It was just made worse by the fact he hit a defenceless goalie in the head. If he would have just ran him over, he probably would have got one game and ass kicking. It was the head shot that made it worse.

Now for Torres. Left his feet, clear shot to the head. You asking me why the refs missed it? I can't tell you why. Only thing I can say is the NHL will review it. What do you want me to say? That Torres should be kicked out of the game, after he gets his bell rung by the Hawks 4th line? Well of course in a perfect world, but that didn't happen.

Interesting thing to note, as you complained about how the Hawks took a roughing penalty after the whistle for 'sticking up for Hossa'. Smith got trucked, and the Yotes just took the 5min major with a smile, didn't fight back or anything. They kept their cool and got a powerplay and scored. Hawks didn't and they went to the PK.

You need to stop thinking this shit is so cut and dry. There is tons of shit refs miss. It happens, deal with it, or maybe hockey isn't for you. This isn' the NFL where every single play is disected from every possible camera. This is the NHL where guys are flying around the ice, and shit happens.

 

[killgod]

Injury. What's an injury? Two examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAQs8lq6KJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE5Nz2efcW8

I didn't ask it literally. So every body check, players can hit the ice like a soccer player and get a stoppage is what can become of this. Do cuts count as an injury stoppage? Where is the line drawn. This would only just allow and encourage this further. A scrum along the boards and the puck squeezes out giving a team a chance...so a player can just tank it and hit the ice faking injury to stop the rush and generate a 5 minute break as well? Perhaps trainers can come on the ice with magic spray too.

The NHL already has replay to review goals...do you want to get rid of that in order to speed up the game?

I said "get the goals right and let the rest be", not sure I needed to clarify that further so you'd know my answer to that question.

This isn't a 'ref missed the call' issue, its a player safety issue.

If it's not about the game, but solely player safety, then suspend the violators as they are doing with a proper legal hearing and continue to adjust the rules accordingly.

Every time a player gets hurt without it being seen why, we're going to have a video review? So when some guy just gets hurt for a non illegal play but it's missed, we're gonna stop the live action and spend 5 minutes to figure out nothing happened? The refs didn't see it, so how are they supposed to know it happened from illegal play or not? How do they know to act on something they don't see?

 

[Senser81]

I didn't ask it literally. So every body check, players can hit the ice like a soccer player and get a stoppage is what can become of this. Do cuts count as an injury stoppage? Where is the line drawn. This would only just allow and encourage this further. A scrum along the boards and the puck squeezes out giving a team a chance...so a player can just tank it and hit the ice faking injury to stop the rush and generate a 5 minute break as well? Perhaps trainers can come on the ice with magic spray too.

Mike Smith again comes to mind. I don't see whats stopping players from doing this now. One would think that accurate replays would discourage such type of behavior, because the "diving" would be apparent. Soccer uses replays to punish players who dive.

Every time a player gets hurt without it being seen why, we're going to have a video review? So when some guy just gets hurt for a non illegal play but it's missed, we're gonna stop the live action and spend 5 minutes to figure out nothing happened? The refs didn't see it, so how are they supposed to know it happened from illegal play or not? How do they know to act on something they don't see?

Usually the live action stops when a player gets hurt, or fakes an injury (Mike Smith). If the refs didn't see it, thats what the replay is for. They can act on something they didn't see because of the replay technology.

I can understand some of what you are saying, and its entirely valid, but sometimes your failure to grasp simple concepts is...

 

[Senser81]

Interesting thing to note, as you complained about how the Hawks took a roughing penalty after the whistle for 'sticking up for Hossa'. Smith got trucked, and the Yotes just took the 5min major with a smile, didn't fight back or anything. They kept their cool and got a powerplay and scored. Hawks didn't and they went to the PK.

Wow. The difference being that Shaw was called for a penalty and ejected while Torres wasn't. It has nothing to do with one team keeping their cool and the other team didn't. The differences are that one team was penalized and the other team wasn't, with the minor difference being that one team faked an injury and the other team didn't.

