Coach’s Challenge
IIHF Rule Book
38.1GENERAL 05 The video review mechanism triggered by the Coach’s Challenge can only be utilized in goal / no goal and delay of game – puck over glass situations (Rule 63.2 III) and is intended to be extremely narrow in scope. In all Coach’s Challenge situations, the original call on the ice will be overturned if, and only if, a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct. If a review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice will be confirmed. » For more information refer to IIHF Technology Codes & Regulations.
38.2SITUATIONS SUBJECT TO COACH’S CHALLENGE A team may only request a Coach’s Challenge to review the following scenarios:
(I) “Off-side”- Play Leading to a goal
A play that results in a “goal” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by
reason of an “Off-side” infraction by the attacking team.
➔ Rule 83 – Off-side.
(II) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone Leading to a Goal
A play that results in a “goal” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by
reason of any play occurring in the attacking zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking
team but did not. The one exception to this provision is when the puck is played out from the playing area by either team
and goes unnoticed by the On-Ice Officials;
(III) Scoring Plays Involving Potential “Interference on the Goalkeeper”
Either:
(1) A play that results in a “goal” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been
disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper” ➔ Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper; or
(2) A play that results in a “no goal” call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice OfficialsOFFICIALS have determined that the attacking team was guilty of “Interference on the Goalkeeper” but where the attacking team claims:
•There was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper;
•The attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or
•The attacking Player’s positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play.
(IV) Penalty situations for “Delaying the game – puck over the glass”
When a minor penalty for delaying the game has been assessed under Rule 63.2 (III) for shooting or batting the puck out
of play from the defending zone. This will only apply to delay of game penalties when the shot/batted puck is determined
to have subsequently deflected off a player, stick, glass or boards, etc., and not a judgment call. No challenge can be
issued for a non-call, in other words, no challenge is to be considered when the On-Ice Officials deem that it was not a
violation of Rule 63.2 (III). A challenge can only be used to nullify a penalty, not to have one assessed. In the event of a
failed challenge, an additional minor penalty (or double-minor penalty, as appropriate) will be assessed (in addition to the
existing delay of game penalty).
05
➔ Rule 63 - Delaying the game38.3PROCESS FOR INITIATING A COACH’S CHALLENGE All Coach’s Challenges must be initiated by notice verbally communicated to a Referee prior to the center ice “face-off” following a “goal” or, in the case of a “no goal” call by reason of “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” or in the case of a minor penalty for delaying the game – puck over glass, prior to the resumption of play. Teams may not unduly delay the resumption of play while evaluating whether or not to initiate a Coach’s Challenge. Any such delay or delay tactics may result in the denial of a right to Challenge and, at the discretion of the Referee, may also result in a bench minor penalty for “Delaying the Game”. ➔ Rule 63 – Delaying the Game. In order to expedite the review process, Coaches initiating a Coach’s Challenge are required to provide to the Referee, with reasonable specificity, both the reason for their Coach’s Challenge (i.e., the actual infraction that is being claimed) and the approximate time on the clock when the purported infraction transpired. Failure to provide this information with reasonable specificity may result in the denial of a right to a Coach’s Challenge. Only one Coach’s Challenge per team per stoppage will be permitted.
38.4PROCESS FOR REVIEWING A COACH’S CHALLENGE The IIHF Technology Department in cooperation with the Organizer will make available in all arenas suitable technology (for exam- ple, a handheld tablet or a television or computer monitor) that will allow the On-Ice Officials, in conjunction with the Video Review Consultant, to review video replays of the play giving rise to the Coach’s Challenge. To the extent practical and possible, the replays made available to the On-Ice Officials will be the same replays that are being utilized by the Video Review Consultant. Once a Coach’s Challenge has been initiated, the Video Review Consultant will immediately establish contact with the On-Ice Offi- cial(s) responsible for the call (or non-call) on the ice via the headset and will inquire and discuss with the On-Ice Official(s), prior to the On-Ice Official reviewing any video, the following: OFFICIALS
(I) the On-Ice Official’s “final call on the ice”; and (II) what the On-Ice Official(s) observed on the play.
The Video Review Consultant will be involved both in communicating with the On-Ice Officials via the headset and with providing input to the On-Ice Officials. The On-Ice Officials are responsible for making the “final” decision. The “on-ice call” will then be reviewed simultaneously by the appropriate On-Ice Official(s) at ice level and by the Video Review Consultant using any and all replays at their disposal. After their joint review and consultation, the On-Ice Officials will render the decision on whether to uphold or overturn the original “call on the ice”. Once a decision is made, the Referee will inform the Penalty Timekeeper/Public Address Announcer and will make the announce- ment on the ice.
