Why I, an Edmonton Oilers fan, Dislike Coach’s Challenge

By Sammi Silber |

Well, well. I think that the time has come to talk about Coach’s Challenge, especially because of the Edmonton Oilers call last night that triggers me to finally publish this piece. Over the summer, the NHL decided to add a lot more rules to make things interesting. Gary Bettman, who we have dubbed “The Governor” here at Oil on Whyte, and his minions over at NHL Hockey Operations decided to add 3-on-3 OT, along with a lot more changes.

Before we go further, here is a shot of Gary Bettman putting the new rules in line for 2015-16. Just kidding, or am I?

Image by Sammi Silber.

Anyway, I was saying before I got off track with a Walking Dead Photoshop, the NHL has had a lot of change. One of these changes however, is called “Coach’s Challenge.” Here is the definition of Coach’s Challenge, taken out of context from the official NHL rule book for 2015-16 (since we can’t reduplicate parts of it due to copyright infringement).

A coach’s challenge is when a coach, when the team has a timeout remaining, can use their challenge to review a call made on the ice as a goal immediately prior to the goal, but only for one of two reasons:

More from Editorials

If the goal was believed to be scored on an offside play, a coach can use a coach’s challenge and ask officials, along with the War Room in Toronto, to review the goal.
If the goal was believed to be scored on a play involving goaltender interference. Then, the coach’s challenge can be requested to ask officials and Toronto to review the goal.

The Calgary Flames used the coach’s challenge last night, after Benoit Pouliot scored a power play goal. Even though Karri Ramo did not protest interference, nor did any member of the team, head coach Bob Hartley did. Of course, what do you know, the call on the ice was waived off. No goal for the Oilers. However, when looked at closer, this does not look like goaltender interference at all.

I know what you all reading are thinking. Oh, another Edmonton Oilers fan, mad that her team lost, so therefore she’s going off on the coach’s challenge. This is not the case at all. Yes, what happened last night was the trigger to use the example in this story, but I do not like the coach’s challenge in general, no matter which team used it or who the call went in favor of.

The reason I dislike the challenge is because there are two referees and two linesmen on the ice for a reason. When a referee misses a player being tripped up, hooked or interfered with, and they miss it, they miss it. That’s it, and the game continues. In the past, when teams were offsides, and the refs missed it and it led to a goal, it was a goal. And of course, the ONE thing that coach’s challenge won’t do is review missed calls. Ugh.

Sure, refs are blind sometimes, but it’s not fair to not let them do their job, let alone give teams the ability to challenge their call when something doesn’t go their way. The referees are NHL officials for a reason, and their judgment should be the ones that matter. They are the ones who see what happens LIVE on the ice. They are the ones skating alongside the players. The iPads and tablets are not.

In addition, when a coach’s challenge is initiated, where do the refs go for extra consultation? That’s right, the War Room in Toronto. It is my least favorite room in the world. Why? Because no one knows who is in there, and many of the calls that come out of there are rather strange and sometimes seems rigged.

Oh, here’s another example: the “no goal” for Connor McDavid, even though VP of Hockey Operations revealed to the LA Times that they had replay footage of the puck crossing the goal line.

Obviously there is something brewing in that war room, and they do not give fair calls most of the time. So of course, last night, Oil Country was enraged when the call went to review, and even more so when it was no goal, even though there was no sign of interference.

It is reasons such as these that I dislike the coach’s challenge. It gives teams the ability to argue against refs, who SEE the action happen, just so they can stay in the game or maintain their lead. Calls that are fair are made unfair, and plays that are appropriate become inappropriate. To me, it feels like some teams are treated extravagantly by the NHL and are more cared about, while others have to walk on eggshells to avoid being rained on.

It feels like 1984 sometimes. All of this technology is taking over the NHL and is taking away from the game. I remember the good old days where we just had referees who would watch the games, not computers. I remember the days where a goal was a goal, and that a play was a play, and there was no need for a tablet to prove it was good.

Also, can we just address the fact that technology is allowing for coach’s challenge, but we can’t seem to get that fancy yellow line behind the goal line that signals a goal if the puck touches it, let alone cameras on the posts or on more places inside the net?

More from Oil On Whyte

Ridiculous, I say. I am not liking Gary Bettman’s new ideas, let alone anyone’s ideas. I know who the real culprit is. Always inside the glass… it’s Pierre McGuire’s fault.

Home / Editorials