MattPie Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 That's what I thought. Hate the rule. Because of that? So if we were talking football, you'd be mad if someone scored a touchdown if on the previous play there was a missed offsides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I think my buddy put offside like we saw last night into perspective. It would be like scoring a TD and then reviewing it because there was holding the play before. Edited October 9, 2015 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Because of that? So if we were talking football, you'd be mad if someone scored a touchdown if on the previous play there was a missed offsides? They missed a very close offside, then a whole lot of other stuff happened in the Sens zone that ultimately resulted in a Sabres goal. That's where the NFL analogy breaks down as every down is a discrete play subject to the rules and challenges. Why draw the line at a frozen puck and ignore the face off that occurred where it shouldn't have because of the missed offside? Big inconsistency. But that's just a small reason why I hate the rule, I mainly hate it because it took too darn long and I have no faith that will improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 They missed a very close offside, then a whole lot of other stuff happened in the Sens zone that ultimately resulted in a Sabres goal. That's where the NFL analogy breaks down as every down is a discrete play subject to the rules and challenges. Why draw the line at a frozen puck and ignore the face off that occurred where it shouldn't have because of the missed offside? Big inconsistency. But that's just a small reason why I hate the rule, I mainly hate it because it took too darn long and I have no faith that will improve. I get what you're saying, but at the point of a frozen puck, both teams have an equal shot at possession. I haven't looked at the rule, so I don't exactly know what the rules are. I'd say the ability to challenge should end when the defending team gains control of the puck, but if the rule is when the puck leaves the zone I can see that too. Control of the puck is somewhat nebulous (right, Buffalo fans?) so I can see the point of having a more deterministic marker like the blue line. Maybe some arbitrary time as well, like 20 seconds, but then you have men huddled around a screen to figure out which centisecond the puck crossed the blue line if it's close. I don't love the rule and I bet it'll get tweaked a bit before it assumes it's ultimate form, but I think it has some value too. I'm not sure putting it in the coaches hand is the right call though, I'd have just made offsides part of the booth review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Greg Bauch completes me: ”If the NHL came out today and said that the new coach challenge option makes it possible for the Sabres to be declared the winner of Game 6 of the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, I still would like for this change to never have existed. Coach challenges are offensive. They are not sports." So true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 They missed a very close offside, then a whole lot of other stuff happened in the Sens zone that ultimately resulted in a Sabres goal. That's where the NFL analogy breaks down as every down is a discrete play subject to the rules and challenges. Why draw the line at a frozen puck and ignore the face off that occurred where it shouldn't have because of the missed offside? Big inconsistency. But that's just a small reason why I hate the rule, I mainly hate it because it took too darn long and I have no faith that will improve. Exactly, who the hell wants an icing face off in their zone late in the game. If its a bad call and leads to a goal you SOL Retarded rule. Someone should get their azz kicked for this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 You can only challenge if a goal is scored. True. IMO opinion a challenge should only be an option if the offside directly led to a goal like on a stretch pass or two-on-one. If the offensive team has the puck in the zone for more than five seconds, there should be no right to challenge an offsides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cage Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 They missed a very close offside, then a whole lot of other stuff happened in the Sens zone that ultimately resulted in a Sabres goal. That's where the NFL analogy breaks down as every down is a discrete play subject to the rules and challenges. Why draw the line at a frozen puck and ignore the face off that occurred where it shouldn't have because of the missed offside? Big inconsistency. But that's just a small reason why I hate the rule, I mainly hate it because it took too darn long and I have no faith that will improve. The way I would tie it to footballl is that you can challenge what the person scoring the TD with the ball did (cross the goalline, have possession of the ball, have both feet down), but you can't challenge anciallary thing that the referees missed. The TD can't be challenged and negated because the refs missed a false start or a holding call on the OL. That's part of refs making mistakes that happens in every sport. Only the incident of the goal or TD can be challenged.... which is not what happened last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 The way I would tie it to footballl is that you can challenge what the person scoring the TD with the ball did (cross the goalline, have possession of the ball, have both feet down), but you can't challenge anciallary thing that the referees missed. The TD can't be challenged and negated because the refs missed a false start or a holding call on the OL. That's part of refs making mistakes that happens in every sport. Only the incident of the goal or TD can be challenged.... which is not what happened last night. +1 and exactly. You should be able to challenge the goal scoring play, not something that happened 45 seconds prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Greg Bauch completes me: ”If the NHL came out today and said that the new coach challenge option makes it possible for the Sabres to be declared the winner of Game 6 of the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, I still would like for this change to never have existed. Coach challenges are offensive. They are not sports." I have a really hard time believing anyone hates this rule enough to trade