Jsixspd Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I don't know how you can say this...the play should have been blown dead. Yea, it was close, but it was offside. Now if we can just get the league to start calling blatant interference penalties we'll be in business! The point is - I am not sure human eyes can accurately perceive that off-side - the players and the puck are moving fast, and the total misalignment was maybe an inch if that. Would you want it blown dead as offside and then challenged and found out that it was 1 inch onside???? Look at the way that kills momentum; look how long it took tonight.... It's awful. The officials shouldn't need to carry a damn micrometer onto the ice for pity's sake. Blatant offside where someone comes in and shovels a goal right in seconds later - yes, that's bad. Letting play continue for another 1 minute or 2 minutes until a challenge flag is thrown for an almost imperceptible offside that had ZERO effect on the outcome? That is WORSE. And don't forget - they reset the clock and put that 90 seconds or whatever it was back on the clock - but they can't reset Kane's mitochondria and restore his energy that he expended during that time - he was busting his butt, as was the rest of the line, working that puck down there. That was ice time - it didn't COUNT, but it took gas out of Kane's tank HE CAN'T GET BACK DURING THAT PERIOD!!! Edited October 9, 2015 by Jsixspd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think I would be okay with the challenge but only in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Oy on Lehner. Guessing 6 weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottosmagic13 Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Fuuuuucccckkkkkkk This, but with a few more "uuu"s is Ullmark ready yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Oy on Lehner. Guessing 6 weeks. ?? Do we even know the injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 FA Crop is double meh. Trade perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 The point is - I am not sure human eyes can accurately perceive that off-side - the players and the puck are moving fast, and the total misalignment was maybe an inch if that. Would you want it blown dead as offside and then challenged and found out that it was 1 inch onside???? Look at the way that kills momentum; look how long it took tonight.... It's awful. The officials shouldn't need to carry a damn micrometer onto the ice for pity's sake. Blatant offside where someone comes in and shovels a goal right in seconds later - yes, that's bad. Letting play continue for another 1 minute or 2 minutes until a challenge flag is thrown for an almost imperceptible offside that had ZERO effect on the outcome? That is WORSE. And don't forget - they reset the clock and put that 90 seconds or whatever it was back on the clock - but they can't reset Kane's mitochondria and restore his energy that he expended during that time - he was busting his butt, as was the rest of the line, working that puck down there. That was ice time - it didn't COUNT, but it took gas out of Kane's tank HE CAN'T GET BACK DURING THAT PERIOD!!! I really just didn't think it was nearly as close as you--as soon as they showed the reverse angle replay it was obvious. Of course there are more egregious offsides, but this wasn't splitting hairs IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 If the play was called we never gain the zone. The idea that the missed goal had no effect is simply not true. If the linesman blows the whistle there is a face off at the blue line. Either way no goal. I have no problem with that. The worm will turn for us down the road. I would prefer if they removed the coaches challenge altogether but it was a great use of the challenge by Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoPre Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I don't know how you can say this...the play should have been blown dead. Yea, it was close, but it was offside. Now if we can just get the league to start calling blatant interference penalties we'll be in business! My point was the goal came well after the offsides by an inch. It had nothing to do w/ the set up of the goal. How do you expect a ref to call a play like that offsides? Things were moving too fast and it was far too close to notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 ?? Do we even know the injury? Report was boot on his foot, and crutches. 6-8 weeks seems plausible; I'm hoping it's not a catastrophic injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 My point was the goal came well after the offsides by an inch. It had nothing to do w/ the set up of the goal. How do you expect a ref to call a play like that offsides? Things were moving too fast and it was far too close to notice. There would have been no flow that resulted in a goal. It would have been a face off outside the zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 The point is - I am not sure human eyes can accurately perceive that off-side - the players and the puck are moving fast, and the total misalignment was maybe an inch if that. Would you want it blown dead as offside and then challenged and found out that it was 1 inch onside???? Look at the way that kills momentum; look how long it took tonight.... It's awful. The officials shouldn't need to carry a damn micrometer onto the ice for pity's sake. Blatant offside where someone comes in and shovels a goal right in seconds later - yes, that's bad. Letting play continue for another 1 minute or 2 minutes until a challenge flag is thrown for an almost imperceptible offside that had ZERO effect on the outcome? That is WORSE. And don't forget - they reset the clock and put that 90 seconds or whatever it was back on the clock - but they can't reset Kane's mitochondria and restore his energy that he