BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Hockey Talk > Game On!

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-27-2014, 07:09 AM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 6,274

Originally Posted by Top Shelf View Post
Your initial reply added 15 minutes to a 2:25 hockey match for reviewing "every penalty"...then it somehow stretched to three hours. Two minutes for delay of game! Anyway, the suggested comparative sports examples don't work well IMO. People generally DO sit at a baseball game for three hours or more, depending on the number of extra innings...then, how about a few more hours, for a doubleheader? And football is even more popular, yet every game is at least three hours, plus more if there's OT or lots of reviews--and the NFL is consistently held up as an example of at least TRYING to use technology to get the most calls right they can. That's despite having a referee, linesmen, umpires, back judge, field judges, line judges...enough eyeballs to make a scallop jealous.

Anyone believing hockey fans dislike watching longer hockey games should check out the postseason. Come playoff time, games can go into OT, 2OT, 3OT...with a butt in every seat, right up to the final buzzer. (Another excellent argument for trashing the stupid shootout--during OT there's no streaming for the exits to "beat traffic".)

Bottom line, you can train refs for 10 years and pay them $10 million, and it will still be physically impossible to see and judge everything happening at NHL speeds. Saying they should use video for majors only is essentially equivalent to saying use video never, with major penalties (aside from fighting) being rare as frog's teeth. Somewhere between "every penalty" and "virtually never" lies the happy medium that would vastly improve the sport IMO

Edit to add: Who are these "8 sets of eyes"? Are we doubling the officiating crew, are tarantulas wearing the stripes now, or what?
Haha, I'm thinking worst case scenario if you have 15 extra minutes plus overtime plus shootout.

To an extent, but I think training would go a long way. Maybe not pay as much, but I put training along with having all on-ice officials consult with each other on what was seen at their angle as a part of the training.

Sorry, my mind is going on me, 8 total eyes (4 sets). I meant 8 eyes and for whatever reason am sticking set in there like an idiot. I still just feel reviewing all penalties like that is just too much.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2014, 08:21 AM
Top Shelf's Avatar
Top Shelf Top Shelf is offline
Cooper's Law
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,135

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO View Post
I still just feel reviewing all penalties like that is just too much.
No one else is saying "reviewing all penalties". That exaggeration is a needless, though harmless, straw man. If Hedman or Gudas whiffs on a stick check, then jams his twig between a puck carrier's legs and drops him right in front of the ref to kill a breakaway, that doesn't need review. In fact, MOST calls wouldn't. Naturally there would be a raft of fouls that wouldn't even be eligible for review, just as in the NFL.

[Thread drift. This topic is interesting and deserves a worthwhile discussion but probably not in a GDT]
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, All Rights Reserved.