November 7, 2022

Following a number of discipline notifications last week and queries received by the EIHA from across the sport in relation to the process followed and how outcomes are reached, Andrew Miller – director with strategic responsibility for the NIHL – wanted to ensure clarity on the current position on video reviews.

All NIHL clubs have access to important documents via an online portal, this includes Rules of Competition and links to online forms such as registration, dispensations, video reviews and injury reports.

The NIHL Management have issued a number of updates to clubs through the course of the season to ensure that clubs are kept up to date on the application of rules and regulations of the sport. So far this season updates have been published on communication with on ice officials; social media and interviews; fighting situations; faceoffs, line changes, over time and penalty shots; game video requirements. Whilst each of these updates are already generally contained within IIHF Rulebook, In House Rules or Rules of Competition, each update has been sent to provide greater clarity and provide answers to common issues being experienced within the game.

The final of these updates related to the requirements for all teams within the NIHL to provide game video for fixtures including the minimum standards expected which are contained within the Rules of Competition. Game video provided to the EIHA is done exclusively for the purpose of administering the sport and not for publication. This however will be explored with teams whether the position may be changed to allow us to publish incidents subject to a video review.

The video review process itself is simple and falls within a similar remit to how match reports are processed:

A video review request is submitted by the home or away team where they believe an error has been made in relation to a major penalty. The video review notification is automatically generated to both the home and away teams, so they are aware that the process has commenced, have a copy of the video submitted and a notification is also sent to the EIHA.

The video is reviewed by the league management group and external verification of the correct penalty is sought. This external view is normally provided by a current or recent senior ice hockey official, a member of the IHUK Referee Section Management Group or a Game Supervisor from another appropriate body such as IIHF or European senior league.

The outcome of the video review is submitted to discipline to be allocated an appropriate tier of suspension.

The discipline team will issue the suspension, where appropriate, to the team through the normal notification process. EIHA Media will pull together information shared with them on the notifications that have been sent to clubs and publish online.
There is no fee charged to teams for submission of a video review.

Submission of video review information in addition to other videos received by the EIHA are provided to IHUK Referee Section. The NIHL National Division teams and EIHA also investing in the InStat video analysis platform to support how we use video as a sport to develop players and support on ice officials.

Andrew Miller, Director for the NIHL, said: “Our video review process is robust in its outcomes however this is not without challenges. The speed of the process can vary dramatically, and we need to improve on consistently delivering every stage of a review quickly from teams receiving and submitting footage, external stakeholder being consulted on the appropriate penalties and the discipline notifications being sent.

“A lot of discussions I’ve had with people has been around accountability and transparency and we need to reflect on that feedback as a sport. We have been clear with teams on how to submit reviews and ensure that suspensions are applied appropriately based on the actions of players and the evidence available. However, we have to raise the awareness on why decisions have been taken and reflect this in the information published where appropriate.”

Feedback on recent video reviews submitted

Video reviews were submitted in relation to three games last week with further information provided on these reviews:

NIHL National Sheffield vs Leeds: Lee Haywood and Grant Cooper were assessed a match penalty for high sticks on the night. The video submitted did not show a contact from a high stick and therefore this penalty was incorrect. The incident started following an attempted slash by Haywood on Cooper to draw a reaction who was on the bench at the end of the second period which should have been penalised with a minor penalty. Cooper responded with a single punch with his stick in his hand, which was high but did the video did not show either a high stick contact or a penalty warranting a match penalty, and should have been penalised with a minor penalty for roughing. Haywood’s reaction to this was to again use his stick in a reckless and dangerous slashing motion that warranted a 5 + Game for slashing. Whilst the review was initiated by Leeds with no review submitted by Sheffield, the review process looks at the context of the whole incident submitted and therefore both penalties were adjusted appropriately.

NIHL National Peterborough vs Milton Keynes: Two reviews were submitted for the game. The first was following a boarding minor penalty submitted by Milton Keynes in relation to a hit delivered by Nathan Pollard. The hit delivered by Pollard drove the player head first into the board, with the head being the primary point of contact, which therefore should have been penalised as an illegal check to the head and a match penalty assessed. The second incident was a review submitted by Peterborough which saw an injury sustained following a slash delivered by Bobby Chamberlain which was penalised with a minor penalty. Chamberlain travelled from distance, with no attempt to play the puck and drawing two hands together to make a play on the hands of the opposition player with force.

NIHL South 1 Streatham vs Milton Keynes: A review was submitted in relation to a hit delivered by Ryan Watt which was penalised with a major penalty for boarding. The video showed that the hit was delivered to the head with an elbow and therefore the correct penalty should have been for an illegal check to the head. The hit led to the injury of a player and was a reckless and dangerous play.

An administrative error was made in the initial notification process for two of the reviews conducted which led to the incorrect tariffs and suspensions been issued following use of the junior tariffs within the published discipline document. An update was sent to teams on Saturday prior to updating of the online statement in relation to the impacted suspensions.