However you feel about each call, plenty of hockey fans feel confused about what counts as goalie interference, and what’s closer to incidental contact.
During the first period of Game 6 between the Boston Bruins and Columbus Blue Jackets, it seemed like Sean Kuraly gave the Bruins a 1-0 lead, but Blue Jackets coach John Tortorella successfully challenged the call. After a lengthy challenge review, it was determined that Joakim Nordstrom “impaired” Sergei Bobrovsky‘s “ability to play his position in the crease.”
You can judge the call for yourself in the video above this post’s headline.
[NBC 2019 STANLEY CUP PLAYOFF HUB]
Whether you agree or disagree with the call, the bottom line is that Game 6 went back to 0-0, which remains the score as of this writing. The game is airing on NBCSN (Stream here).
Here’s the full explanation release from the NHL:
Bruins fans may be grumbling a bit extra, as there was a noteworthy goal that went against them. It seemed like Zach Hyman bumped Tuukka Rask before Auston Matthews‘ goal counted in Game 5 of that Round 1 series, but the review went Toronto’s way.
See at around the three-minute mark of the highlights:
James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at email@example.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.
For better or worse, NFL coaches often get critiqued for the way they challenge plays, with a big reason being that they may waste potentially precious timeouts.
NHL coaches only have one to work with per game, and with the new challenge system in mind, the New York Post’s Larry Brooks points out how that is changing a subtle-if-important coaching strategy.
How many bench bosses will take a time out earlier in a game, knowing that doing so will mean they lose their challenge option? Specifically, this comes into question when a coach would otherwise rest winded players on an icing call.
“You’d have to have five guys out there for such an extended period of time to call one, and even then, it would be an extremely difficult call,” Alain Vigneault told Brooks. “If you know that they have nothing in the tank, then you might have no other choice. … But I don’t know. … You don’t want to lose that [ability to] challenge.”
There’s already an example or two of coaches being thrifty with their single timeout per contest.
Brooks poses a fairly simple and logical tweak, then:
The league could — and I would suggest probably should — amend the rule so each team is given one challenge opportunity plus one timeout. Yes this likely would add another 1:30 or so to the game, but chances are icings will be followed by delaying tactics that only will frustrate everyone.
What do you think? Should the NHL stick with the current setup or adjust it based on Brooks’ suggestion?