The National Hockey League started utilizing video review in 1991 in an effort to resolve questionable goals. Originally, goal judges in each arena reviewed the disputed goals. In 2003, the NHL created a “Situation Room,” which resides in Toronto’s Air Canada Centre, to give league officials a singular location to monitor every game and review all contestable plays.
Once a review is triggered, officials in Toronto analyze the goal from all available angles in order to make the most accurate determination. The NHL has implemented Hawk-Eye “SMART Replay” technology uniformly in every arena to provide numerous vantage points to review from. According to the NHL’s 2015-2016 official rules, the video goal judges’ duties include:
38.1 General Duties – The following are the general duties of the Video Goal Judge:
(i) He will review replays of disputed goals when requested to do so by the Referees.
(ii) He will review replays of disputed goals when he observes an incident that was undetected by on-ice officials.
(iii) After viewing the incident he will promptly convey his decision directly to the Referee at the penalty bench. When a play has been referred to the Video Goal Judge, his decision shall be final.
(iv) During the review he may consult with a member of the League’s Hockey Operations or Officiating department staff if latter is in attendance at the game (or via telephone).
(v) Any potential goal requiring video review must be reviewed prior to or during the next stoppage of play. No goal may be awarded (or disallowed) as a result of video review once the puck has been dropped and play has resumed.
Over time the NHL has expanded what plays are reviewable, such as: whether a puck fully crosses the goal line, whether a puck crosses before time expires or a goal frame is dislodged, if a goal is distinctly kicked in or deliberately batted in by any part of the player’s body, or if a puck is deflected with a high stick (above the crossbar). Also subject to video review are goals that are deflected in the net off of an official, or goals that cross the line after a referee stops play (or is in the process of stopping play) due to losing sight of the puck.
Get The Latest NHL Tech News In Your Inbox!
Prior to the 2015-2016 season, a Coach’s Challenge was introduced which enables coaches to challenge a goal that has either been scored on an offsides play (“players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone”) or as a result of goaltender interference. Prior to the Coach’s Challenge, goaltender interference and offsides were not reviewable plays, leaving officials to make split-second decisions on whether or not to count a goal.
If a coach wants to initiate a Coach’s Challenge, the team must have their one timeout remaining. If the challenge is successful, the team keeps their timeout. However, if the challenge does not overturn the call on the ice, the team forfeits their only timeout. The on-ice officials have the authority over Coach’s Challenges reviews, but have the option to consult with Toronto’s Situation Room.
At the 2016 General Managers meetings, video review was a topic of discussion. Although there will not be an immediate change, the General Managers considered whether the Coach’s Challenge review should only be performed by the NHL Situation Room since they are better equipped than referees, who only have access to an HD tablet. Taylor Hall of the Edmonton Oilers is in favor of another party making the final decision, rather than the referees on the ice for another reason: “I feel like we’d be better served if this went to a third party. There has to be some kind of mediator here. It’s not in our nature to admit we’re wrong.”
Offsides reviews were specifically looked at, and the consensus was to install blue-line cameras in time for the playoffs. Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell discussed the change: “that’s the one in-season tweak we can make. It’s not a rule change; it’s just helping make the process better.”
The change comes after Minnesota Wild goaltender Devan Dubnyk criticized the review process for upholding a goal on a play he believed to be offsides.
Dubnyk on 2nd goal:”it’s so offside that both our defense men stopped playing. Guys on the other bench are laughing after the goal.” #mnaild
— Michael Russo (@Russostrib) March 7, 2016
Dubnyk: “you’ve got the guy that made the call on the ice looking at the iPad making the call, it doesn’t really make much sense”
— Michael Russo (@Russostrib) March 7, 2016
Dubnyk: “you don’t have the guy on the ice making call on an iPad that’s 4 inches big. Doesn’t make sense.” Thinks Toronto should make call
— Michael Russo (@Russostrib) March 7, 2016
While the addition of a Coach’s Challenge, goal-post cameras, and blue-line cameras have contributed to the game becoming more efficient, there are unfortunately still some glaring errors. The expectation is not perfection, but when the league invests both time and money in replay technology the expectation is higher; this frustration was best expressed by Columbus Blue Jackets head coach John Tortorella: “I think we should just get rid of it. And let the refs make the call, because if we spend two or three minutes and a coach wastes his time-out to try and get the call right, and we still get it wrong, then why have it.”