away a shot in game 7 of the Cup for the sake of the occasional 6 minute goal review. It's easy to say because it cannot possibly be done and whatnot, but in a world with time machines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 +1 and exactly. You should be able to challenge the goal scoring play, not something that happened 45 seconds prior. +2. I see suits sitting around saying "let's think of something, we make a lot of money". Thirty teams, playing 82 games, for sixty minutes each, will lead to mistakes. So will brushing your teeth. Over the long run, the mistakes, big and small, viewed at the league level, even out. Several small mistakes corrected by review, even out. The product is the same with or without the review except for one difference. That is, the path without the rule is hockey. The path with the rule has 20% of its games interrupted at critical minutes for a rules conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I have a really hard time believing anyone hates this rule enough to trade away a shot in game 7 of the Cup for the sake of the occasional 6 minute goal review. It's easy to say because it cannot possibly be done and whatnot, but in a world with time machines... You're missing the point. The idea here is that mistakes are a big part of sports. A mistake cost us a Cup. Other mistakes have cost other teams as well. The more things we add to the game that work to overturn mistakes, the more annoyed we're going to be with the ones that do happen. When you try to make something like this "perfect" you ultimately end up ruining it. Now we're all going to be dreading the inevitable coach's challenge and it's going to suck the fun out of every goal celebration. Enjoying the moment is such a big part of sports for fans. Want to celebrate that big overtime win? Oops challenge flag. Everyone stop having fun. Barf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 +2. I see suits sitting around saying "let's think of something, we make a lot of money". Thirty teams, playing 82 games, for sixty minutes each, will lead to mistakes. So will brushing your teeth. Over the long run, the mistakes, big and small, viewed at the league level, even out. Several small mistakes corrected by review, even out. The product is the same with or without the review except for one difference. That is, the path without the rule is hockey. The path with the rule has 20% of its games interrupted at critical minutes for a rules conference. I'm confused as to how this particular rule makes (or doesn't make) money. It's a tradeoff decision "Fairness" vs. "game flow". I don't know which will turn off casual viewers more, delays for review or the perception that the refs blow calls. It's not going to stop the die-hards either way. FWIW, I've seen people here say things like "the NBA is unwatchable due to the inconsistent refs" and similar things about the NFL the last few seasons. Maybe hockey is on to something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I slept through this one over the summer. What is the genesis of having to review offsides? Did some important team get hosed? Really, I've always thought the linesmen were awesome. Their offside accuracy has to be north of 95%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I'm confused as to how this particular rule makes (or doesn't make) money. It's a tradeoff decision "Fairness" vs. "game flow". I don't know which will turn off casual viewers more, delays for review or the perception that the refs blow calls. It's not going to stop the die-hards either way. FWIW, I've seen people here say things like "the NBA is unwatchable due to the inconsistent refs" and similar things about the NFL the last few seasons. Maybe hockey is on to something.Clarity - my fault. I didn't mean to comment on how it does or doesn't make money when I referred to suits being paid. I should have used language like "we're really smart, lets tinker with things". I definitely believe delays for reviews turn more off. The majority of calls are correct. It remains the majority if you include the coach's challenge. My point is that the overall impact on the league (forget your team, or a particular call), is a wash over time with or without the tinkering. The cost is delays. I see cost with little or no benefit, in total. Regarding economics, all leagues seem profitable. You can argue that's despite over officiating, and not because of review. I suspect it comes down to choice. I'm comfortable watching an officiated game where most decisions are right and some are wrong. Add conclaves of confused guys in stripes, fans sitting on their hands, and the passage of time for some decision, and I'm less comfortable. Review goals, ball breaking the plane? Ok. This is what I like. It may not be right for all. Edited October 9, 2015 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) You guys have changed my mind. ###### the coach's challenge. Play hockey. Edited October 10, 2015 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 You guys have changed my mind. ###### the coach's challenge. Play hockey. This is an internet argument...I'm not familiar with this "mind changing" concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think my buddy put offside like we saw last night into perspective. It would be like scoring a TD and then reviewing it because there was holding the play before. Not even close. It's like reviewing the play because there was holding on that play. I wish the NFL challenge system included penalties. Either review the entire play or just end all reviews & challenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 This is stupid. Just review plays that immediately affect the goal. If there's a blown offsides, then the next face off outside the blueline a goal ends up happening, is THAT reviewed? NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 You're missing the point. The idea here is that mistakes are a big part of sports. A mistake cost us a Cup. Other mistakes have cost other teams as well. The more things we add to the game that work to overturn mistakes, the more annoyed we're going to be with the ones that do happen. When you try to make something like this "perfect" you ultimately end up ruining it. Now we're all going to be dreading the inevitable coach's challenge and it's going to suck the fun out of every goal celebration. Enjoying the moment is such a big part of sports for fans. Want to celebrate that big overtime win? Oops challenge flag. Everyone stop having fun. Barf. This. This is exactly it. The whole coaches challenge issue wasn't sitting well with me and I couldn't pin-point why, and this is the reason. