It's about time to add a replay official

Video review in other North American professional sports (NBA, MLB, NFL) is heavily restricted. It cannot be used on anything resembling a judgment call, but only on something that can be objectively determined from the video tape. Examples: 2-point shot or 3-point shot (NBA), fair ball or foul ball (MLB), complete pass or incomplete pass (NFL). There’s already review of goals in the NHL. About the only objective calls I could see being added are offsides and pucks going out of play…. and the camera angles on both aren’t particularly wonderful in some arenas.

The NHL could accomplish this by hiring a crew of 12-15 part-time staffers and train them in video review, the rules, etc. Toronto has enough hockey fans to satisfy the demand for the position while ensuring some measure of neutrality.

You already have a similar set-up in place, although I don’t think there’s quite as many people who rotate through on a nightly basis. The NHL Network did an in-depth piece on the War Room recently, covering what they do and how they work. It’s actually pretty cool.

….

About the only thing I’d really like to change about the review process is for the referees to explain the outcome better. If you watch an NFL game, the announcement contains two distinct parts. The first is the result of the review: “The ruling on the field is confirmed” (replay upholds the call as-is), “The ruling on the field is overturned” (replay finds the wrong call was made), “The ruling on the field stands” (replay is not conclusive). Then there’s the second part, where the head referee explains why the call is what it is in the event that replay was conclusive one way or the other.

The NHL doesn’t consistenly do a very good job of that second part — all you often get is “after review, the call on the ice stands / good goal”. I think if the officials always explained why the call was what it was, there’d be a lot less in the way of conspiracy theories and restless fans. Tell me that the War Room couldn’t make a positive call on just how high the stick was. Tell me that the War Room says it’s a kicking motion because his skate was moving towards the net before the puck made contact with the blade.

You’re not going to get a secret ballot and a majority rules — not only is that silly, but there’s already some degree of collaboration and consensus in the War Room before they relay a call back to the on-ice official. You’re also not going to get a completely unbiased view of the call, because every War Room story I’ve ever seen talks about how the personnel sit there and watch every game as it is happening. The personnel usually know what the game situation is and what the call on the ice was (and if they’re not sure on the latter, that’s the first thing they ask the on-ice official).

…

I like the system as it is now. I just think the NHL could communicate it better and relieve some of the pent-up tension that way.

I also don’t see much of a way to deal with most of the aggravation we have with officials on a nightly basis. So many calls have a level of judgment in them, from whether a particular referee thinks an infraction should be called a penalty to whether it should be a Minor or a Major, to how the game as a whole has been called and where an individual (non)call fits into that tapestry.

There isn’t a single sport that allows replay challenges of any sort on anything that’s a judgment call. And let’s face it — most penalties are judgment calls. For example:

Was it enough of a hook to justify two minutes? Did the receiving player embellish the situation and deserve two minutes for diving? Was it simply an all-out dive where either nothing should be called or just the receiving player should get two minutes? (Keep in mind you never see just the dive called in today’s NHL.) How does it compare to similar plays earlier in the game, and how were those adjudicated by the officials? How does it compare to the game as a whole? Did the hook have any material impact on the play? What kind of reaction came from the crowd? (It’s a terrible thing to say, in days gone by referees might change how they officiated based on an angry crowd that might wish for blood vengeance.)

I fear for what would happen to the quality of officiating if the referees suddenly have to look over their shoulder on every potential call because Toronto might be asked to substitute their judgment for that of the guy on the spot. I worry about the possibility of the guy in Toronto having a bias of some sort that there’s no accounting for and no adjusting for within the flow of the game. Finally, I’d be concerned about how fair the “third referee” could be — he’ll have the benefit of time to make a decision and camera angles that aren’t available to the guy wearing the orange armband.

In the NBA, there’s no place for replay to overrule a judgment call — they review whether or not a shot was taken before the (shot) clock hit zero, whether it was a two-point shot or a three-point shot based on the shooter’s feet, they can reset the game clock, and who last touched a ball before it went out-of-bounds. It’s all objective.

In MLB, they can review whether it was a fair ball or a foul ball, a home run or something else (foul or off the wall). They’ve discussed expanding replay to out/safe at bases and whether or not a fly ball was caught or trapped. Once again, it’s all objective.

In the NFL, there’s still no room to use replay for judgment calls and to change a penalty situation with two exceptions. I’ve seen coaches allowed to challenge whether the opposing team was guilty of “too many men on the field” — but that’s a black-and-white issue, because either you have eleven men on the field or you don’t. I’ve also seen coaches get pass interference thrown out because a pass was tipped prior to the defender making contact with the wide receiver downfield (once a pass is tipped, there can be no pass interference). Otherwise, you see the normal “concrete” calls challenged — fumble or no fumble, catch or incomplete, and the spot of the ball when a play was dead.

….

None of the other sports allow for a judgment call by a referee to be overturned by way of video evidence. Why should the NHL start down that slippery slope?