For about 11 minutes, the meeting between Brynäs and Örebro was interrupted when the condition of the goal was reviewed by video.
Today, the rule of thumb is crucial to how the situation is handled:
It is not at all good for that to happen, our entire credibility is at stake, says Thomas Thorsbrink.
The score was 1-1 at the start of the third half when the big bagpipes broke out. Brynäsbacken Samuel Johannesson’s shot ends up in Örebro.
After just 11 minutes the puck was fired again and by that time the judges had changed their decision twice. From goals, judged on ice, to no goals and to goals again.
Of course eleven minutes is a very long time. We can’t get over such long video reviews, says Thomas Thorsbrink.
However, it’s not the number of minutes Thorsbrink represents that matters most, but the decision was changed a second time, when the judges had already determined from the first video images that it wouldn’t be a target.
– I don’t really have a problem with it being long, the important thing is for it to be right and good. The biggest problem here is that you make a decision and come back and do a new assessment.
The big question was who was last in the disc. Was it a kick by Brinas’ Johan Larsson or did it touch Örebroback Rasmus Rissanen before slipping behind Jonas Arntzen?
Changed after the protests
The two referees, Richard Magnuson and Daniel Erickson, decided on the ice that it was a goal, but changed their minds after the first video review and disallowed the goal.
Something that really stirred up the emotions of the home players who somehow forced the referees to make a fresh review.
Most alarmed was Brynä coach Mikko Manner who, holding an iPad in his hand with a picture of the situation, tried to prove that the target would be approved.
There is always a lot of talk when we change a decision after one team protest, our entire credibility is on the line when it comes to that part. It was a fairly clear statement from Brynäs that this was a mistake, but it certainly wasn’t the basis for a new assessment.
Because at the same time the “juice mixer” was also turned on in the speaker cabin. An indication that the Stockholm operating room wants to draw the judges’ attention.
New better images have been requested and arrived from C More which may show the disc has gone through Rissanen into goal.
How can it turn out like this?
“I will answer a combination of the human factor and technology,” says Thorsbrink.
Don’t want to see any time limit
Did the judges make a decision too quickly in the first instance?
– Yes, you can say that. You should have been more questioning on both sides (the referees and the operating room)
How can it be avoided in the future?
– What we do now is we review the routine, what the operating room asks, and the judges for follow-up questions in their dialogue with each other. If a decision on ice (which first occurred here) is to be changed, photographic evidence must convince otherwise that it applies to ice. There is more to do here. We and I should be critical of ourselves. It has also already been decided that from next season, new ceiling cameras with a completely different resolution will be installed in the photos.
Want to impose a cap on video review?
– No, if we did, I’m afraid it would be even more wrong because we are too quick to make decisions. Average rating is 1.30 minutes. I think we’re very good there, although 1.30 can be a long time when nothing’s going on.