confirmed: Failed Offside Challenges Will Be Penalized; No More Timeout After Icings

[Phil]

The NHL is making a very interesting rule change for the 2017-18 season, introducing a harsher penalty for one particular video review.

 

From now on, a failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review. It?s a potentially powerful infraction. Can you imagine a team in a tight game giving up a goal it thought was offside, losing the challenge, then having to withstand an immediate power-play opportunity? It?s going to make bench bosses much more wary ? and ratchet up the pressure on video coaches.

 

Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same ? the loss of your timeout. That?s probably a wise decision, since there?s much more grey area than with an offside call.

 

Another adjustment that will have strategic impact. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck. The other club can still do so if it wishes, but tired defenders won?t be able to ask for the extra rest.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/new-rule-adds-pressure-nhl-coaches-asking-offside-challenge/

[Phil]

In the same theme:

 

:tweet: @jaygeemsg: NHL also committed to cracking down on stick use on hands/body. "Forceful-powerful chop" on radar; players must make effort to go for puck.

 

I guess we can call this the Marc Methot rule.

[josh]

Great, now you get a penalty for the ref being wrong twice.

 

typical NHL

[phillyb]

Great, now you get a penalty for the ref being wrong twice.

 

typical NHL

 

God, I hope they get the fucking calls right.

 

No TO after icing is gonna be cool. It'll even chop off 30 seconds of TV slot time, maybe, lol.

 

I really wish they'd drop the fucking puck quicker. HURRY UP FACEOFF

[josh]

No TO just means more sloppy play. And it just means Henke will have 2 more Pad strap issues and 1 helmet issue per game.

They had the hurry up faceoff for 2 seasons after the 05 lockout. A lot of complaints and inconsistencies. And goalie leg strap issues.

[Valriera]

I think penalizing the team that challenges an offside call is fine. There's no gray area with offside, so if you're challenging the play and you're wrong, it's not because you don't know if it was offside or not. It's because you're stalling and that should be penalized. Unfortunately, the offside challenges don't take that much time and the time spent on these is the issue, not the fact that they happen, so I'm not sure this change is going to do much to actually fix the real problem. Maybe it will stop a few.

 

The icing thing is fun but with these types of gamesmanship rules, the referees need to strictly enforce the whole goalie pad and equipment issues. That's a gray area and to be honest, they're not going to do it.

 

I would have actually rather have seen the league go a different route by combining these:

 

Any challenge costs your timeout, and if you don't have a timeout and you fail the challenge, you get a penalty, in every scenario. Solve the challenge problem that way and with fewer timeouts you solve the icing problem without placing more onus on the referees to do something they're not going to do.

[Long live the King]

Any challenge costs your timeout, and if you don't have a timeout and you fail the challenge, you get a penalty, in every scenario. Solve the challenge problem that way and with fewer timeouts you solve the icing problem without placing more onus on the referees to do something they're not going to do.

 

Or if you don't have a timeout, you can't challenge.

[josh]

Was there actually a "challenge" issue other than people not wanting to see their team lose a goal for? There's a hell of a lot more time wasting during a game than getting a call right.

[Valriera]

Or if you don't have a timeout, you can't challenge.

 

I don't mind that either however the point of the rule is to allow for bad goals not to count, and this discourages that. The amendments should focus on abuse of the rule, not changing it's primary mission since I think the primary mission is a good one.

 

To josh, one of the major issues involving challenges were that they took too long, sometimes lasting five or ten minutes, which completely destroys the flow of the game. Also, coaches would frequently use challenges as a timeout because it would last longer than a timeout and be a better momentum breaker, which is not the point of the thing.

[Long live the King]

I don't mind that either however the point of the rule is to allow for bad goals not to count, and this discourages that. The amendments should focus on abuse of the rule, not changing it's primary mission since I think the primary mission is a good one.

 

To josh, one of the major issues involving challenges were that they took too long, sometimes lasting five or ten minutes, which completely destroys the flow of the game. Also, coaches would frequently use challenges as a timeout because it would last longer than a timeout and be a better momentum breaker, which is not the point of the thing.

 

How many games are played in one night? 15 max? Why can they not have an 'official' in Toronto watching every game? He could review close entries while play continues and make a call to the scorekeeper if necessary. The notion that getting the call right has to come from a coach's challenge is silly, especially when the entry being challenged was several minutes prior to a whistle and a challenge. You should only be able to challenge (if anything) a goal score on the rush.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

after numerous failed tries at embedding a tweet:

 

John Giannone‏Verified account @jaygeemsg Sep 6

More

NHL also committed to cracking down on stick use on hands/body. "Forceful-powerful chop" on radar; players must make effort to go for puck.

 

 

Marc Methot‏Verified account

@MarcMethot3

Replying to @jaygeemsg

Fantastic.

 

 

[SaveByRichter35]

Haha, that's funny.

[GordonGecko]

wow big change on the icing timeout, that's going to impact games