Challenging calls as important a play as any

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/12/2017 (2817 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Winnipeg Jets have made big strides in team defence, goaltending and boosting their offence production during the first half of 2017-18.

The most obvious proof is their 20-11-6 record at the Christmas break, good for third in the Central Division.

As impressive as those big-picture upgrades have been, the Jets have also been good at some of the smaller details, such as their approach to video review.

Two examples in December stand out.

On Dec. 2, the Jets challenged a goal by Vegas forward Colin Miller, a scoring play that had given the Golden Knights a 3-1 lead in the second period.

After video review, Alex Tuch was judged to have been offside on the play and the goal was overturned.

Winnipeg responded by quickly tying the game and surging to a 7-4 triumph on home ice.

Seven days later, in Tampa, Fla., the Jets fell behind 2-1 on a goal by Cedric Paquette of the Lightning, only to successfully challenge the play, contending Chris Kunitz interfered with Jets goalie Connor Hellebuyck.

Tampa Bay would go on to win the game 4-3 in overtime, but the visitors still earned a valuable loser point.

“Because we’re talking about goals, there’s always a huge payoff, right?” said Jets head coach Paul Maurice, whose club will host the Edmonton Oilers tonight at 7 p.m. (Sportsnet, TSN 1290.)

“If it’s 2-1 and you get the call to go your way, it keeps the game there, like the Vegas game. They’re huge, they’re huge calls.

“Actually, the Vegas one was clean. We could see it. It was not a huge overage, but it was over the line, so that one was a fairly easy call to make.

“The ones that are (tough) are the ones where you’re not sure. When it’s that close that you can’t really tell, then you’re trying to figure out what the linesman’s going to call on this and the call on the ice has a really big impact on it.”

Jets video coach Matt Prefontaine monitors replays constantly during a game.

Assistant coach Jamie Kompon is equipped with an earpiece and is in communication with Prefontaine and goaltending coach Wade Flaherty, who watches games from the press box and offers immediate opinions on situations involving goalie interference.

Assistant coach Todd Woodcroft also adds his view from above while Kompon, assistant coach Charlie Huddy and Maurice monitor screens built into the floor of the players’ bench.

And don’t forget the players. Captain Blake Wheeler was among the first to question the offside goal by Miller of the Golden Knights.

Maurice hears plenty of input from players in real time.

“So, when that puck crosses the line, you’ve got 10 guys screaming, ‘Check that!’ Because the guys sitting right in front of the blue line see it clean,” Maurice said.

“Or the guy on the ice will tell you, and it’s the same for the goalie. You can almost tell by the goalie’s reaction whether he feels he was interfered with. So the players know that.

“The most important people are the players on the ice telling you what’s going on. But there’s lots of them that looked offside and just aren’t.”

Maurice, for his part, would prefer a failed challenge have less riding on it. Currently, a minor penalty for delay of game is issued for a unsuccessful challenge.

“I’m not complaining about the linesmen in this — it’s tough,” Maurice said.

“They blow plays down that are onside, and as a league, we’re always trying to find more offence.

“My personal feeling is I’d like them to make the offside call less punitive… So, they could just say, it’s really, really close. I’m going to leave it because I have a good recourse if I’m wrong, and not take it so personally if (they’re) wrong.

“And don’t make it a penalty — lose your timeout, or whatever it is, fine. But adding a two-minute penalty because you’re trying to clean up a decision, I think that’s a bit egregious.”

There are subtle differences affecting offside and goalie interference challenges.

Offside calls are more cut and dried, but the camera angles are usually not as definitive.

Overhead angles above the net make it easier to see contact with a goaltender, but the decision is more nuanced.

“You get better quality, in terms of making a decision on the goalie, but there’s more grey area, in terms of what’s allowed and what’s not,” said Maurice, who is more likely to claim goaltender interference since the penalty of a lost timeout is relatively minor.

“The blue line’s simple — the puck’s over or not. Is he touching or not? But the video’s not as good, it’s not as conclusive. The goalie interference video’s very conclusive, but there’s a lot more grey area in terms of what’s allowed.

“At the end of the year, (the NHL will) send out 10 examples of goalie interference and they’ll ask every coach and GM to vote.

“It’s not even remotely unanimous. It’s all over the spectrum of what people think goalie interference is, which makes it tough. The reason is, it’s not easy. It’s a really difficult thing to figure out.”

Maurice said he trusts his staff implicitly, but understands the final responsibility stays with him.

“Yes, these guys have all been around hockey,” Maurice said.

“Jamie’s on the earpiece — between Jamie, Charlie and I, we’ve got thousands of games in the NHL. You’re not always going to get it right, but there’s a lot of hockey experience there. I trust them.

“That being said, I gotta make that final call, so, if I’m wrong, it’s me. I make the decision, they get the input.”

Maurice insisted he does not keep a tally of his challenge decisions.

“I don’t want a trend,” Maurice said.

“I don’t want to know if I’m lucky or not. I don’t want this to be a Vegas thing, where, ‘Hey, I’m on a roll, let’s try it.’ That’s not what we’re doing.”

mike.sawatzky@freepress.mb.ca Twitter: @sawa14