NHL Instant Replay and the Tenth-of-a-Second Clock Changed Hockey

Imagine it's Game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals. The score is tied as the clock who slowly ticks down five four, three players all crash onto the net and the buck slides as the blayer, signifying a goal was scored. The question was does it count? Was it in time? And we just have to rely on this person skating around in a zebra suit in his naked eye and a referee making a split second judgment. That's the difference between agony and ecstasy in a city celebrating or morning, all within tenths of a second, a judgment call from someone that may not even be in the best position. And that's why the NHL on June twenty fourth, nineteen ninety one, decided to implement replay and add tents to the final ten seconds of a game so we could get the most accurate outcome to finish a game with minimum controversy. It was a big moment in sports in the NHL, and we're going to dive into it today on Daily Sports History. Let's go. Welcome to Daily Sports History. I mean the Reese your Guide because I remember game stats better than my own social Security number, so I know it's hard to believe. But back in the day, we didn't have the quality of video we had the technology we have today, and we couldn't get instant replay as easy, and watching games was a hold your breath moment, especially in the playoffs, because you had no idea what would happen, and what actually happened didn't always matter because it depended what the referee saw happened, not maybe what actually happened. See playoff hockey amplifies everything. Everything is faster, and everything's quicker and faster, and the stakes are even higher, and a miscall or a timing error could mean the end of a season or the crowning of a new champion. Fans and coaches were left feeling helpless with this anger, and there were controversial goals and mispenalties and timing errors throughout hockey, and in the rule book was limiting. There was no precise timing technology video review, which meant everything relied solely on the refs and their instincts. Now, the refs are trained really well and they do make very good decisions at the drop of a hat most of the time. It doesn't mean there's not airs. Whenever there's a person involved, there's always human error, but as technology started to evolve, it's when I Push really was made because technology needed to catch up. In nineteen fifty five, a Canadian broadcaster named George Retzlof recognized that TV audience were missing out on the drama of the big moments, and so he used what was called a hot processor to develop film quickly and replay it during breaks in the action during hockey night in Canada. While it wasn't instant, it was still faster than anyone had seen before and really changed how TV was watched. There was nothing more frustrating than watching, if you know anything, back in the day, and it still happens to this day, watching a play where something was missed, but you have to see the replay of the miss over and over. Then. The first use of instant replay in American sports happened on December seventh, nineteen sixty three, during the Army and Navy football game, when the director Tony Verna used a twelve hundred pound videotape machine to replay a touchdown during the broadcast, and the announcer had to clarify saying, this is not live, ladies and gentlemen. Army did not score again. He was so new and was really a turning point in not only broadcasting but using replay in general. Now, the NFL embraced instant replay. They used it for their TV all the time, and then they and then they actually adopted to use instant replay during the regular season. The system allowed for officials in the press box to review plays and reverse calls with the video evidence with total conclusiveness. Now, this process was quick and usually took about fifteen to twenty seconds to avoid disruption, but people didn't like it, and they actually voted to remove it for years, and they would go on to adapt the process and change it. It wasn't until two thousand and one that the NBA adopted instant replay, and then MLB adopted it in two thousand and eight. But the NHL was different. There are always kind of cutting edge and they were right along the NFL and about their timing because they were steeped in tradition and they did not run interrupt the game flow. Because of their different style on how hockey is a continuous thing. To embrace replay was different than the NFL. Concerns about the speed and fluidity of the game and not every NHL game was televised in the early nineties, making video review a logistical challenge to use it for every single game. However, the league recognized that every team taped games for training purposes, so they could use that and not have to use the broadcast live feed. So the president, John Zieler Junior started to advocate to modernize the game, and in the nineties, the NHL was all about modernizing. They were adding teams like crazy. They actually got to a point where they had cgi puck flame coming off, so when a puck was hit at a certain speed, it looked like it was a flame from a video game. That one was pretty cool, but many people didn't like it and they got rid of it. But as more controversial calls happened, the call for replay intensified. The more that people watched it on TV saw replaces happening, and we're asking, why can't we get these calls right. So on June twenty fourth, nineteen ninety one, just two days after a meeting in Buffalo of the NHL Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve a series of rule changes, and the biggest one was the adoption of the video instant replay for disputed goals, and adding tenth of a second to the display of game clocks in the final minute of each period. The president of the NHL said this would provide assistance to those people who are under great pressure and at very difficult times, to have them make these difficult decisions even better. So how this worked now the replay would only be used in specific scenarios if the puck was completely crossed the goal line, whether the puck entered the net before the goal frame was dislodged, if the puck entered the net before the time expired at the end of the period, or if the puck was directed into the net illegally by a foot or hand or often official and so it's mainly just scoring plays in the process would be the on ice of referee good request or review, at which point a video replay supervisor or a video judge stationed in the arena would review the footage and advise referee, and they only gave them two minutes maximum to do this to minimize delay. Now, at the time, the NHL was the second major sports team to implement instant replay. Now, it was limited in its actions, but it was groundbreaking, setting the stage for the future. And not only that, adding the tens of a second ensured that the final moments would be captured so those clutch moments would have the best chance and over times, this really did help at times, and as the technology got better, it got even easier. In two thousand and three, they actually expanded the scope of the video review, allowing for more than just goal related scenarios, giving leading officials graver oversight over critical situations. In twenty fifteen, they actually included a coaches challenge, which marked a major leap. Similar to the chanallenge in the NFL, a coach could challenge a goal on the basis of being off side or the goaltender interference, but not whether the puck actually crossed the line, and in twenty nineteen, the NHL further expanded the review after several controversial playoff calls. A third category was added to a coaching challenge, allowing the team to contest miss, stoppage and an offensive zone that led to a goal, such as the puck being hit into the netting or hand passing or high sticking miss by the officials, and this became increasingly easier as the technology helped being able to see these things and made it quicker to make these decisions and help the flow the game not be disrupted. Then they would add a situation room which was staffed by experience officials and video technicians who can monitor every game in real time, and they did say that if the video was inconclusive, the call on the ice would stand. So this system had positives as it led to a fair outcome and fewer missed crucial calls, but slowed the game and introduced new controversy such as piccalized sized offsides interfractions, so it was like in fractions that the naked eye could not see were being called because it was so close, you wouldn't call it in regular instance, but since you can see it on the video, you would. And in twenty twenty one, the NFL actually launched a puck and player tracking system known as the NFL Edge and allowed twenty cameras in the arena combined with technology in the puck and that the players would wear, giving them even more raw data on the game. This would track the puck sixty times per second in players up to fifteen times per second, giving them a deeptail map of the movements of the players, allowing them even better access to not only the reviews, but also analytics and stats. Now, the argument for insert any plays easiest when you see an egregious call, you want it to be right. But the more we get technology involved, how much does it take away from the game. Do we just have robots call penalties or AI We technically could, but that seems to take something away from the game, And the question is how much should technology be in our games. I want to thank you for listening to Today's Daily Sports History. If you like this, please make sure you like and subscribe wherever you're at. That way, you do not miss a single episode as we continue to grow and it can make you even more Daily Sports History And we'll see you on the next one.