Your cart

The Play is Under Review: The NHL Coach’s Challenge And Its Impact On The Game

 

The NHL implemented a Coach’s Challenge prior to the 2015-2016 NHL season. With the Coach’s Challenge, teams were given the opportunity for expanded video review on goals that may have been affected by an offside play or goaltender interference. However, since its adoption, the effectiveness of the challenge has been widely questioned. Many games, and even some playoff series, have been overshadowed by the influence of the Coach’s Challenge rather than the games themselves. With the All-Star Break and the annual General Manager’s meeting coming up, the League should take the opportunity to revisit its implementation prior to the 2017 Stanley Cup Playoffs to avoid further controversy.

The NHL’s Rule 83.1 defines the parameters for an offside play: “players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.” Since the addition of the Coach’s Challenge, the defending team has the ability to challenge a goal resulting from a play that should have been stopped due to an offside infraction. An offside challenge will only be reviewed if: “(a) the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again; or (b) all members of the attacking team do not clear the attacking zone again, between the time of the ‘Off-Side’ play and the time the goal is scored.”

Teams may also challenge a goal that they believe was caused as the result of goaltender interference. An on-ice call of a goal may be challenged if the defending team sees interference that should disallow it. Additionally, a goal disallowed on the grounds of goaltender interference can be challenged to prove the goal is legal by asserting “(i) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; or (ii) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (iii) the attacking Player’s positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernible impact on the play.”

The NHL and NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA) outlined the procedure in a joint statement: “The video review process and all decisions on goals where goaltender interference may have occurred will be the responsibility of the Referees at ice level, in consultation with the NHL’s Situation Room in Toronto; similarly, goals that may have resulted from an offside play will be reviewed and determined by the on-ice officials, in consultation with the NHL’s Situation Room in Toronto.”

A challenge must be requested after the goal in question is scored, but before play resumes. In order to initiate a Coach’s Challenge, the team must still have its timeout. If the call on the ice is overturned from the challenge, the challenging team retains their timeout. However, if the call is not overturned, the team forfeits their time out.

All goals scored in the final minute of regulation or at any point during overtime are automatically reviewed by League Hockey Operations. After the league initiated review to determine if it is a “good hockey goal,” the play can still be challenged by the coaches. However, NHL Rule 38.4 may deem the Coach’s Challenge unnecessary after Hockey Operations’ review, which would preserve a team’s challenge and timeout.

The League equipped all arenas with technology––a tablet, television, or computer monitor––for on-ice officials to view replays of the challenged play. The on-ice official is in contact immediately with the Toronto Video Room after a challenge is requested to report what the final call on the ice was and what was observed on the play. The on-ice official then determines what the final decision is on the challenge after consulting with the Toronto Video Room. There must be conclusive evidence to overturn the on-ice call, so if the review is inconclusive, the original on-ice call must stand.

. . . . .

Although offside goals have occurred throughout the history of the NHL, in the 2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs an offside goal had major implications. During the Stanley Cup Playoffs in particular, accuracy is not just expected but demanded––even more so during sudden-death overtime. In Game 1 of the second round of the 2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Tampa Bay Lightning faced the Montréal Canadiens. Lightning forward Nikita Kucherov scored in the first overtime, but that goal was (correctly) disallowed. But in the second overtime, Kucherov scored again. This time, the goal was allowed even though it appeared to be scored on a offside play.

Lightning forward Valtteri Filppula had entered the offensive zone prior to teammate Brian Boyle sending the puck in. The on-ice official missed the offside play, which allowed play to proceed, and Kucherov subsequently scored. However, the goal could not have been reviewed or disallowed because an offside goal was not within the NHL’s rules for video review of goals scored.

The Tampa Bay Lightning set the tone of the series with that win, by winning Game 1 in Montréal. Eventually, the Canadiens lost the series in six games to the Lightning, which may not have been the result had the game-winning goal in Game 1 been disallowed.

Although Kucherov’s goal was only one goal in the entire series, its significance led to the consideration and ultimate adoption of a rule allowing the review of goals resulting from an offside play.

. . . . .

