I (as well as others) am making an assumption that the coaches have staff
who are upstairs watching the game and who have access to video for
situations like this.  This is the way it is in the NFL and NHL but does
anyone know that this is the case in college hockey.  I'm sure video
recording is taking place but the technology to record, re queue and
instantly review  plays takes fairly sophisticated technology.  As Mike
mentioned, even the referees cannot make the system work at times.  Does
anyone know what kind of review system a coach has at his disposal in real
time?


On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 6:55 PM Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Right — and one other key component of the decision that has to be made:
> if you decide to challenge and ask for a video review, and you lose the
> challenge, you lose your timeout. With 3:10 left in a 3-3 game, you run the
> risk, for example, of not having your timeout available to use if your team
> ices the puck. That could cost you the game. Of course, if you win the
> challenge, you have a golden opportunity to win the game. Tough decision to
> make, but one where I think you have to be very sure you’re going to win
> it, including that it has to be ruled a major and ejection for the
> offending player by the rules. As mentioned under the current rules, even
> if the review results in a determination that it was a penalty but didn’t
> quite rise to that level, no penalty at all is called and you still lose
> the challenge and timeout.
>
> What we don’t know is what information the DU staff had available to it at
> the time they had to decide. But with the experience they have on that
> staff — including two former head coaches as assistants, and both Carle and
> MacMillan having been assistants on the 2017 NCAA Championship team — I
> just don’t think a lack of experience or the fact that Carle is in his
> first year as head coach was a factor. I think they made the best decision
> they could with what they knew at that time, one that even a longtime head
> coach may have made.
>
> And I would reiterate that what Denver did in that game yesterday without
> Pettersen was just remarkable. I didn’t give them much chance knowing he
> was out. Even Carvel commented after the game on the great game plan that
> Denver had. I don’t think you come up with that plan and coach the way you
> do during that game as a staff and then suddenly make a blunder like this.
> To me it wasn’t a blunder. In hindsight it certainly looks like they should
> have called for the challenge, but there’s so much that can go into a
> decision like this that it’s hard for me to question it.
>
> I do think that what we saw just in the games yesterday, not to mention
> throughout the season, indicates there is still work to be done to refine
> the replay/review system. It should not have to come down to a coach having
> to make a decision like this in a game of this magnitude. IMO, the purpose
> of replay is to avoid the egregious mistakes that may sometimes occur as a
> result of officials simply being human. It should augment the work they do
> down on the ice. To that end, I’d like to see an official in the booth who
> has the power to call down and say, hey guys, here’s a play you should take
> a look at. It’s not going to be possible to do this every game nor do I
> think it should, but it could be done at least in conference semifinals and
> championships, as well as the NCAA tournament.
>
> And in support of that, it just doesn’t look good for the game on this
> stage to have things like this happen. On the DU side, you have a play
> where they almost certainly should have received a major power play and had
> that opportunity to win the game. On the UMass side, you have a player who
> went to practice today getting ready to play in the NCAA championship game
> and was told he won’t be playing. If the call had been made at that time,
> it probably would have resulted in a major and game misconduct, and while
> he would have been out the rest of that game, he probably would have been
> able to come back tomorrow night — although we don’t know that of course,
> because the supplemental discipline could have still been handed down. But
> maybe not.
>
> We have the technology. We just have to use it right.
>
> Along the same lines, I wanted to touch on the fact that often it seems
> like video review is taking an extraordinarily long time — with the very
> valid thought that if it isn’t that clear to make a quick decision to
> change the call on the ice, then that should tell you the call should
> stand. But many times it is actually the case that they’re having trouble
> getting the system to work and show them the replays and angles they want
> to see. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve learned after a game that that
> happened. That means there is still work to be done to improve the system
> and access to what they need to see. We’re still relatively early in the
> era of video review, with the inevitable growing pains — I think we’ll see
> further refinement to the entire process in the near future.
>
> - mike
>
>
>>>
>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>