Pizzas Are Delivered Faster

I have no idea what the numbers were on last night's Edmonton-Los Angeles game when it comes to viewers, but it appears that we had about a million hockey officials watching the game if my estimates are correct. I was one of the people watching late in last night's game when the Kings' Trevor Moore scored to end the game. Or so we thought as the officials went back to look at one specific play that could have erased the goal had the call gone in Edmonton's favour. The goal wasn't overturned, thankfully, but the discussion on social media ranged from calm and analytical to believing some sort of conspiracy was at play.

Forget the build-up to the play. Let's just look at the replay that was debated for over five minutes last night. Does LA's Gabe Vilardi touch the puck with a high-stick? Feel free to make a call here.
Both TNT and Sportsnet showed just about every angle they could find for this play as the debate raged between in-studio analysts, but the call on the ice was that the evidence was inconclusive whether Vilardi made contact with the puck. With no clear evidence, the goal on the ice stood as the overtime game-winner as the Kings prevailed 3-2 to take a 2-1 series lead over the Oilers.

Honestly, did anyone not named Connor McDavid even see this play in real time? McDavid pointed at where Vilardi's stick was as the play went on, but not one other person seemed to catch the infraction - including all four officials on the ice! And while I don't have a problem with video review being used to get calls right, I'm glad this call went against Edmonton. That's not a slight against the Oilers in any way, but I feel we've lost the integrity of video review if we're looking for ways to take goals off the scoreboard.

If there was conclusive evidence - Vilardi's stick pushes the puck in a different direction or a clear indication that the puck hit the blade of the stick - I get the need to review the play. Again, I have no problem with them reviewing something that was clearly missed that could have affected the outcome, but this video review took way too long to study something where one cannot conclusively say the puck was touched with a high-stick. Because this is a scoring play in overtime, though, the NHL's War Room in Toronto reviews this play without needing the Oilers to ask.

Honestly, if this play wasn't caught by the officials on the ice, the only thing that the War Room should be looking for is CONCLUSIVE evidence that Vilardi's stick made contact with the puck. Otherwise, the goal stands and the Kings are free to celebrate. It shouldn't take seven minutes to determine that no contact was made in any circumstance, and the fact that the War Room spent that muhc time looking for evidence should tell you that we're going about video review all wrong.

As much as social media was divided into "high-stick" and "no high-stick" camps, the fifty-four replay angles we saw last night provided no assistance when looking at it in real time. When it was played back frame by frame, one could have made a case based on rotation of the puck, but the evidence was circumstantial at best. Because we're looking for conclusive evidence, it was virtually undetectable when watched in real time, and it wasn't conclusive in ultra slo-motion replay. Therefore, goal stands, and we move on.

I made that decision in less than one minute. Why does it take more than five minutes for the NHL to make that determination, and how many people need to weigh in on the decision if the officials on the ice are the ones who ultimately make the final call? If the official's call on the ice is the one being overturned, the official should be the one to overturn his own call with the help of the War Room. This process should take no more than two to three minutes.

No one is saying that the NHL shouldn't get the call right. Let me be clear in stating that the NHL should and will continue to use the video review system as they currently do. All I'm saying is that the War Room should queue up the replays, the senior official or official who mad the call reviews the replays quickly and efficiently, and the four men on the ice either stick with the call made or the call is overturned and the game resumes. If this process takes more than five minutes, the call stands as it was made.

I have no stake in the games between the Oilers and Kings. This isn't an "us-vs-them" discussion where I'm picking one side over the other. I simply want faster reviews done that don't require CSI-like skills to determine something that, honestly, had no effect on the final outcome. Had Vilardi touched the puck with a high stick, there's a rule that would force the play to be called dead so the review had to happen. I get that. What I don't get is the length of time it took to determine that he didn't touch it.

Had I ordered a pizza when Moore scored the goal, it could have arrived in the time it took to determine Vilardi didn't touch the puck. As much as I'm hyperbolizing the length of time needed, this was one review that took far too long. We need to find a way to speed these reviews up, and I hope the NHL will make this a priority whenever the bosses meet again.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice (including you, Vilardi)!