NHL GMs Maintaining Offside Video Review And Concussion Protocol
Image via Edmonton Journal.
Last week the general managers of the National Hockey League met for their annual meeting in Boca Raton. All 31 NHL franchises (including the Las Vegas Golden Knights who will play their inaugural season in 2017-18) were represented at the meetings. Included on the slate for the meetings were offside video review and the concussion protocol, specifically for goaltenders. These issues have been particularly contentious, thus the need to reassess and analyze whether any implementations are needed prior to the 2017 Stanley Cup Playoffs or start of next season.
Offside Video Review
The NHL implemented offside video review with the addition of the Coach’s Challenge for the 2015-16 season. Coaches that still possessed their timeout could challenge a goal scored on an offside play––the team retains their time-out if they correctly note an offside play and the goal is overturned, conversely forfeiting their time-out if the goal stands.
Offside video review has often overshadowed the Coach’s Challenge, proving to be more influential than anticipated. To assist in reviewing an offside play, blue-line cameras were installed for the 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Even with the additional camera angle, many offside plays are still too difficult to identify and require an extended period of time to make a determination––one that is often found to be inconclusive.
The Coach’s Challenge, specifically offside review, was questioned during the 2016 Stanley Cup Final. Commissioner Gary Bettman defended it, citing a goal scored by Jonathan Drouin of the Tampa Bay Lightning during Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Final, “The notion that we call back a goal because there’s a toe over the line − the rule is the rule. And I have no doubt if we didn’t get it right that that toe was over the line, there would be a lot of screaming about the fact we got the call wrong.”
“Everybody in Pittsburgh would have been screaming if we didn’t get the call right… Whether or not we use video replay, there are so many cameras television has that they get to see. The better question is do you want to have an offside rule? I’m not advocating that we should get rid of the offside rule but the notion the rule was only violated by a little. … either you enforce the rule or you don’t,” Bettman continued.
Between the 2016 Stanley Cup and the annual GM meetings, there have been a number of questionable offside calls that continued the discussion regarding offside video review. At the GM meetings, a number of changes could have been suggested––from tweaking the rule to reducing inconclusive plays and instituting a time to limit lengthy reviews.
Ultimately, the general managers elected to not make any changes to the offside rule or the video process. Changing the rule, which is often controversial when establishing whether a player’s skate was in the air while crossing the blue line, was rejected. Edmonton Oilers’ General Manager Pete Chiarelli explained the rationale behind their decision, “It’s just changing the dynamic. Now you have to determine the dynamic if the leg is breaking the plane or not if it’s in the air. So you’ve got a number of calls that were reversed because the leg was in the air. But if you allow it, you still have to decide if it’s breaking the plane. So there’s uncertainty on both sides.”
Additionally, general managers noted how changing the rule could encourage players to lift their skates more often when entering the zone to avoid an offside call––which could increase injuries.
General managers denied that the video reviews are too time consuming. The average time taken to review an offside challenge, according to the NHL, is 2:18. However that does not include the time taken to decide whether to challenge the play or the time the referees spend speaking afterwards with the coaches. Instead, the general managers suggested that the video review process would be expedited by not explaining their conclusions to the coaches.
If accuracy is in fact the priority, then general managers could have recommended a required form of technology for the referees to review these plays on since there have been objections to some arenas only providing referees with a tablet. The NHL equipped all arenas with a form of technology that may consist of a tablet, television or computer monitor. Rather than having varied options in different arenas, it should be consistent throughout the league––and the consistency should be with the best available option, not a tablet that may not provide as concise of a view on its small screen.
General managers also could have suggested making the blue-line cameras more accessible to television networks and screens within the arena, so fans (and players) watching could at least be more involved instead being left in the dark, awaiting a decision from the officials. If fans were more included in the process, they could be more invested––which may result in a much lower number of complaints.
I'm told the reason all of us watching didn't see these (until late at night on MSG) is feeding from this particular camera took a long time
As much as offside video review does improve accuracy––which will always be a priority––it has to be balanced to ensure it does not become an impediment on the game. Whether it is clarifying the rules or making minor tweaks to refine the process, improvements are necessary.
For the general managers to deny an issue though, is another problem in itself. The general managers need to acknowledge the issues and actively look to make improvements, or they will only further disconnect from the coaches, players, and fans.
Concussion Protocol
The concussion protocol was also analyzed at the GM meetings. The NHL’s concussion protocol includes concussion spotters, which were added last season. Spotters are stationed at every NHL game, with access to live feeds and replay capabilities.
The initial concussion spotter system implemented by the NHL was flawed. Some issues stemmed from the fact that the spotters were not required to have any formal medical training or expertise. Instead, spotters simply had to study material that was provided by the NHL.
Another deficiency of the original concussion spotting system, was that spotters were hired by individual teams rather than the league. By having neutral, league-hired spotters, the NHL would likely be more-so at fault for any mishandled situations. Team hired spotters relieve the league from some liability. League hired spotters are also available to visiting teams that prefer to not use the home team’s spotters.
The issue with a team hired spotter is that they may not be as incentivized to indicate concussion symptoms if the team they were hired by prefers that their players remain in the game. Also concerning, is that team hired spotters do not to have submit a report to the team or league, diminishing their accountability. The league hired spotters, on the other hand, have to submit reports directly to the NHL.
This season, the NHL improved their concussion spotter policy by adding “Central Spotters.” Unlike the original concussion spotters, central spotters are not affiliated with an NHL team. These independent spotters notify teams of players that show visible signs of a concussion. Central spotters also are authorized to remove players to undergo concussion testing. Rather than watching games at each arena, these spotters view live games from the Department of Player Safety within the NHL’s offices in New York
Players, particularly goaltenders, have taken issue with the spotters ability to remove them from games. Removing a goaltender, even if it is not for an extended period of time, has more implications than removing a forward or defenseman.
Goaltenders like Arizona Coyotes’ Mike Smith, have been critical of the concussion protocol. Smith called the system flawed, “especially with the goalie position,” Smith questioned how a player could intentionally hit a goaltender and take the two-minute penalty to get the starting goaltender removed from the game. He recalled the process of being removed, “Once the spotter says it’s a mandatory test, you have to come out of the game. I told our trainer I wasn’t going to come out and they informed the ref, but the ref’s not allowed to drop the puck until you leave the game.”
At the GM meetings, the consensus was to keep the concussion protocol as is. Players do not want to be removed from a game, especially if they do not realize they may be injured since concussion symptoms can appear after the injury. For goaltenders, the situation does become more complicated. However, maintaining the current concussion protocol is in the best interest of the players. Dallas Stars’ General Manager Jim Nill understood the players’ concerns, but noted their safety is key, “What we forget sometimes is these players are ultra-competitive, that’s why they are where they are… They get hit and they might not think they have a concussion, but they may have one. It’s for their safety and we have to make sure that’s our priority.”
Bettman also explained how the protocol is working, even if the players do not acknowledge it, “It’s interesting because if you get pulled under the protocol and it turns out you didn’t have a concussion, it doesn’t mean the protocol is not working. But the numbers are consistent with what we expected and it’s being enforced particularly with the centralized spotter and it’s working well.”
Athletes are competitors and obviously want to stay in every game if they can. However, the viewpoint has to shift because there are potentially devastating long-term effects from concussions. Reducing that risk has to be a priority, even if it puts a team at a competitive disadvantage. If Mike Smith is correct in predicting that players will try to intentionally injure players to ensure they are removed for the protocol, then the general managers and the league will certainly have to take action. Until then, the concussion protocol has to be preserved.
