Boston College Women's Hockey '25-'26: It's The Hope That Kills You

[ARM]

But why review a possible major penalty (which was under their noses) while discounting the possibility that they missed a minor penalty? I think it was a clear minor, but maybe those, by definition, are unchallengeable? If so, a rule like this seems designed to cover the refs assets: that is, "There's nothing to see here," despite the premise of the challenge being a possible major.

My guess is that they don't want an endless list of challenges for missed trippings, etc., but the powers that be wanted a way to remedy the situation if a truly dangerous infraction went unseen (or just uncalled). I'd guess we're still a few decades away from an NBA-type rule where you challenge the out-of-bounds call so that the refs can see that the reason the ball went out of bounds of Team A's player was because Team B tackled him. On the positive side, they have gotten much better on the reviews to see that, by golly, that puck did go in the net after all!

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Yeah it's what you said there -- you can't challenge for a minor, so since they didn't call one on the ice you could only challenge for a major and hope for the best. Right decision by the bench obviously given that it was the end of the game but also agree it was probably only a minor.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Update: We are so back