38.5RIGHT TO INITIATE A COACH’S CHALLENGE Teams may initiate a Coach’s Challenge on appropriate plays at any time during the game. 05
38.6RESULTS OF A SUCCESSFUL COACH’S CHALLENGE In cases where a Challenge has been initiated for an “Off-side Play Leading to a Goal” or a “Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Offensive Zone Leading to a Goal”, and a determination is made that the GOAL call on the ice should be overturned, the goal will be disallowed and the clock will be re-set to the time at which the play should have been stopped for the missed infraction. In such cases, a “face-off” will ensue in the ice location where it would have otherwise occurred had the on-ice infraction been called properly. If one or more penalties (minor or major) are assessed between the time of the missed infraction and the video review that disallows the apparent goal, the offending team(s) (and responsible Player(s)) will still be required to serve the penalty(ies) identified and assessed, and the time of the penalty(ies) will be recorded as the time at which the play should have been stopped for the missed infraction. In cases where a Challenge has been initiated for a “goal” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to the “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” as described in ➔ Rules 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper, and a determination is made that the “call on the ice” should be overturned, the goal will be disallowed, and a “face-off” will ensue in the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone. The video review process on these plays will be utilized exclusively for purposes of overturning a “goal” call on the ice – it will not be utilized for any other purpose, including, specifically, for assessing minor or major penalties for Goalkeeper Interference. In cases where a Challenge has been initiated for a “no goal” call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” and a determination is made that the “call on the ice” should be overturned, the goal will be allowed an a “face-off” will ensue at center ice. ➔ Rule 69 – "Interference on a goalkeeper" If a penalty for “Interference on a Goalkeeper” was indicated and based on the video review, no such action was committed by the attacking Player, no penalty shall be assessed for such an infraction. All other penalties not related to “Interference on a Goalkeeper” should be assessed and served in a normal manner. On the other OFFICIALS hand, penalties not indicated cannot be assessed as a result of the video review.
38.7RESULTS OF AN UNSUCCESSFUL COACH’S CHALLENGE If a team initiates a Coach’s Challenge for any of the enumerated scenarios in Rule 38.2 above and such challenge does not result in the “final call on the ice” being overturned, the team exercising such challenge shall be assessed a bench minor penalty (2 minutes) for Delaying the Game. If a team that has already initiated one or more Coach’s Challenges that were unsuccessful, initiates a Coach’s Challenge for any of the enumerated scenarios in Rule 38.2 above and such challenge does not result in the original call on the ice being overturned, the team exercising the Coach’s Challenge shall be assessed a double-bench minor penalty (4 minutes) for Delaying the Game. Note: If a situation cannot be reviewed by the On-Ice Officials due to a technical error (e.g. a "black screen"), the "final call on the ice" will stand. In this case, the Coach's Challenge will be considered “unsuccessful” but no bench minor penalty will be assessed on the team that initiated the challenge.
38.8APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR “OFF-SIDE” CHALLENGE The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “goal” call on the ice is that the On-Ice Officials (Linespersons), after revie- wing 05 any and all available replays and consulting with the Video Review Consultant, determine that one or more Players on the attacking team preceded the puck into the attacking zone prior to the goal being scored and that, as a result, the play should have been stopped for an “Off-side” infraction; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed. Goals will only be subject to review for a potential “Off-side” infraction if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again between the time of the “Off-side” infraction and the time the goal is scored.
38.9APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR “MISSED GAME STOPPAGE EVENT IN THE ATTACKING ZONE” CHALLENGE The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “goal” call on the ice is that the On-Ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all available replays and consulting with the Video Review Consultant determine that the play should have been stopped for an event caused by the attacking team, but was not at some point after the puck entered the attacking zone but prior to the goal being scored; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed. Potential infractions that would require a play stoppage in the attacking zone by the attacking team include, but may not be limited to: ➔ Rule 79 – Hand Pass; ➔ Rule 80 – High-sticking the Puck; and ➔ Rule 85 – Puck Out of Bounds. Such infractions will only serve as a basis for overturning a “goal” call on the ice if video review can conclusively establish that a game stoppage event had occurred in the attacking zone and was missed by the On-Ice Official(s). Where the infraction at issue was a missed penalty call subject to the judgment or discretion of the On-Ice Official(s), such infraction cannot result in the “goal” call on the ice being overturned, even if upon review, the On-Ice Official(s) would have made a different call. Goals will only be reviewed for a potential “Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone” if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again between the time of the “Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone” and the time the goal is scored.
38.10APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR POTENTIAL “INTERFERENCE ON THE GOALKEEPER” CHALLENGE The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “goal” call on the ice is that the On-Ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the Video Review Consultant, determine that the goal should have been disallowed due OFFICIALS to “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” as described in ➔ Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed. The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “no goal” call on the ice is that the On-Ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the Video Review Consultant, determine that the goal on the ice should have been allowed because either:
(I) There was no actual contact of any kind initiated by the attacking Player with the goalkeeper; or
(II) The attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by the defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into
contact with the goalkeeper; or
(III) The attacking Player’s positioning within the Goal Crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal and,
in fact, had no discernable impact on the play; where this standard is met, the goal will be allowed.38.11APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR “DELAYING THA GAME – PUCK OVER GLASS” CHALLENGE The standard for overturning a minor penalty for delaying the game – puck over glass call to a defending player is that the On-Ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the Video Review Consultant, determines that the puck 05 was deflected or rebounded off the boards, glass, goal net frame or otherwise, or did not break the plane of the glass directed upwards, and should not be subject to a minor penalty. In such cases, the minor penalty is rescinded, and a face-off conducted in the defending zone.