The coach’s challenge in the NHL is a polarizing topic. Some fans want the league to make sure the call on the ice is correct no matter what. Others point out that different interpretations of the various rules present a series of complications highlighted by the coach’s challenge. Problems aside, are more fans in favor of the coach’s challenge or does the majority want to see it removed?
Based on a completely informal survey by Bob McKenzie, fans are evenly divided.
OK, how do you feel about coach's challenge?
— Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) April 16, 2016
The “can it” option narrowly won by 2% after 12,508 total votes. It’s not a huge sample size, but it offers some insight into where fans stand.
Video review in the NHL is necessary. It’s imperative to know if the puck is in the net or not and sometimes video review is the only way to find out. However, video review for an instance of goaltender interference is less clearly defined and interpreted differently depending on the official. That’s a problem.
Other big issues, including the one which popped up in the Blackhawks-Blues game, concerns the offside rule. The offside rule in itself could use work (simply crossing the plain vs. the current rule which requires a skate to be on the ice), but the fact an entry into the zone could rule out a goal which occurs potentially well after the play and by other players seems overly intricate. A team could challenge a goal in which a narrow offside infraction occurred but then the team kept the puck and cycled in the offensive zone without a stoppage. It’d then be possible for a goal scored by a player who wasn’t even on the ice during the offside call to be tossed out.
Concerning the NHL is trying to find ways to boost scoring, it seems kind of silly they’ll toss out a goal scored well after an offside call in which the player at fault has his toe a millimeter off the ice.
Technicalities and loosely interpreted rules could ruin the overall look and feel of NHL hockey and it looks like a large chunk of hockey fans aren’t on board.