Similarly, the lack of video review for goals that result from goaltender interference was amplified during the 2014 Stanley Cup Finals. In a single game, the NHL’s rules on goaltender interference were put under the microscope twice. Los Angeles Kings’ forward Dwight King scored in the third period against New York Rangers’ goaltender Henrik Lundqvist in Game 2. Lundqvist felt he was interfered with by King on the play, and therefore the goal should not have been allowed. Although there was clear contact between King and Lundqvist, the NHL’s rules stated, “the rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the referee(s) and not by means of video replay or review.” Therefore, the on-ice officials had to make a split-second decision due to the limitations of the rule. Ultimately, the goal counted.

Later in that same game, Rangers forward Benoit Pouliot was called for goaltender interference on Kings’ goalie Jonathan Quick. Lundqvist noted the similarities in the two plays, but the difference in calls. “Benny got pushed in and tried to avoid him, and he gets two minutes. And the puck was not even there. Then, we have the same play and they score. I don’t think it’s a penalty, but you’ve got to stop the play if the goalie can’t move in his crease. It’s not like I’m outside the crease. I play pretty deep. Just be consistent with it.”

These plays did not go unnoticed. Former NHL referee Kerry Fraser disagreed with the call on the Dwight King goal: “There would be no guarantee that the referee would impose a minor penalty on Dwight King, as he should, but more to the point, the goal would have been disallowed, whether the contact was deemed deliberate or incidental.”

The following November, the League reviewed the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoff games when considering expanding video review. After reviewing the games, it was announced that NHL noted three goals that should have been overturned––one of which was Dwight King’s goal against the New York Rangers.

. . . . .

The Coach’s Challenge was implemented to give teams the opportunity to ensure the right call is made on scoring plays. The instances from the playoffs discussed above exemplify just how crucial it is to make the correct call, and why video review is necessary.

At the General Managers’ meetings in March 2016, the status of the Coach’s Challenge was analyzed. To ensure accuracy for the 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs, blue-line cameras were installed in the arenas of those competing in the postseason. This camera angle provides officials with an additional view that is helpful when determining whether a play is offside.

Chicago Blackhawks’ General Manager Stan Bowman addressed the Coach’s Challenge progress from the season up to that point at the meeting: “You’ve gotta to look back at the reason we did these coach’s challenges originally was to try to take care of the egregious mistakes. We’ve certainly done that. There’s been no (incidents) where everyone afterwards is thinking ’Boy we got that wrong.’” Bowman added, “The few ones that go against you, you’re still better off than you were a year ago… My point is if we don’t have a coach’s challenge you’re no better off.”

At the conclusion of the 2015-2016 Regular Season, the total number of Coach’s Challenges was 266––152 for goaltender interference and 88 for an offside play. In 121 of the 152 goaltender interference challenges (approximately 79%), the original on-ice ruling was upheld; the on-ice ruling was similarly upheld in 53 of the 88 offside challenges (approximately 60%).

. . . . .

The Coach’s Challenge has resulted in a number of controversial calls. Game 2 of the first round of the 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs between the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues saw a controversial Coach’s Challenge for goaltender interference. It appeared that Blackhawks’ forward Andrew Shaw had made contact with Blues’ goaltender Brian Elliott. The original call on the ice was a goal, which stood after Blues’ coach Ken Hitchcock challenged the play. The NHL’s official ruling stated, “After reviewing all available replays and consulting with NHL Hockey Operations staff, the Referee confirmed no goaltender interference infractions occurred before the puck crossed the goal line.” Elliott stressed how it is important to not get in those situations to avoid a questionable call deciding a game: “I don’t know what the rules are any more, every play is so different. It’s up to the refs on the ice to make the call, it’s not one person kind of calling everything. I don’t know what the call is.”

The issue with goaltender interference challenges is the consistency in the calls because there is more discretion than an offside challenge; as Elliott said, every play is different. Blackhawks’ goaltender Scott Darling has noticed inconsistencies in these calls too. “I’ve had goals scored against me with twice as much interference as the last two that we’ve had and it didn’t get overturned.”

Many goals that were challenged for being offside have also caused quite a stir. With the Coach’s Challenge, something that had not been considered in the history of the NHL, is now under a microscope. In many of these situations, the challenges has affected the outcome of a game––such as in Game 2 of the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues 2016 playoff series. St. Louis Blues forward Jori Lehtera was so narrowly offside on a play that Vladimir Tarasenko scored on, which cost the Blues a potential game-winning goal. Instead, the Blackhawks scored and ended up winning that game. The NHL and General Managers stressed how the intention of the Coach’s Challenge was to correct egregious calls­­. So, for a play that was so narrowly offside, questions have arisen as to whether it should be challenged or if it should fall under the human error category.

