Clarification Please: The NHL's offsides review still a work in progress

The end result was the league concluding that the goal was good and would not be overturned, therefore forfeiting Arizona’s timeout. The Desert Dogs ended up losing that game 4-3.

The prospect of losing the timeout during a challenge can also change whether or not a coach wants to call a timeout and give their team a chance to regroup, if need be. San Jose Sharks bench boss Peter DeBoer expressed the in-game concern over losing a timeout following a 5-4 loss in early January. In this game – coincidentally also against the Wild – DeBoer thought about calling a timeout in a raucous third period to try to give his team a chance to regroup. DeBoer told the press after the game: 

“The momentum swung (to Minnesota) and we didn’t stop it. “On me, I (could) probably think about using a timeout. But at that point you’re wondering if maybe you need one for a challenge at some point. They’ve become so valuable… With the importance of the challenges on goals, it’s hard to use that.”

Momentum is another thing that the offsides challenge is effecting. Even with the addition of those blue line cameras, there is concern from the players and coaches side is that the officials on the ice can’t possibly be making the best call possible when they are watching a review of the play on a tiny tablet. The linesman have to go off watching the replay using TV broadcast footage – which we all know isn’t the best vantage point – and squinting at that screen can take quite a while. Sure, the idea of the challenge is to get another look at these razor thin margins, and the officials want to get those calls right. But there are cases where the difficulty in the process of analyzing these calls is only taking time out of the game.

“Video review is great when it works but sticks out like an angry pimple when it’s clumsy.” - Gary Lawless, The Sports Network

TSN senior correspondent Gary Lawless pointed out exactly this back in October, explaining that “the offsides review is good in theory” but the long wait is an energy-killer. In recalling a game where the review took nine minutes he wrote: “Video review is great when it works but sticks out like an angry pimple when it’s clumsy.”

That, honestly, might be the most concise way to describe the process.

So of course now we ponder where to go from here. What changes could make the offsides review better? Lawless suggested a time limit on the review process – which would cover reviews for both offsides and goalie interference—and that could help the momentum problem. In turn, if the review process is less of a pain and time-suck, perhaps coaches won’t be as concerned with potentially losing their timeout. And the suggestion for the NHL war room to have more say in the review process isn’t a terrible idea, although with the large number of challenges for offsides, that could get a bit chaotic. (Not to forget that the league is looking at the same broadcast footage that the linesman are, so the review process might end up being just as long.) Puck-tracking technology might be the best solution here, although that technology isn’t available yet.

The whole point of offsides review is to catch the egregious calls. But the review process still needs some work so it doesn’t reach egregious levels itself.