Men's General

MANALAPAN, Fla. — This might take a while. 

When it comes to discussing the potential expansion of the coach’s challenge through video review, as the NHL’s general managers did on Day 1 of this week’s meetings in Palm Beach County, that’s probably a good thing. Because there’s a cost to trying to get everything right, and it’s one many of the game’s fans would argue isn’t worth paying.

Some of its players would argue that, too.

Take Connor McDavid, for example. He’s considered the best in the world, and when he spoke out over an overturned goal after a seemingly interminable offside review in what turned out to be a 2-1 win for his Edmonton Oilers over the Chicago Blackhawks back in January, what he said not only struck a chord around the hockey world but also in the league’s offices.

“If it takes you 15 minutes to determine if it’s offside or not, it probably doesn’t really matter,” McDavid said then.

In this case, as NHL Senior Executive and Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell pointed out after Monday’s meeting wrapped, it took officials only four minutes and 15 seconds to decide Leon Draisaitl was offside. 

But he didn’t debate the validity of McDavid’s point.

That’s why the NHL won’t necessarily rush to extend video review to puck-over-glass, tripping or crosschecking penalties before thoroughly evaluating how to properly implement them.

“Our job is to make sure we keep the fans happy, we keep the entertainment in the game and advance skill out there,” said Campbell.

Delaying it further threatens that.

Still, the general managers and league officials have to consider all scenarios and take advantage of innovations in technology to, above all else, get things right. So expansion of video review will continue to take centre stage at these annual meetings, and it’ll probably eventually come to pass even if no changes are made over the coming days.

The airing of grievances isn’t likely to stop it.

“(Frustration over delays) might linger for five to six minutes in a game,” said Campbell, “but if you get the wrong call, it could linger for five or six weeks after a game, or longer.”

As he also pointed out, getting the wrong call on a play that decides a game for the Stanley Cup could linger forever.

That’s especially true regarding puck-over-glass penalties, where conferences between officials are already regularly held in the immediate aftermath of the play to determine whether or not the puck was deflected.

Considering that’s a play that requires a whistle regardless, it’s worth considering reviewing it further.

Hence Monday’s discussion.

“We discussed puck-over-glass and discussed it pretty thoroughly today,” said Campbell. “We discussed: Should we look at taking a penalty down and adding a penalty, or just taking a penalty down (based on review)? Because it’s tough after a game when you added a penalty that wasn’t (called) a penalty (in real time). That’s real hard for the fans of a team to take.”

They’re not digesting long reviews of offsides and goaltender interference penalties well either, so we’re not sure how they’ll feel about the NHL sliding down the slippery slope of adding even one more infraction to take second, third and fourth looks at.

Another thing: fans, players and coaches—and yes, especially reporters—gripe about is how long it takes for linesmen to drop the puck on faceoffs.

But at least some of the GMs would like for them to be even more vigilant about enforcing the rules on these plays.

As it stands now, players who cheat on the draw are thrown out and replaced by a player who will be assessed a penalty for also cheating.

But the process has become somewhat elaborate and exhausting without necessarily deterring cheating on faceoffs, so there’s some consideration being put into amending it.

“We talked about the fact, I know it’s crazy, but instead of kicking a guy out you give him a one-minute penalty,” said Campbell. “Instead of kicking a guy out, you say he cheated and throw the puck to the defenceman like you would playing ball hockey.”

It’s unimaginable either of those ideas get greenlit.

But for the conversation to go in such directions, it signifies faceoffs are obviously an area of concern for the game’s biggest power brokers.

They all agree on one thing: They want more consistency in the application of the rules, and not just on faceoffs.

The GMs, as they always do, also expressed desire to see the rules amended to be as black and white as possible—especially pertaining to offside, with hopes to eliminate lengthy reviews by making the language around the rule clearer.

“Do we make it easy to call? Black and white: Feet have to go over second, puck’s gotta go over first?” asked Campbell. “Or do we leave it a little bit grey and make those decisions ourselves if it’s a skilled play and it wasn’t offside? 

“I can’t give you answers today.”

It’s best to take the time to think long and hard about it.

Just like GMs will take time to evaluate empowering referees to determine whether a hand pass is accidental or intentional.

There are some benefits to ignoring when a puck flares off a player’s hand rather than blowing it dead for a hand pass. The flow of the game being disrupted by accidental contact with a player’s hand doesn’t seem necessary, nor does calling off a goal under those circumstances. 

“We don’t want to take goals off the board,” said Nashville Predators GM Barry Trotz. “I think the one thing that frustrates fans sometimes is taking too many goals off the board.”

As meetings continue through Wednesday, there will be emphasis on how the game can be tweaked to put more goals on the board.

“I always quote my friend Bob Gainey, who was on the initial competition committee back in ‘4-05 when we made all our changes,” said Campbell, ‘but one aspect we always considered was: How can we gain offence in the game and punish defence?’”

It’s in that vein that amending the rules of three-on-three overtime was initially broached as a subject at the November meetings.

Back then, there was some appetite in the room to prohibit teams from being able to regroup past the red line after crossing it.

But that appetite doesn’t appear to be too large, according to some who were in the room on Monday.

“I was one of the ones that originated on control and reorganizing and attacking players and using it as a baiting tactic,” said Trotz, who was coaching the Washington Capitals when three-on-three overtime was adopted in 2015. “There’s 70 per cent of our games ending in overtime with a winner, so I don’t see that one going. You’re asking for more stoppages, and I’d say 90 per cent of the overtimes are really good. For the 10 per cent you don’t like because they’re not going end to end, it’s not worth it.”

Campbell said he doesn’t feel anything is in need of fixing when it comes to overtime, but added the conversation is still always worth having.

“We’ve got to be fair to the game and keep asking: Is there a problem,” he said.

But Campbell knows solutions must be fleshed out as elaborately as possible before invoking change.

More from Sportsnet

Maple Leafs’ Marner to miss two-game road trip due to high-ankle sprain

Senators have long way to go to be like contending Hurricanes

Source link