What's the Point...?

I'm going to forgo a Flame's game preview post for now. Instead, it's "criticize the murky editorial" time.

In his rant/column on tsn.ca (ironically dubbed "To the Point") Dave Hodge takes issue with the manner in which the league handles it's video reviews ("NHL Expects Too Much of Replays").

I think.

His column is so filled with passive-aggressive finger-pointing and non-essential issues that I can't really tell what his complaints actually are. Not to mention that he doesn't offer any kind of insight or solution into the problem.

read it here.

He starts the piece with the very real possibility that the Edmonton Oiler's may lose out on a play-off spot thanks to the goal that was missed (due to a faulty video review) versus the Wild a few games back. Of course, had the goal counted, there is literally no way for anyone to know for certain that the Oilers would have won the contest anyways. It simply increases the probability that Edmonton would have won.

That said, Edmonton does have somthing to complain about - the NHL clearly blew the call. The Toronto office didn't get the correct angle before play resumed. Okay. Im with Hodge up to this point in his column.

It's in the next area where he loses me:"...the NHL tries too hard to make the right call."

Wha...? Too hard? This is your complaint in light of the Edmonton situation? Would Hodge prefer they handle it even more ineptly in the future?

In the next paragraph, rather than properly clarify what he means by the above cryptic remark, Hodge instead lists a number of parallel, but laregly non-essential issues:

"if it takes too long, fans boo, and when it doesn't take long enough, it get's criticized."

While I understand that hockey is entertainment industry, on this issue the fan's reaction is absolutely unimportant. The absolute value of video review is based on if it results in true decisions. Who cares if the fans boo for 5 minutes? Further, what is Hodge's definition, therefore, of the "proper" length of time for a review?

"it makes on ice officials subserviant to replay officials..."

this overly long sentence points out that the video review process may be too convoluted. Sort of. His implication that it's "bad" that on ice officials must defer to replay officials upstairs is baffling. So what? The reason this happens is because the on ice refs didn't have the ability or tools to confidently make the proper call. Why is this a bad thing? Also, his jab aimed at the Toronto office at the end ("..might oversee Casinos in it's spare time...") is somewhat confusing. Is he saying there's too many reviews for the Toronto office to handle? What's his solution to it then...?

Dave's next statement is another below-the-belt shot. Not too mention completely useless in terms of the issue at hand:

"This is the same league that used to ask video review to determine if a skate blade was in the goal crease..."

Ummm, that rule was overturned. For good reason. The league doesn't do that anymore. Now we've gone from deriding a missed goal to bringing up defunct rules. Can you say "ad hominem arguement"? Though what he's arguing for and against are still pretty foggy...

The conclusion does little to clarify:

"Reviews can do as much harm as good if done improperly..."

I love how this is just thrown in as some sort of self-evident truth. More harm than good? Really? How so Dave? In Edmonton's case, for example, Im fairly certain that the officials would never have been able to properly determine if the puck had crossed the line on their own. At the most, the botched review in question did no more harm than would have occured without it.

"the NHL has lost sight of their (video reviews) resonable worth by expecting them to do too much, and by not relying on its own human resources."

HUH? What is a review's "worth" then and what would you define as "resonable"? How is it that the NHL expects them to "do too much" when a play is only reviewed when the on-ice official's decision is unclear? Is Hodge's solution, ambiguously hinted at in the final statement, to abolish reviews altogether and give refs 100% decision-making power? Because, as previously mentioned, that hardly fixes the problem. Or, Perhaps Hodge thinks there should be monitors in the penalty box? Or, Should the NHL out-source video reviews to a third party??

In short...WHAT THE HELL DOES HE WANT?

*shudder* Talk about third-rate journalism. In not exactly a moron, but by the end of Dave's rant, I have almost no idea what he's talking about.

And I doubt that anyone else out there really does either...(please let me know if you do!)