The symmetry was almost perfect.
In the history of the NHL's foray into the world of replay reviews, there are two moments that stand out as important landmarks that were important signposts that got us to our destination. The most recent was in 2013, when Colorado center Matt Duchene scored despite being offsides by about a mile.
The play is widely misunderstood to this day. The linesman somehow didn't miss the fact that Duchesne was offside. Rather, he thought the offside call would be invalidated because the Nashville Predators returned the puck to their own zone. But the optics were terrible. Everything about the play seemed wrong, right down to Duchesne's quiet celebration. He knew, as did everyone watching, that he had gotten away with it. And ultimately, the confusion and frustration of such an apparent missed call coalesced around a seemingly simple solution. “Why doesn't he replay and review these plays?”
And now we do, it sucks, but hold that thought. For other important moments, we have to go back further. It's his 1999 Stanley Cup Final and Game 6 is in triple overtime. Buffalo He scored the Cup winner after his Dallas Stars' Brett Hull picked up the rebound as the Sabres fought to extend the series.
Hull's skates were clearly in the crease and could easily have meant a no-goal call thanks to the cut-and-dry rule that everyone hated for almost all of the previous years. But this time, there was no suspension for review or announcement from the authorities. Hull scores, the celebrations begin, and as fans around the world watch replays and try to figure out what's going on with a goal they were sure could have been avoided 100 times before… Before I knew it, Gary Bettman was playing in the Stanley Cup. allowed to count.
This play is also misunderstood, most of which are in the NHL. There was an interpretation of the 1990s crease rule that allowed the player with the puck to be in the crease, and Hull appears to be doing that. A few weeks before Hull's goal there was reportedly a memo about exactly this kind of play, but no one thought to mention it to the fans. But none of that really matters, as the apparent lack of formal review is the final straw for a rule that clearly isn't working. The NHL abolished the crease rule that summer, one of the few times the league acknowledged a mistake and took steps to correct it during the Bettman era.
The symmetry is almost perfect. Really, it's a little too perfect. Because now, many years later, there's another rematch debate involving the Dallas Stars. Once again, this is about players in the crease. Once again, this is Game 6 in overtime of a series in which the Stars are looking for a shutout similar to that infamous goal in 1999.
And who is at the center of it all? This is our old friend Matt Duchene.
If you missed it for some reason, here's the play in question. Depending on where you are, it's Friday night or early Saturday morning. Midway through the first overtime, Mason Marchment appeared to score the series-winning goal. However, the on-ice umpire quickly and forcefully shook it off and (to his credit) even explained the reason to the crowd. “Contact in the blue paint, no goal.”
Then we all watched the replay and… oops.
That's Duchesne in front, number 95. He skied all the way to the Colorado crease, but he may or may not have stopped just short. He checks on Colorado goaltender Alexander Georgiev and then makes contact with defenseman Cale Makar, forcing Duchesne a little closer. There was light contact with Georgiev at one point, but Georgiev was forced out of position and unable to stop Marchment's shot.
Is it goalie interference? You already know the drill — no one knows, none of us understand the rules, they're flipping a coin, etc. I also know that that's not true, that the rulebook isn't that complicated, and that you can do it with just a few books. It's actually possible to get about 90 percent of these after a few minutes of learning the rules, but for now, people seem to prefer to feign ignorance.
In this case, it all depends on whether Duchenne is in the crease or not, and close to it. Based on the replays we saw, it looks like he didn't. Maybe when Makar arrives to make contact he might be there, but it would be a case of the defensive team forcing the attacking team into the crease. In my eyes, this goal looks worthy, even though both sides have arguments. But on-ice calls aren't the goal, and the league seems to be putting it off more often this season, which is what the rule book says we should do. So we're in that scary 10 percent, but we don't really know. And a series is coming out as well.
Eventually, the words will come. The call on the ice is a stand. There is no goal. And it's safe to say that most of the fans watching didn't seem to agree. One of the things that happens when some kind of self-anointed expert goes around writing guides about controversial rules, he says, is that when such a call comes up, fans It means they want to send you their opinion. Based on my unscientific research, it appears that a significant number (not unanimously, of course) think the league made a poor decision. Most of you thought the star was robbed.
The best thing that can be said about this call is that it didn't really matter in the end, as Duchesne himself scored in two overtime periods to end the series. Puck doesn't lie, including that. It was a tough result for the Avalanche, but perhaps fortunate for the league as it ended in a controversial no-goal, but not the infamous no-goal.
No harm done, right? Well…maybe.
In the big picture, the right team won and everyone can move on. But you shouldn't do that. Because this is clearly the message this game is giving us. Now, Matt Duchene in overtime of Game 6 of the Dallas Stars' playoff game? The hockey gods couldn't be more evident here. They're effectively putting up a big flashing neon sign on the ice that says, “Fix Replay.”