expended during that time - he was busting his butt, as was the rest of the line, working that puck down there. That was ice time - it didn't COUNT, but it took gas out of Kane's tank HE CAN'T GET BACK DURING THAT PERIOD!!! You keep saying this. How else would it work? Are you saying there should be a whistle blown killing a live play so they can review a maybe offside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 They should add to the rule that the challenged part of the play must result in an immediate goal (or no goal) for it to be reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 As for the disallowed Kane goal, I quietly said "offside" as the play was happening. After it was disallowed, my wife, who I thought hadn't been paying attention, said "you were right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoPre Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 There would have been no flow that resulted in a goal. It would have been a face off outside the zone. Please read the entire post. A new rule was exploited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 If the play was called we never gain the zone. The idea that the missed goal had no effect is simply not true. If the linesman blows the whistle there is a face off at the blue line. Either way no goal. I have no problem with that. The worm will turn for us down the road. I would prefer if they removed the coaches challenge altogether but it was a great use of the challenge by Ottawa. After 45 seconds, the effect is no more different than that of a missed penalty that would of stopped play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Please read the entire post. A new rule was exploited. I don't need to, the new rule was played like a Stradivarius. The linesman missed an offside. The Sens challenged according to the rule. Well played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 It's almost certainly been mentioned, but when he put the puck behind the defenseman on the rush, went wide and still got to it before the goalie did... that was magical. I still can't believe I saw that. I'm even doubting my eyes in my postgame fog. That happened, right? We had the same eyes and ears. I stood up off the couch on that play. Unreal. I can't believe he got to that. How is that even possible? Ya know that other thing you like? I can tie it into your attitude about reviews. Bow to math and technology. Suck as much life out of the game as you can. Imma go suck a smoke, eat a hot dog, do a line of crack and whack off to midget porn. Once the first resolution falls, the others are voided. :lol: :lol: Larsson was good. Sasmon was ok. Pysyk was good, Rasmus was brutal in his own end. Franson was slow. JAAAAACK MOTHERING EICHEL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Would you have a problem with a challenge on more definitive offsides, Let's say the offside has to be within five seconds of the goal. I wouldn't. You're correcting a travesty. The NHL likes to tinker. I wouldn't be surprised if this rule gets tweaked like that, especially if a MFT gets screwed. I can't believe any fan was asking for this, or even the players. Why on earth, in this dead puck era, are we putting in rules that will make it harder to score? Were linesmen doing such a bad job that they needed more scrutiny? I think they do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Anyone agreeing with that the spirit of that challenge is supporting a rule for the sake of rules. That's the tail wagging the dog. The Sabres gained no advantage on that play that was too close to call by a referee standing in perfect position 6 ft away. If that's the way you want that rule to be enforced, Lord Almighty - you must have seizures with the uncalled interference, hooking, and slashing that goes on every 15 seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Report was boot on his foot, and crutches. 6-8 weeks seems plausible; I'm hoping it's not a catastrophic injury. All of that is cautionary, Mr. Optimist! If you are thinking broken bone in foot, you are likely in the right ballpark with the timeframe. I'm hoping for the best and the boot and crutches were just a precaution until it is fully evaluated. Didn't seem like anything obvious happened to cause an injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I can't believe any fan was asking for this, or even the players. Why on earth, in this dead puck era, are we putting in rules that will make it harder to score? Were linesmen doing such a bad job that they needed more scrutiny? I think they do just fine. I'm prepared to give the coaches challenge a chance. But, boy, did we sure see how it doesn't work tonight. Edited October 9, 2015 by qwksndmonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Anyone agreeing with that the spirit of that challenge is supporting a rule for the sake of rules. That's the tail wagging the dog. The Sabres gained no advantage on that play that was too close to call by a referee standing in perfect position 6 ft away. If that's the way you want that rule to be enforced, Lord Almighty - you must have seizures with the uncalled, interference, hooking, and slashing that goes on every 15 seconds. If I suffered from seizures, I probably would. As is I just get annoyed each and every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Here's how you tweak the rule- No slow motion. If the referee cannot determine offsides at regular speed, then it does not violate the intent of the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I can't believe any fan was asking for this, or even the players. Why on earth, in this dead puck era, are we putting in rules that will make it harder to score? Were linesmen doing such a bad job that they needed more scrutiny? I think they do just fine. To the bolded, Amen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.