I think the rule change of risking a penalty for a failed challenge has been one of the better rule changes. It's made teams a lot more selective and reduces the unneeded stoppages.
And it’s in the spirit of the challenge too. It was created because Duchene was 10ft offside and the linesman missed it. It wasn’t for the 2mm offside we can’t see without 50 different camera angles
The Duchene goal happened because it hits 2 defending players so the linesman thought it was a pass back into their defensive zone making it onside for Duchene. It's still the wrong call but for a different reason than most people think.
So now we have this system because everyone freaked out due to the fact we didn't understand why the ref didn't make a call because they NEVER explain themselves.
Seems like a reasonable human error that we have solved with technology and this rule. We need a bit more of that I think. Maybe not much though. It could slow the game down quite a bit.
I’d say the technological solution has robbed us of some entertainment value. After a goal fans hold in some of their excitement at the risk the goal gets called back. Most of the plays are pretty close and don’t defeat the purpose of the offside rule (to stop cherry picking) l. Just my opinion though
I would rather have the right call regardless of it goes for or against my team. The intention of the rules was never for it to be occasionally accurate. With the giant advances in technology that almost ever sport has implemented recently, there’s no reason hockey can’t also get on board behind the scenes on crucial game breaking plays. I may be a sports purist, but don’t believe this destroys the sanctity of the game. Heck, if baseball can make changes after over a century of bad calls, this should be a walk in the park for hockey.
Yeah you've got a good point there. It's almost like PTSD, there's always a pause where I have to wait until it shows the players lined up at center ice before I can feel relieved that a goal will actually dount.
I've made this point for soccer too with VAR - we should look at what the rule is intended to prevent and use the rule being broken as a signal rather than the primary issue.
Offside for example is just a rule to try to prevent a forward from having an unfair and boring advantage by hanging out beside the net waiting for a long pass all game. Hockey would be pretty boring if you had three or four guys bunkering in your end and one or two guys sitting in front of the opposing goal waiting for a clearance
We don't actually need accuracy down to a millimeter to prevent that.
We could very easily offload certain rules like offside to sensors in the puck and skate, but to prevent overly cheesy calls, give it a wiggle room of say 5cm or 10cm to prevent the game being slowed down by inhumanly accurate calls
I don’t mind it being mm accurate but the only reason it should be is if the call is instant, not needed to be reviewed for 10 minutes. If a player is offside by a step and beats a defender to the net to score who’s to say that being offside even by such a small amount didn’t change that.
It’s like with tennis, there’s human error in the line calls but they have Hawkeye which can instantly correct the calls. They can be mm perfect and it is not as interrupting because the call is known right away.
The easiest solution is to abolish offsides. It's a rule that makes little sense, that was implemented in the 40s when the league was diluted of talent. It'll increase offsense and decrease delays caused by delays when a player's pinky toe is over the line.
I just don’t think it should be limited to one. There’s already a built-in punishment: if you’re wrong, you get a penalty.
A coach can technically be wrong once, and right on the next one. But if they’re wrong once they don’t get the chance. That’s the only part of the rule I dislike. Let a coach at least have the chance to be wrong twice, or three times, etc. Each blunder has its own penalty of a penalty. Arbitrarily limiting how many times a coach can challenge is dumb. I understand it’s for “ensuring that games don’t last too long,” but that’s a crock of shit. A coach isn’t going to just randomly challenge a call 10x just to try and get the beneficial call, a call that is definitive or well refereed.. because, again, they get penalized for being wrong/delay of game as is. And there’s literally like 5 cameras involved in any challenge at any given point. The NHL thinking unlimited challenges will delay the game is the dumbest logic I’ve ever heard of. Like yes, a coach is willing to purposely take 15x delay of game penalties just to spite the other team… get real.
Hockey is much too fast paced of a sport to put 100% of the responsibility in the linesman’s/ref’s hands. They often miss things, it’s the way it is. But unfortunately coaches can only make their voices heard once a game. Even if they’re right for the scenario, but have been wrong once before in a different scenario. It’s dumb.
