Reviews Have To Be Better

I know the final score wouldn't have been less lopsided had the goal been counted, but I'm still baffled how Cole Perfetti's shot that ended up in the glove of Jordan Binnington wasn't ruled a goal. With the Jets trailing 3-0 and on the power-play midway through the second period, Perfetti's one-timer seemingly was saved by Binnington, but reviews showed that the puck may have crossed the goal line while inside Binnington's glove. The long delay upheld the no-goal call on the ice despite several angles seemingly showing Binnington's glove behind the post with the puck in the pocket of the glove. In the end, the no-goal call was upheld by the Situation Room in Toronto and the Jets and Blues resumed play with the 3-0 score in favour of the Blues intact.

Again, I'm not here to debate whether it was a goal or not. That debate can be had on another day, but I am here to discuss the lengthy process it takes for the NHL to determine whether or not the call on the ice was correct. It took the NHL more than four minutes to decide that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice, and that break seemingly took the life out of the building until the call was upheld. Why on earth did it take more than four minutes to make that call? What could possibly be discussed?

The NHL really needs to adopt what the KHL does for its review process. This makes so much more sense in how it's done.
As you can see in the clip above, the referees ask to see the various angles on the play so they make the final call on the play. The two referees work together to determine the correct call, the angles they use to make the call arevisible on the broadcast, and the discussion the two officials have allow you to understand what they're seeing and why they're making the call. Everything is transparent with respect to these decisions at the Spengler Cup. That's how the NHL should be doing reviews so everyone knows why the call was made.

The officials shouldn't just stand around while Toronto replay after replay back in the Situation Room. The two referees should be making the call as they see fit on the ice based on the video evidence available to them. All Toronto should be doing is sending the different angles to the monitors or iPads or whatever technology is made available to the officials for review. All interpretation and discussion about the call should be between the two referees on the ice.

If the process was more transparent, Jets fans may have heard why the officials denied the goal. I get that the reasoning would still be "there was not enough conclusive evidence to determine that the puck crossed the line", but at least there would be clear evidence as to which replays the referees were using and the discussion between them about the call. Why is this so hard for the NHL?

The Hubble Telescope is taking pictures of stellar events that are light years away. The Mars Rover is sending high-definition pictures back to NASA. We have developed the electron microscope and we can put cameras virtually anywhere on the planet. The one thing we can't do? Get a definitive answer or a clear picture on whether a puck crossed a goal line or not. It might be time for the NHL to fix that.

If they aren't willing to develop that technology, the least the NHL can do is make the review process more transparent because I still don't know how the Jets weren't awarded a goal when puck was inside Binnington's glove and behind the goal post. That seemed obvious, but I guess the only thing that I do know is there's enough conclusive evidence to prove that NHL video review is terrible.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!