So let's do that. Let's fix the replay system. The best and easiest way possible is to get rid of it.
that's it. That's the answer, folks. Yes, there are other ways to do this. This is a huge improvement on the current mess of the system. I have proposed some of these ideas myself. But why settle for something a little better when you can fix this once and for all?
Throw it away. Please throw it in the trash. No more replay reviews for interference or offsides. It's time for the league to do what it did in 1999 and read the writing on the wall.I had a chance to do that again this time. in front The inevitable disaster that ruins the Stanley Cup Final.
The goaltender interference rule isn't as complex as you might think, but it lends itself very well to replay reviews since almost all of the various contingencies are subjective. Was the contact a coincidence? Did it prevent the goalie from playing his position? Did he have time to recover and reset? All of this falls into the gray area of official opinion. And yet, we still stop the game and do an extended review under the pretext of “getting it right” and with everyone's consent he scans his frame looking for one freeze. we will never find it. Instead, you end up making decisions that no one agrees with. One fan base thinks it's obvious in their direction, another fan base thinks it's obvious to them, and others think it's obvious no matter how many angles they get it from. , I shrugged, not entirely sure.
If you have a system in place because you have to do it right, but no one expects you to do it, then that system is broken. Let's get rid of it.
Next is offside, an objective play, at least in theory. Whether it's over the line or not, you should be able to find a freeze frame that everyone can agree on, unless it's an unusual play that requires a discussion about possession. And I will! sometimes. But in most cases this is not the case. Maybe the angle isn't right, the picture isn't sharp enough, or it's too close to make a call. And throughout, the entries we're reviewing likely happened well before the goal, and there may have probably been some possession changes in between. what are we doing here?
We put in place a system to catch repeats of the original Duchenne failure, and now, over 10 years later, it hasn't failed once. Instead, a video coach monitors every zone entry, looking for a get-out-of-jail-free card. Some linesmen clearly miss close games because they know replays lurk. Some players were completely removed from the play, changing lines and getting caught up in technical issues that decided Game 7.
And through it all, generations of fans have been taught not to get too excited about goals. Because you never know when a goal will be missed due to random replays. The attack-hungry league told the crowd that some goals had to be erased from the record books. Every exciting moment is followed by a shot of a listless coach staring at an iPad. Countless games have been canceled. The excitement disappeared from the building.
In the name of doing everything right, No one thinks we're actually doing it..
Everyone's always angry. Literally every fanbase thinks the Toronto Affairs Room is personally biased against them. Everyone pretends not to understand interference. No one can squint enough to know which blue line pixel we're looking at. We all yell at each other all the time. The league's broadcasters have accused referees of betting on games. It's all become a contest to see who can get the loudest and the angriest all the time. I'm tired.
No one thinks this is working. But I'm sure we have to keep doing it. Because what if I go back and miss something?
Well, what happens if that happens? Longtime fans, do you remember how many times you used to get mad at missed offside calls? Leon Stickle in 1980, of course. How many others are there? What about goalie interference? Was it a play that you spent a lot of time thinking about in the pre-revival era?
not much. Instead, we all understood that sometimes there were close calls, sometimes to the detriment of the team, and that was life as a sports fan. That doesn't mean we didn't get mad about it, complain about it, and spend about 30 years crying about it. But we understand that that's how sports work, and while getting most of the calls right, the entire game can be stopped several times during the night to find that one frame of footage that gets you hooked. I wasn't expecting that. But some things are wrong, because that's sport.
I'm not saying replays should be completely abolished. The game has elements that work perfectly as intended. Keep it to check if the time is up before the finish line. Use this to determine if the puck has crossed the line, as long as you understand that sometimes you can't be sure. If you have to, keep using it for kick-in goals. However, that doesn't always work either.
But what about offside reviews down to the millimeter? no. And are there goaltender interference calls that are almost entirely subjective? Absolutely not. Because right now, it's not working out, at least not as promised. We are arguing for more, not less. And we're not going to make anyone feel good by officiating in the NHL. You don't need to do this anymore.
i know it. You know. And the hockey gods know that, which is why he slapped us right in the face with a clearly over-the-top message Friday night. This time, they were kind enough to do it in a way that didn't cost the team the series or create controversy that would be remembered years later. Next time, you might not be so lucky.
Duchenne got us into this mess. Maybe he can save us too. Scrap the replay review, accept that some calls won't go your team's way, and embrace that. As we found out in 1999, that option is not perfect, but it is far better than the inevitable option.
(Referee Dan O'Rourke photo: Claus Andersen / Getty Images)