 

[Ravin]

Serious post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53W-7tk4Uw

Jagr was then bannished to the KHL after this. NHL had to do something for almost killing a player.

 

[killgod]

Mike Smith again comes to mind. I don't see whats stopping players from doing this now. One would think that accurate replays would discourage such type of behavior, because the "diving" would be apparent. Soccer uses replays to punish players who dive.

Diving is very rarely being dealt with and seemingly only in extreme cases. They certainly don't stop soccer matches to review dives and hand out cards after the fact.

Usually the live action stops when a player gets hurt, or fakes an injury (Mike Smith). If the refs didn't see it, thats what the replay is for. They can act on something they didn't see because of the replay technology.

I can understand some of what you are saying, and its entirely valid, but sometimes your failure to grasp simple concepts is...

My point is how do the refs know it was an illegal play to go to review? If Hossa was down because his own teammate skated into him, we're gonna spend time figuring this out? Nothing isn't being missed here, you're just being ignorant to why automatically reviewing when a player is down injured, but not seen why by an official, is going to come with issues. Why does the game need to be stopped to determine what the league and PA are going to do today, which is have a ruling on Torres in a legal hearing?

He's going to be suspended, probably for 6+ games, fined, likely in 5 figures. Does that not address player safety, which is the basis of your argument?

Why can't you grasp the simple concept that if it's officially declared to stop the game and review every time a player is down, that it would be abused? Everytime a player feels he's suffered a penalty without call, he'll hit the ice and the refs, by rule, would have to review. Terrible idea.

 

[Senser81]

Serious post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53W-7tk4Uw

Jagr was then bannished to the KHL after this. NHL had to do something for almost killing a player.

Serious post...

After the Chicago game, Bettman was asked about all the fighting and maiming in this year's playoffs. Bettman responded by saying that this year's NHL TV ratings are the highest its ever been. No right or wrong answer here, but do you think the brutality of this year's playoffs is good for the NHL? Is it drawing in new fans?

IMO, it might draw in some people, but I think it turns off some of the long-time hockey fans, too. Too much BS, and not enough actual Olympic-type hockey.

 

[Senser81]

Why can't you grasp the simple concept that if it's officially declared to stop the game and review every time a player is down, that it would be abused?

Because I'm not Canadian?

 

[killgod]

Because I'm not Canadian?

Or you're just looking to cause an argument because you're bored? :tellmemore:

 

[Ravin]

Serious post...

After the Chicago game, Bettman was asked about all the fighting and maiming in this year's playoffs. Bettman responded by saying that this year's NHL TV ratings are the highest its ever been. No right or wrong answer here, but do you think the brutality of this year's playoffs is good for the NHL? Is it drawing in new fans?

IMO, it might draw in some people, but I think it turns off some of the long-time hockey fans, too. Too much BS, and not enough actual Olympic-type hockey.

Thing is, killgod, wr50l, leaf, myself, and alot of the other hockey guys are not turned off by this. This is playoff hockey, it is the toughest trophy to win for a reason. You can't compare NHL playoff hockey the Olympic type hockey. Those are two different types of games, and if you are looking for Olympic hockey, you are watching the wrong games. And that is nothing against you, as many people don't enjoy the fighting and extra stuff that goes on in playoff hockey, but it has been part of the game for years. It isn't about the change. Ratings are up because hockey is getting more exposure. I would agrue the NBC deal is the reason ratings are up because people know where to find hockey now, where as when it was just versus, no one had any idea.

American's love the violence, I bet more people are watching for that then the Olympic style of play. I don't watch the games for all the bashing and shit, but I accept it is part of the playoff game, and it makes it interesting as fuck. When the team you are going for lays a solid hit on the Mfer you hate on their team, you do jump a little like you are in the crowd. I don't want to see players get hurt, and I hate the cheap shit. But nothing wrong with tough, hard playoff hockey the way it is, and the way it will always be played.