I remember some serious sports writers predicting doom and the End Of Hockey As We Know It when the refs started using instant replays. If anything, it has calmed down a lot of the old bad blood that would persist long after a questionable call. Today, when things look tough and the ref heads over to the phone to talk to the replay guys, everybody relaxes and fetches a beer. When the final announcement is made, most people just say"well that's settled", and the game moves on. I think it was huge improvement.

I expect it has made life easier for the officials as well. They can freely admit "I really didn't see it" and then let somebody else get the facts and make the decision.

---

yes and it's important to mention that the Hockey replay is used for Goal situations only.

Besides in Football/Soccer the Players spend about 3-4 minutes harping on a bad call. If the official had replay he could end that in about 30 seconds and move on with the game

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Good points Skildude.

I think the hockey officials have a much easier time for calling rough play - 4 sets of eyes on a much smaller playing area. As a result, hockey players know that writhing in fake pain on the ice isn't going to earn them anything (except for scorn from the fans). A soccer player can buy some breathing time for his mates with a bit of play acting, in hockey there are lots of other (more or less legal) ways to bring an end to play.

Still, the hockey players do work with the rules they are given. I have to chuckle every time I see a player checking for blood after a hard hit, and looking so disappointed when they can't find any. (For non hockey fans, drawing blood can turn a two minute penalty for your opponent into a 4 minute penalty, and might convince a ref that an otherwise legitimate hit deserves a penalty.)

---