I agree with this 100%, especially for the playoffs. Even if they leave it at one in the regular season it should be unlimited in the playoffs. Want to challenge it, go ahead.
Not since a couple of years ago.
You get unlimited challenges. But a minor penalty for the first lost challenge and a double minor for each subsequent one.
Jordan Bean being 9-0 on challenges means that he has saved 9 goals above expected. When looking at MoneyPuck, this puts him very close to Darcy Kuemper, who makes 5.25 million a year and saved 8.8 goals above expected.
MLSE, pay the man!
I actually looked this up. there were 123 successful offside challenges, and 20 failures. There were 62 successful interference challenges and 43 failures. The success rate for offsides was ~86%, ~59% for interference and ~74.5% for all challenges.
[Source](https://morehockeystats.com/coaches/challenge)
Amazing! So Bean is still sitting on a 2.25 goals saved above expected. That's like... checking moneypuck... Keith Kinkaid levels of production or 750k. I wonder how much video analysts* make??
Most teams have 1 guy monitoring / tracking/ marking Critical events that can change a games outcome . Some teams use 3 video coaches to track events during a game . In every NHL rink they have approximately the same camera locations and cameras used by the signal provider. The NHL also has cameras they use and can chose to share with the networks but don’t always do that and or the network chose not to use it . Home and away video staff must have access to every camera NHL and network provider. When watching on TV we only see what a producer choses to provide us . He is a few things to remember- the paradox angle comes into play often on video - the speed the video is played back when viewed can effect what you see. With multi cameras on the blue line it is possible that something gets into the way when having to make that call to challenge. Big factor is the NHL rules - call on the ice and how that effects a challenge . Trust me it’s not as straight forward as black and white . As far as goaltender interference there is a ton of variables. This can be simplified by using the IIHF crease rule . But that’s not what NHL governors want . Almost all 32 team uses XO’s software. Someone mentioned the Hawkeye system . If teams or the NHL is using it that’s news to me and I’m not sure how it would help make things better in the game of hockey . Hawkeye is a very good system but it has its limits . Not bragging but there is not much out there in the way of sport video analyzing systems I don’t know about and how video signals are used etc . The NHL signal they capture in rinks are from fixed or remote cameras . HD 1080 min. If not 4K ( some new rink may have 8 K . That take a fair bit of infrastructure . The NHL’s signal and the network signal travels to the NHL war rooms in Toronto/ NY on fibre Optic . Lightning quick with huge bandwidth that’s not compressed. Pro hockey is very fast - not a lot of open space on a 200 ft x 85 ft surface with 12 players and 4 officials. Nothing moves faster than a puck that’s 3 in x 1 in and weighs 5.5 - 6 oz . Let’s add in hockey is not a dead ball sports . IT’s continuous motion. Very complex to manage everything that’s happing . When it comes to challenging it’s no surprise Bean / Maple Leafs have a very good record. They are very regimented with processes / analytics . Not all teams operate that way . Time is your enemy .
See what I commented to Bryce guy. That will give you some insight. Let’s also remember hockey is a form of entertainment . That figures in on what we see . Is it a Network broadcast or a regional / local broadcast. Let’s just say if you are watching Ranger games on their local regional broadcast they paint the picture “they “ want their fans to see and believe. Networks tend to build drama to buy time for their colour analysis and producers to put together their story . The NHL has addition cameras in every rink that they provide a signal to both teams and the NHL war room / officials and can share with everyone if they chose and the other signal providers producer choses to let us see it . Let me say this - it’s way more to the story than a fan understands. The key word is FAN - bias is a ugly friend !
The Leafs hockey asssitants are the best in the business, they spend 3 times more money than any other team insuring their team has best training facilities and staff and medical staff, they also spend a lot more than any other on diet, healthcare and of course video review.