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 This is stupid. Just review plays that immediately affect the goal. If there's a blown offsides, then the next face off outside the blueline a goal ends up happening, is THAT reviewed? NO. So, the idea here is that since you can't correct all non-scoring plays using replay the NHL shouldn't try to use replay to correct scoring plays? You're missing the point. The idea here is that mistakes are a big part of sports. A mistake cost us a Cup. Other mistakes have cost other teams as well. The more things we add to the game that work to overturn mistakes, the more annoyed we're going to be with the ones that do happen. When you try to make something like this "perfect" you ultimately end up ruining it. Now we're all going to be dreading the inevitable coach's challenge and it's going to suck the fun out of every goal celebration. Enjoying the moment is such a big part of sports for fans. Want to celebrate that big overtime win? Oops challenge flag. Everyone stop having fun. Barf. I'd be more concerned about being the team that gets screwed on an invalid goal than worrying about when fans get to cheer. It's not about making anything perfect, it's about using the available technology to fix correctable mistakes. Which the NHL is doing. Is any system perfect right out the gate? No, I'm sure the NHL will have to make some tweaks here and there. Overall, the NHL got this right. If fans want to complain about something that is ridiculous, try 3 on 3 overtimes, that is embarrassing to the game. 3 on 3 was a horrible decision by the NHL and one I hope goes away fairly quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) So, the idea here is that since you can't correct all non-scoring plays using replay the NHL shouldn't try to use replay to correct scoring plays? I read his post differently. I heard "define when a scoring play starts". When does the scoring play originate during 4 minutes of skating without a whistle that includes 4 blue line crossings, a missed interference, one puck off a hand, and a goal? Do you review all 4 blue line crossings and potential missed penalties? Everything is a scoring play in hockey. Football starts and stops with each whistle. You can review the entire seven seconds in between (which drives me nuts). Football's discreet and hockey's analogue. I ask not knowing, and not to make a point - if a goaltender feeds a defenseman, who in turn feeds a forward, who in turn scores, do you review the trapezoid rule? If a blown icing call against team B (guilty, but not called) keeps the puck in play, allowing a forward on Team A to streak toward the net instead of meandering to his defensive zone for a face off, and team A scores, did the scoring play begin with the blown icing? Tell me when the scoring play begins. Arbitrary convention: go back 7 seconds? "My team got screwed but it took 8 seconds"! How does review fix anything? My humble reading of Andrew Amerk. Edited October 10, 2015 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I read his post differently. I heard "define when a scoring play starts". When does the scoring play originate during 4 minutes of skating without a whistle that includes 4 blue line crossings, a missed interference, one puck off a hand, and a goal? Do you review all 4 blue line crossings and potential missed penalties? Everything is a scoring play in hockey. Football starts and stops with each whistle. You can review the entire seven seconds in between (which drives me nuts). Football's discreet and hockey's analogue. I ask not knowing, and not to make a point - if a goaltender feeds a defenseman, who in turn feeds a forward, who in turn scores, do you review the trapezoid rule? If a blown icing call against team B (guilty, but not called) keeps the puck in play, allowing a forward on Team A to streak toward the net instead of meandering to his defensive zone for a face off, and team A scores, did the scoring play begin with the blown icing? Tell me when the scoring play begins. Arbitrary convention: go back 7 seconds? "My team got screwed but it took 8 seconds"! How does review fix anything? My humble reading of Andrew Amerk. "Goals will only be reviewed for a potential "Off-Side" infraction if: (a) the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again; or (b) all members of the attacking team do not clear the attacking zone again, between the time of the "Off-Side" play and the time the goal is scored. ... In the event a goal is reversed due to the Linesman determining that the play was "Off-Side" prior to the goal being scored, the clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) will be re-set to the time at which the play should have been stopped for the "Off-Side" infraction." This seems pretty cut and dry. All these exaggerated scenarios are pointless. Edited October 10, 2015 by DeLuca1967 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) "Goals will only be reviewed for a potential "Off-Side" infraction if: (a) the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again; or (b) all members of the attacking team do not clear the attacking zone again, between the time of the "Off-Side" play and the time the goal is scored. ... In the event a goal is reversed due to the Linesman determining that the play was "Off-Side" prior to the goal being scored, the clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) will be re-set to the time at which the play should have been stopped for the "Off-Side" infraction." This seems pretty cut and dry. All these exaggerated scenarios are pointless. Cut and dried, indeed .... Grateful ... I'll google first, ask later, next time. (I still don't like it, limiting circumstances notwithstanding ... I can see a dozen hockey plays in the zone prior to clearing). Apologies to all for column inches. Edited October 10, 2015 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 If fans want to complain about something that is ridiculous, try 3 on 3 overtimes, that is embarrassing to the game. 3 on 3 was a horrible decision by the NHL and one I hope goes away fairly quickly. I do agree with this. 3 on 3 is kinda just ridiculous. I thought I would like it, but It's just pond hockey/all-star game hockey out there. 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.