NHL Coach's Challenges

[Cock Throppled]

I dislike a lot of things about the NHL, but the two I hate most are the overtime point system, that unfairly rewards teams for losing, and doesn’t reward outright winners in reg. Should be 3 points for an outright win, 2 for an OT win and 1 for a shootout win. ZERO points to the losers. Fuck rewarding failure just to make every team appear competitive.

The second, and rapidly climbing my hate list, are Coach’s Challenges. WTF. For a game as fast as ice hockey, to spend five minutes picking over whether a player’s foot was a fraction of a centimetre over the line is bullshit.

Whether the calls go for or against, they take too long, slow the game down, interfere with momentum and flow, and unless it was 100% an obvious mistake, on-ice calls should stand.

At least a failed challenge gets a penalty, but it should be 4 minutes short-handed for being an asshole who can’t motivate a team that needs challenges to try to win.

 

[Ray]

The officials are human and sometimes they miss a call that we see clearly on the screen. The challenge works well in making sure the right call was made.

 

[rlock]

The shootouts, the short & mutated regular season overtime, the "loser point" ... all circus tricks born from garbage thinking. The game ends tied? Let it be tied, end of story. Let OT be a playoff thing, and never use shootouts.


But on challenges, I'm okay with it. Mainly because the NHL refs & disciplinary system are fucked otherwise, and nobody trusts it to actually get the facts right.

 

[Billiam]

A couple of calls in the Canucks game the other night I don't get.
A goal waved off because of goaltender interference, but no penalty is called (seems to happen often).
Leivo is judged to be offside(rightly) on a play which we end up scoring on, the goal is rescinded, but the other team still has to serve a penalty(for slashing?) that occurred after the offside.

 

[Cock Throppled]

A couple of calls in the Canucks game the other night I don't get.
.
Leivo is judged to be offside(rightly) on a play which we end up scoring on, the goal is rescinded, but the other team still has to serve a penalty(for slashing?) that occurred after the offside.

On the surface, it makes no sense, but apparently it's done in case a player might get injured in that situation, and if no penalty was called it would be wrong, so they callthe penlty as if there was no call-back.

 

[lostviking]

I also hate the point to the loser on OT. Losing shouldn't be rewarded

 

[Cock Throppled]

Not even a coach's challenge - just a normal review, and they somehow allow Horvat's goal, despite an obvious kicking motion. How can something so obvious, so wrong?