The rule change that could solve the NHL's officiating problem

Referees and linesmen have among the toughest jobs in the NHL. Whether a penalty is justified or not, somebody is always going to be upset at the outcome. It's a fast-paced game, and things are bound to be missed. But after seeing some major errors throughout the playoffs, it could be time for the NHL to consider a new solution.

Just in the last few days, there have been some notable examples of mistakes made by on-ice officials. One of the most controversial was the lack of a penalty against Edmonton's Viktor Arvidsson after a dangerous trip in overtime of Game 2.

Arvidsson and Golden Knights defenseman Brayden McNabb were chasing a loose puck with quite a bit of speed as they approached the boards. As McNabb sent the puck up the side wall, he went down hard and was visibly in pain.

Upon closer inspection, Arvidsson's stick got tangled up in McNabb's skates, which sent him flying into the boards at an unsafe angle. It was a textbook tripping penalty: Arvidsson clearly pushed McNabb's right skate with the blade of his stick, causing McNabb to lose his balance and crash into the wall.

Yet no penalty was assessed on the play and the game continued at even strength. Just minutes later, Leon Draisaitl would go on to win the game for the Oilers, and Vegas captain Mark Stone had one message for the officials: "This is on you," he said as he left the ice.

Another questionable example came in Game 3 between the Washington Capitals and Carolina Hurricanes. Towards the end of the second frame, there was a scramble in front of the Canes net when Washington's Trevor van Riemsdyk flinched and fell to the ice clutching his face after taking a stick up high.

Jordan Staal was handed a high-sticking minor on the play, which immediately drew an angry reaction from Carolina coach Rod Brind'Amour.

It turns out, van Riemsdyk was actually high-sticked by Capitals teammate Pierre-Luc Dubois, and Staal just happened to be the closest Canes skater. Since it was just a two-minute minor and not a double minor, the call was non-reviewable.

The NHL general managers actually voted in favor of a rule change that would prevent plays like this at their meetings last year, according to reports from NHL.com. The new rule would have allowed coaches to challenge a high-sticking penalty when replay showed that it was a teammate who made contact.

The Board of Governors did not end up actually implementing that rule change, but it raises an interesting question about how much power the coaches should have when it comes to disputing penalty calls.

Should the NHL expand the coach's challenge?

As it stands, the coaches are pretty limited in the kind of plays that they are allowed to challenge. In regards to penalties, the only play that can be reviewed is delay of game. If a team is penalized for shooting the puck over the glass but the replay reveals it was deflected, then a coach is allowed to have the refs review the play and possibly have the penalty taken away.

It's worth noting that coaches cannot challenge a play to have a penalty added, only to get one removed. So would the NHL ever consider altering the rule to allow for non-calls to be looked at more carefully by officials?

In theory, it's a great idea. It would allow for a more fair game, as fewer infractions would slip through the cracks. As far as the previous examples go, Arvidsson certainly deserved to be called for tripping against McNabb, and Staal should not have gone to the box for a penalty that he did not commit.

Giving coaches more power in this regard would highly reduce the possibility of missed or incorrect penalties determining the outcome of a game. Had Arvidsson been rightly assessed a penalty for the trip, the Golden Knights would have gotten a power play in overtime, and who knows what could have happened at that point?

We saw another pretty clear missed call on the hit that injured Maple Leafs goalie Anthony Stolarz. Florida's Sam Bennett was not given a penalty after a blatant elbow to the head knocked Stolarz out of the game (and he has still not returned). If coach Craig Berube had the ability to challenge that, it would be a pretty indisputable penalty.

The NHL should be focused on how to maintain parity in the game, especially when it comes to high-stakes situations. Allowing coaches to have a bit more power in reviewing penalties would certainly be one way to accomplish that.

All things considered, this could wind up being a little bit clunky in practice, which is probably a big argument against implementing more rules about which plays can be challenged.

When the coach's challenge was originally introduced in 2015-16, it only applied to goals and they could be reviewed for either offsides or goalie interference. There were a lot of frivolous challenges in those first few seasons, "just in case" a play was offside by a centimeter.

This led to long pauses in the game as officials were forced to watch the replay in excruciating detail to determine whether there was even a sliver of white in between a player's skate and the blue line as the puck entered the zone. That did decrease as the NHL decided a team could be penalized for a failed challenge, and the system is much more streamlined today than it was back then, but it took some time to get here.

There's also the question of when that kind of challenge could take place. Most likely, it'd be at the next stoppage in play. But then does the game clock need to be rewinded to the time that the penalty occurred? What if five minutes go by until the next whistle -- does the non-call even matter at that point?

The rules state that if a coach challenges a penalty and the refs decide that he is wrong, the team will then be in a 5-on-3 situation -- the original penalty will remain, and another would be handed out for delay of game due to the failed challenge. If officials decide to overrule a challenge, it would just put the team further in the hole, so would teams even be compelled to use it?

It's pretty unlikely that the NHL would consider making this change right now, but if there's any solution that would cut down on missed calls, it's worth taking a second look at the rule book.