In order to overturn any calls made on the ice, there must be conclusive evidence proving the goal is either legal or illegal. This has been particularly controversial when reviewing whether the puck has passed the goal line. Somehow, even with the goal cameras and goal-post cameras focusing on the goal line, these calls have been highly controversial.
A game between the Edmonton Oilers and Los Angeles Kings created controversy in the final seconds of the game after Connor McDavid appeared to score to tie the game. Jonathan Quick attempted to cover the puck with his glove. But prior to the whistle, Quick’s glove—with the puck underneath it—crossed the goal line. Since the puck cannot be seen underneath the glove, it was ruled that there was inconclusive evidence that the puck crossed the goal line—even though all camera angles (and logic) show Quick’s glove crossing the goal line after he covered the puck. Still, because it was determined to be inconclusive the initial no-goal call on the ice stood. If the goal was allowed, the Oilers would have tied the game in the final seconds and reached overtime.
Inconclusive goals are frustrating enough, but a technological breakdown while analyzing a potential goal is even more problematic. Earlier this month, in a game between the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals, there was a technological breakdown that resulted in the Rangers not having the proper footage to review a goal. The Rangers challenged the play because it appeared to be inconclusive from the rest of the available camera angles. Unfortunately, it was the missing goal-post camera footage that showed the most conclusive evidence. Coaches are supposed to have access to the footage from goal-post cameras, while television networks do not.
I’m told the reason all of us watching didn’t see these (until late at night on MSG) is feeding from this particular camera took a long time
— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) March 5, 2016
Had the Rangers had access to that feed, they likely would not have wasted their Coach’s Challenge and consequently their timeout. That sequence of events was detrimental to the Rangers, shifting momentum to the Capitals—who were able to comeback to win the game starting with Beagle’s contested goal.
The NHL Situation Room denied the Boston Bruins a crucial goal in a game against the Florida Panthers. Based on the reviewed footage, it appeared that the puck was conclusively behind the goal line. Toronto, on the other hand, did not feel there was enough definitive evidence showing the puck crossing the goal line, and the Bruins were rightfully livid.
Video review in the NHL is flawed and the league should strive for a better system. While the league employees use high-end technology, there are too many malfunctions—like coaches not having access to certain footage. First and foremost, the objective needs to be established: is the NHL more concerned with time allotted to this process, or is it more important to ensure that the game is operating at the highest accuracy possible?
Darren Dreger recently reported that the league is working on a puck-tracking technology that would end inconclusive rulings, but that technology is not near ready for usage. Until then, the NHL needs to look at alternate options.
The newly affixed blue-line cameras should provide the most conclusive look at offsides thus far, but the issue still remains at the net. Goal-post cameras are not functional in all of the NHL’s thirty arenas and those with the goal-post cameras have proven that additional angles are still necessary.
Implementing crossbar cameras may be the next best option, providing a much needed view of the goal line. The NHL has experimented with this angle and seen how useful this angle could be, but has not yet ruled on whether or not to equip nets due to the complicated installation required.
Until puck-tracking is available, the most substantial change the NHL could make in the reviewing process is rewriting the criteria. The present rules are fundamentally subjective, resulting in inconsistencies in video review. Washington Capitals forward Justin William expressed his confusion on the difference in calls on similar instances, “I don’t like it at all, not just because we got the short end of the stick tonight. We’ve had three calls go to a review, and I’m not really sure what was the difference in any of them.”
The NHL is intent on keeping the human element of the game in tact—which the league should continue to do. That said, the league has implemented technology for a reason: to improve the game. Since the technology is already in use, the criteria needs to be more structured to ensure there can be a definitive justification for each instance.
Controversial calls will undoubtedly always exist in the NHL, but the league should strive to minimize as many as possible. Changes need to be made in how these calls are assessed; those changes could reestablish the NHL’s video review system, making the NHL as efficient as possible.