Is It Time To Expand The Role Of Instant Replay In The NHL?

Last post I griped about how Theo Peckham was on the receiving end of a truly awful call in Anaheim.  Please recall Peckham being assessed a two minute penalty for delay of game after officials claimed that it was cleared over the glass, when it was plain as day that it was shot through the photographer’s camera slot in the glass. Peckham ended up getting two minutes, and the Ducks scored on the subsequent powerplay.

I’m a little less curmudgeonly about the whole thing because the Oilers took two points in that game, a regulation victory on the road.   I think we’ve seen about two of those in the last eight or nine lunar cycles, so I’m not terribly picky at this point.  The NHL issued an apology to the Oilers after the game, admitting the call was blown.


Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Oilers gave up the next..four goals, which is entirely plausible.  Then what?  Shrug.

Momentum be damned.

The league already looks at whether or not the puck crosses the goal line, and whether or not a goal was scored with time on the clock. Here’s an example of Ryan Smyth getting a goal looked at on a stick above the crossbar call (which I disagree with the outcome, mind you).

If you’re going to call penalties for nouveau ideas things like shooting the puck over the glass, let’s at least make sure the puck cleared the glass, and not through the camera hole in the glass. Go ahead, go upstairs, ring the War Room’s buzzer.  I’m sure they’re actively tinkering about, deliberating whether or not Brett Hull’s skate was in the crease, or how many centimetres Lanny McDonald’s moustache was back in the ’89 finals.

If it’s worth making a game-changing call, it’s worth making the right call every time.

comments powered by Disqus