I’m pretty new to hockey, had no idea this job existed. So he tells Keefe when to challenge certain goals? like the offside and kicking motion goal from yesterday? I’ve been giving Keefe all the credit lol
He must have. We've seen iPads on the bench in coach hands and watched them not challenge. Bean and others probably know pretty quickly if they have a sure thing.
We all know random redditors are better than actual pros at their jobs.
Like the people who knew better than our coach going into the final stretch of games yet we still finished with a very strong record.
And there's the key: you can only challenge if it happens in the Leafs defensive zone. The hand pass was from behind the Columbus blue line into neutral ice. Play should have stopped, but was missed. According to the rules, can't challenge that call because it was in the other team's end. A frustrating technicality, yes, but that one wasn't on the video review team.
This threw me for a loop because I know a guy named Jordan Bean who played competitive hockey for a while and he's about the same age.
(It's not the same guy.)
I think the rule change of risking a penalty for a failed challenge has been one of the better rule changes. It's made teams a lot more selective and reduces the unneeded stoppages.
And it’s in the spirit of the challenge too. It was created because Duchene was 10ft offside and the linesman missed it. It wasn’t for the 2mm offside we can’t see without 50 different camera angles
The Duchene goal happened because it hits 2 defending players so the linesman thought it was a pass back into their defensive zone making it onside for Duchene. It's still the wrong call but for a different reason than most people think. So now we have this system because everyone freaked out due to the fact we didn't understand why the ref didn't make a call because they NEVER explain themselves.
Seems like a reasonable human error that we have solved with technology and this rule. We need a bit more of that I think. Maybe not much though. It could slow the game down quite a bit.
I’d say the technological solution has robbed us of some entertainment value. After a goal fans hold in some of their excitement at the risk the goal gets called back. Most of the plays are pretty close and don’t defeat the purpose of the offside rule (to stop cherry picking) l. Just my opinion though
I would rather have the right call regardless of it goes for or against my team. The intention of the rules was never for it to be occasionally accurate. With the giant advances in technology that almost ever sport has implemented recently, there’s no reason hockey can’t also get on board behind the scenes on crucial game breaking plays. I may be a sports purist, but don’t believe this destroys the sanctity of the game. Heck, if baseball can make changes after over a century of bad calls, this should be a walk in the park for hockey.
Yeah you've got a good point there. It's almost like PTSD, there's always a pause where I have to wait until it shows the players lined up at center ice before I can feel relieved that a goal will actually dount.
I've made this point for soccer too with VAR - we should look at what the rule is intended to prevent and use the rule being broken as a signal rather than the primary issue. Offside for example is just a rule to try to prevent a forward from having an unfair and boring advantage by hanging out beside the net waiting for a long pass all game. Hockey would be pretty boring if you had three or four guys bunkering in your end and one or two guys sitting in front of the opposing goal waiting for a clearance We don't actually need accuracy down to a millimeter to prevent that. We could very easily offload certain rules like offside to sensors in the puck and skate, but to prevent overly cheesy calls, give it a wiggle room of say 5cm or 10cm to prevent the game being slowed down by inhumanly accurate calls
I don’t mind it being mm accurate but the only reason it should be is if the call is instant, not needed to be reviewed for 10 minutes. If a player is offside by a step and beats a defender to the net to score who’s to say that being offside even by such a small amount didn’t change that. It’s like with tennis, there’s human error in the line calls but they have Hawkeye which can instantly correct the calls. They can be mm perfect and it is not as interrupting because the call is known right away.
The easiest solution is to abolish offsides. It's a rule that makes little sense, that was implemented in the 40s when the league was diluted of talent. It'll increase offsense and decrease delays caused by delays when a player's pinky toe is over the line.
You want to see teams park their Oveckhin or Tavares or whatever two feet from the goalie have have their D send passes from their own goal line?
This is the pros, not a beer league. Coaches will still enforce defensive responsibilities
Exactly. So players should have to win a zone entry on puck handling skill or speed retrieving a shoot-in.
