Larry Brooks

Larry Brooks

NHL

Botched call highlights NHL’s confounding replay policy

The most disturbing NHL news from last Saturday night didn’t come out of the Wild West show in Vancouver — during which John Tortorella affirmed himself in dire need of anger management counseling — but rather from Detroit, where a catastrophic officiating mistake combined with a systemic void to give the Red Wings two critical points in the standings they otherwise were 27 seconds away from not earning.

Though breakdowns such as the one endured by the Canucks coach can be dealt with immediately by league officials through a fine and suspension, the NHL essentially is powerless to act on the breakdown that occurred in Detroit when, somehow, not one of the four officials on the ice saw a shot from Niklas Kronwall deflect high into the netting above the glass behind the Kings’ net before it ricocheted down and off the back of L.A. goaltender Jonathan Quick and into the cage for the tying goal at 19:33 of the third period.

No one saw the puck go out of play, except for everybody in the arena other than the four officials — referees Rob Martell and Dan O’Halloran and linesmen Don Henderson and Mike Cvik — and everybody watching on television and everyone in the league office in Toronto charged with conduction video review.

Except this play was not subject to video review. This was not an oversight or a loophole. This was worse than that.

Because this was the mandate from league general managers, who repeatedly have voted against expanding video oversight of the game, unable somehow to reach a consensus on how to deal with complexities (that aren’t really that complex at all) that could result from reversals of original calls.

The GMs, often vexed on trade deadline day or upon the opening of the free-agent market on July 1, can’t agree on what should happen if, say, a goal or a penalty would occur during the time between a missed out-of-bounds call and a stoppage to allow the review.

The solution would seem to apply the same standard as when a goal is missed and later awarded by Toronto, which would be to wind back the clock and allow the penalty to stand. No goal could be scored in what would be illegitimate time.

There is sentiment among at least a portion of GMs and league executives to remedy the situation and apply video review to out-of-play calls for the playoffs. But best intentions may not be enough. It is not so simple to enact a rule change in-season, unless, of course, it applies to Sean Avery (See: 2008 playoffs, The Avery Rule).

In order to adopt expanded video review for the playoffs, the league would require approval from the competition committee, followed by a unanimous vote from the Board of Governors, as opposed to the two-thirds majority that’s necessary to enact changes before a season.

Perhaps the two points that went to the Red Wings — and could have implications worth millions of dollars if Detroit makes the playoffs by that margin — are enough to jog the board into dramatic action. Surely it should.

Surely the possibility a team could win a playoff game, a playoff round or the Stanley Cup as a result of such a missed call, should be enough to create unanimity on the board on some issue other than taking a higher percentage of hockey related revenue.

The NHL, by the way, did not conduct a hearing with Bob Hartley or any of the Flames before assessing the $25,000 fine for his role in the fiasco in Vancouver, which seems more a dereliction of duty than odd.

According to the league announcement, the Calgary coach was found “responsible for the actions of Flames’ right wing Kevin Westgarth, who took the game’s opening face-off and attempted to instigate a premeditated fight with an unwilling opponent — the Canucks’ Kevin Bieksa.”

The fact is the Canucks originally had Kellan Lain in the circle to take the draw when Westgarth lined up across from him and began talking smack to the rookie, who was about to make his NHL debut. Bieksa skated in from his position on right defense, exchanged a few words with Westgarth, circled back to his spot and finally came forward again when Westgarth kept talking.

An inference can be drawn that Westgarth was telling Lain to be ready to fight. But did Westgarth say that he “had’ to fight him? If so, what would that have meant? It a question that should have been asked of Hartley and Westgarth both.

By not following the trail, it is as if the NHL did not want to find out where such an investigation might have led.

We’ve read over the last week of a few incidents in which Hartley has been confronted for overseeing perceived thug tactics from behind the bench, but we were a witness to perhaps the earliest on record in the NHL when Blueshirts coach John Muckler confronted Avalanche coach Hartley on the ice after a 6-3 victory in Denver at the old McNichols Arena.

Seems Hartley sent a line including noted enforcers Jeff Odgers and Scott Parker onto the ice against Wayne Gretzky with less four minutes to play in the match. A fight between Odgers and Rangers’ defenseman Rumun Ndur ensued.

Muckler was livid after challenging Hartley on the ice as the two walked to their respective rooms.

“I would never do that,” Muckler said. “He puts out Parker and Odgers, he runs Gretz.

“The game was over with, he took a cheap shot. It was a minor league move.”