Yardbarker
x
Clarification Please: The NHL's offsides review still a work in progress
Head coach Peter Laviolette of the Nashville Predators has a discussion with officials after a goal by the San Jose Sharks appeared to be offsides during the 2016 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs. Challenges over offsides calls can be momentum killers to both teams. Frederick Breedon/Getty Images

Clarification Please: The NHL's offsides review still a work in progress

Welcome to Clarification Please, an ongoing series in which Yardbarker will take a look at rulings that have players, coaches and fans a bit puzzled. Whether it is regarding old "unwritten rules" or a new subsection IV schedule, these are some rules in which we would like to get more clarification from the leagues.

In its freshman campaign, the NHL’s coaches challenge had plenty of critics, especially when it came to challenging that a play was potentially offsides. Now, about a season-and-a-half after NHL Rule 83.1 could be challenged, there are still some flies in the ointment. While the coaches challenge as a whole has a lot of upside, there still seems to be some mixed feelings when it comes to the offsides review.

"... the game has never been faster, never been more competitive or entertaining… The notion that we call back a goal because there’s a toe over the line – the rule is the rule." - Gary Bettman, NHL Commissioner 

Now, if you asked Gary Bettman about it, he would probably tell you the ruling is tops. The Commissioner told reporters during last year’s Stanley Cup Final that “the game has never been faster, never been more competitive or entertaining… The notion that we call back a goal because there’s a toe over the line – the rule is the rule. And I have no doubt if we didn’t get it right that that toe was over the line, there would be a lot of screaming about the fact that we got the call wrong.”

Yet there is still screaming, whether it is from players – see Devan Dubnyk’s candid comments from last March – or from fans watching the game at home. Mike Murphy, NHL vice-president of hockey operations, explained back in October of 2015: "The reason we instituted it was so that we could get the egregious calls particularly right, ones that everybody alive sees and says, 'This is the wrong call, it's a screw-up.'"  

But at this point in 2017, the coaches challenge for a play being offsides is still a work in progress – especially when it comes to a team losing their timeout, or how much time the review process is sucking out of games.

The fragility of the challenge process heightens coaches’ concern over the possibility of the team losing their timeout. To refresh: If a coach is successful in challenging a goal, all is well. But if they aren’t, then they lose their timeout. In many circumstances this is a low-risk gamble, challenging the call is just as good as giving your team a breather. But for others it results in a negative momentum shift and the loss of a timeout.

This is something that the Arizona Coyotes dealt with just last week in a tilt against the Minnesota Wild. Coyotes coach Dave Tippett challenged a third period tie-breaking goal by Minnesota’s Nino Niederreiter, saying the Wild were offsides on the play. Tippett told AZ Central after the game: “The look that I had, it was borderline inconclusive… But at the time of the game, you wing it and hopefully you might get a break."

The end result was the league concluding that the goal was good and would not be overturned, therefore forfeiting Arizona’s timeout. The Desert Dogs ended up losing that game 4-3.

The prospect of losing the timeout during a challenge can also change whether or not a coach wants to call a timeout and give their team a chance to regroup, if need be. San Jose Sharks bench boss Peter DeBoer expressed the in-game concern over losing a timeout following a 5-4 loss in early January. In this game – coincidentally also against the Wild – DeBoer thought about calling a timeout in a raucous third period to try to give his team a chance to regroup. DeBoer told the press after the game: 

“The momentum swung (to Minnesota) and we didn’t stop it. “On me, I (could) probably think about using a timeout. But at that point you’re wondering if maybe you need one for a challenge at some point. They’ve become so valuable… With the importance of the challenges on goals, it’s hard to use that.”

Momentum is another thing that the offsides challenge is effecting. Even with the addition of those blue line cameras, there is concern from the players and coaches side is that the officials on the ice can’t possibly be making the best call possible when they are watching a review of the play on a tiny tablet. The linesman have to go off watching the replay using TV broadcast footage – which we all know isn’t the best vantage point – and squinting at that screen can take quite a while. Sure, the idea of the challenge is to get another look at these razor thin margins, and the officials want to get those calls right. But there are cases where the difficulty in the process of analyzing these calls is only taking time out of the game.

“Video review is great when it works but sticks out like an angry pimple when it’s clumsy.” - Gary Lawless, The Sports Network

TSN senior correspondent Gary Lawless pointed out exactly this back in October, explaining that “the offsides review is good in theory” but the long wait is an energy-killer. In recalling a game where the review took nine minutes he wrote: “Video review is great when it works but sticks out like an angry pimple when it’s clumsy.”

That, honestly, might be the most concise way to describe the process.

So of course now we ponder where to go from here. What changes could make the offsides review better? Lawless suggested a time limit on the review process – which would cover reviews for both offsides and goalie interference—and that could help the momentum problem. In turn, if the review process is less of a pain and time-suck, perhaps coaches won’t be as concerned with potentially losing their timeout. And the suggestion for the NHL war room to have more say in the review process isn’t a terrible idea, although with the large number of challenges for offsides, that could get a bit chaotic. (Not to forget that the league is looking at the same broadcast footage that the linesman are, so the review process might end up being just as long.) Puck-tracking technology might be the best solution here, although that technology isn’t available yet.

The whole point of offsides review is to catch the egregious calls. But the review process still needs some work so it doesn’t reach egregious levels itself.

More must-reads:

Customize Your Newsletter

+

Get the latest news and rumors, customized to your favorite sports and teams. Emailed daily. Always free!

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.