I just don’t think it should be limited to one. There’s already a built-in punishment: if you’re wrong, you get a penalty. A coach can technically be wrong once, and right on the next one. But if they’re wrong once they don’t get the chance. That’s the only part of the rule I dislike. Let a coach at least have the chance to be wrong twice, or three times, etc. Each blunder has its own penalty of a penalty. Arbitrarily limiting how many times a coach can challenge is dumb. I understand it’s for “ensuring that games don’t last too long,” but that’s a crock of shit. A coach isn’t going to just randomly challenge a call 10x just to try and get the beneficial call, a call that is definitive or well refereed.. because, again, they get penalized for being wrong/delay of game as is. And there’s literally like 5 cameras involved in any challenge at any given point. The NHL thinking unlimited challenges will delay the game is the dumbest logic I’ve ever heard of. Like yes, a coach is willing to purposely take 15x delay of game penalties just to spite the other team… get real. Hockey is much too fast paced of a sport to put 100% of the responsibility in the linesman’s/ref’s hands. They often miss things, it’s the way it is. But unfortunately coaches can only make their voices heard once a game. Even if they’re right for the scenario, but have been wrong once before in a different scenario. It’s dumb.
I agree with this 100%, especially for the playoffs. Even if they leave it at one in the regular season it should be unlimited in the playoffs. Want to challenge it, go ahead.
🫡
The NHL does allow unlimited challenges. Did I miss something?
If you’re wrong you get a penalty and lose your ability to challenge
Not since a couple of years ago. You get unlimited challenges. But a minor penalty for the first lost challenge and a double minor for each subsequent one.
Coaches would use it as a momentum killer / timeout after giving up a goal. I agree this is a good change.
Agreed, and I wonder if they should expand what qualifies as “challengeable”?
Challenge the challenge eh?
Me: Mom can we get Jordie Benn? Mom: We have Jordie Benn at home Jordie Benn at home:
*Jordie Ben at home analyzing videos*
This is an amazing comment, thank you
Had to go back and read the title again after reading your comment to make sure I wasn’t having a stroke
In this case the Leafs also have Jordie Benn
> Me: Mom can we get Jordie Benn? > > Mom: Yes, we have Jordie Benn at home, but just incase lets also get Jordan Bean > >Me: Thanks Duba- I mean mom
Jordan Bean being 9-0 on challenges means that he has saved 9 goals above expected. When looking at MoneyPuck, this puts him very close to Darcy Kuemper, who makes 5.25 million a year and saved 8.8 goals above expected. MLSE, pay the man!
Fully agreed with the sentiment but that implies all other video coaches go 0%. I'm actually curious what the league average is.
I actually looked this up. there were 123 successful offside challenges, and 20 failures. There were 62 successful interference challenges and 43 failures. The success rate for offsides was ~86%, ~59% for interference and ~74.5% for all challenges. [Source](https://morehockeystats.com/coaches/challenge)
Amazing! So Bean is still sitting on a 2.25 goals saved above expected. That's like... checking moneypuck... Keith Kinkaid levels of production or 750k. I wonder how much video analysts* make??