In Game 3 of the first round of the 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs between the New York Islanders and Florida Panthers, an offside challenge was considered to be the turning point of that game by the New York Islanders. Islanders’ defenseman Thomas Hickey elaborated: “I thought the turning point was that offside call. You won’t find me saying that too much, I don’t enjoy watching those when I’m watching the game but [the referees and linesmen] took their time and they got it right. Our fans rallied and I think there was a life, an energy on the bench we got out of that.” Adding to the controversial challenge was the fact that the Panthers did not score for another ten seconds after that zone entry, and in hockey there is so much that could have happened in those ten seconds before the goal was scored that would have negated the influence of the offside zone entry.

Players have questioned the process, particularly for those close calls. For example, San Jose Sharks’ Brenden Dillion scored a goal on the Columbus Blue Jackets that was challenged as an offside play. The review took over eight minutes, showing how close the call was. Dillion discussed how frustrating the break in play for something so minor can be. “If there’s no conclusive evidence right away, and you have to not just phone a friend, get the 50/50 and ask the audience, at that time, that’s why you have [the linesmen] on the ice.”

Sharks’ coach Pete DeBoer acknowledged how the right call was made, but that there are issues in the process. “As good as the technology is, you’re talking about millimeters of space. Those are tough calls. I don’t know what the delay was. I know that the on-ice officials said they didn’t have the same angle that the NHL did, so they went to Toronto and had some different angles.”

Sharks’ forward Logan Couture noted that a team may see a momentum shift after a Coach’s Challenge, similar to the Islanders instance. “It kind of drains the energy from the building and the game. I don’t think the [Coach’s Challenge] was intended for that. It’s too close to effect a play. The ones that are obvious, you want to get those right.”

. . . . .

The NHL’s implementation of a Coach’s Challenge was intended to ensure efficiency, regardless of how major or minor the infraction. Unfortunately there have been noticeable results from the challenges, including momentum swings, time spent, and inconsistent rulings.

Commissioner Gary Bettman sees the need for efficiency for something that can appear to be so minor, citing a Tampa Bay Lightning goal scored by Jonathan Drouin in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference final. “Everybody in Pittsburgh would have been screaming if we didn’t get the call right. Whether or not we use video replay, there are so many cameras television has that they get to see. The better question is do you want to have an offside rule? I’m not advocating that we should get rid of the offside rule but the notion the rule was only violated by a little… either you enforce the rule or you don’t.” Bettman continued to defend the challenge by saying, “If we don’t get it right and say, ‘It was only over by a little,’ then the other team and its fans and everybody watching the game is going to say, ‘How are you enforcing the rules?’”

The addition of the Coach’s Challenge does take away some of the human element of hockey. The errors from the human element are often overlooked, unless the error somehow results in a goal scored, so the challenges clearly have merit. However, the league likely did not intend for the challenge to become such a storyline, especially not in the playoffs where a Coach’s Challenge could potentially affect the outcome of a game, series, or a team’s entire season. Yet isn’t the objective to be as accurate as possible? Is it not imperative to ensure the correct call is made, no matter how minor the potential infraction may be?

If it is determined that the accuracy is in fact the priority, there are still issues that need to be resolved, including whether a time limit should be instituted for how long a challenge takes. Other issues include the time between the zone entry and the goal scored, or whether the challenge should only be in place on goals scored directly after the entry. As for goaltender interference, the issues likely will continue to revolve around the inconsistency of the calls because of how unique every play is. Should there be more rules for goaltender interference to at least minimize the issues? Or is the fluidity of the rules better because the NHL knows every scenario will be so different?

The League has the perfect opportunity to resolve these questions, both during the All-Star Break and at the General Managers’ meeting in March. Hopefully they take full advantage of these meetings to address the lingering uncertainty and ensure that the Coaches Challenge does not become the primary narrative of the 2017 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Yet even after those issues are resolved, it will still be impossible to satisfy every team, player, and fan. Ultimately, all questions regarding Coach’s Challenge and overall video reviews will come down to this question: how much technology is too much before it impedes on the game?

← Back to SportTechie