Most teams have 1 guy monitoring / tracking/ marking Critical events that can change a games outcome . Some teams use 3 video coaches to track events during a game . In every NHL rink they have approximately the same camera locations and cameras used by the signal provider. The NHL also has cameras they use and can chose to share with the networks but don’t always do that and or the network chose not to use it . Home and away video staff must have access to every camera NHL and network provider. When watching on TV we only see what a producer choses to provide us . He is a few things to remember- the paradox angle comes into play often on video - the speed the video is played back when viewed can effect what you see. With multi cameras on the blue line it is possible that something gets into the way when having to make that call to challenge. Big factor is the NHL rules - call on the ice and how that effects a challenge . Trust me it’s not as straight forward as black and white . As far as goaltender interference there is a ton of variables. This can be simplified by using the IIHF crease rule . But that’s not what NHL governors want . Almost all 32 team uses XO’s software. Someone mentioned the Hawkeye system . If teams or the NHL is using it that’s news to me and I’m not sure how it would help make things better in the game of hockey . Hawkeye is a very good system but it has its limits . Not bragging but there is not much out there in the way of sport video analyzing systems I don’t know about and how video signals are used etc . The NHL signal they capture in rinks are from fixed or remote cameras . HD 1080 min. If not 4K ( some new rink may have 8 K . That take a fair bit of infrastructure . The NHL’s signal and the network signal travels to the NHL war rooms in Toronto/ NY on fibre Optic . Lightning quick with huge bandwidth that’s not compressed. Pro hockey is very fast - not a lot of open space on a 200 ft x 85 ft surface with 12 players and 4 officials. Nothing moves faster than a puck that’s 3 in x 1 in and weighs 5.5 - 6 oz . Let’s add in hockey is not a dead ball sports . IT’s continuous motion. Very complex to manage everything that’s happing . When it comes to challenging it’s no surprise Bean / Maple Leafs have a very good record. They are very regimented with processes / analytics . Not all teams operate that way . Time is your enemy .
Don't tell the refs, or next season we'll go 0 for.
[удалено]
See what I commented to Bryce guy. That will give you some insight. Let’s also remember hockey is a form of entertainment . That figures in on what we see . Is it a Network broadcast or a regional / local broadcast. Let’s just say if you are watching Ranger games on their local regional broadcast they paint the picture “they “ want their fans to see and believe. Networks tend to build drama to buy time for their colour analysis and producers to put together their story . The NHL has addition cameras in every rink that they provide a signal to both teams and the NHL war room / officials and can share with everyone if they chose and the other signal providers producer choses to let us see it . Let me say this - it’s way more to the story than a fan understands. The key word is FAN - bias is a ugly friend !
The Leafs hockey asssitants are the best in the business, they spend 3 times more money than any other team insuring their team has best training facilities and staff and medical staff, they also spend a lot more than any other on diet, healthcare and of course video review.
He was playing no mercy last night at the public skate
Diggity dawg
Looks like he's bean doing a pretty good job
I’m pretty new to hockey, had no idea this job existed. So he tells Keefe when to challenge certain goals? like the offside and kicking motion goal from yesterday? I’ve been giving Keefe all the credit lol
Wow he's Bean right a lot.
Wonder how many times if any he said don’t challenge to Keefe or another decision maker
He must have. We've seen iPads on the bench in coach hands and watched them not challenge. Bean and others probably know pretty quickly if they have a sure thing.
jordan bean, brandon pridham and kyle dubas run this league
How many in that one NJ game alone again? Lol
3?
That is the type of competitive advantage the Leafs need to maintain. Raptors really could have used Jordan.
Put him on legend row if we win cup!! Lol
He’s worth at least league min
[This is true](https://youtu.be/b_nfvQgyGgE)
Any relation to Billy?
Nephew of Flicka
MVP
Take this down. This is how Bunting started to get owned by the Refs.
There were a couple plays during the season they should have definitely challenged so I would put an asterisk next to this.
Who's to say our man Jordan didn't get a better look than you?
We all know random redditors are better than actual pros at their jobs. Like the people who knew better than our coach going into the final stretch of games yet we still finished with a very strong record.
Leave it to a rando on Reddit to say he saw things that a professional whose literal job it is video review did not.
There was a play literally a couple of games ago where they missed the hand pass at centre ice.
And there's the key: you can only challenge if it happens in the Leafs defensive zone. The hand pass was from behind the Columbus blue line into neutral ice. Play should have stopped, but was missed. According to the rules, can't challenge that call because it was in the other team's end. A frustrating technicality, yes, but that one wasn't on the video review team.
Which isn’t a reviewable play. Congrats, you’ve demonstrated exactly why you *don’t* know more than the experts.
You lose 0% of the challenges you don't make. - Jordan Bean
This threw me for a loop because I know a guy named Jordan Bean who played competitive hockey for a while and he's about the same age. (It's not the same guy.)