Coaches Challenge on Offsides

[TrueBlueGED]

once the puck touches the blue line on the entry you should be allowed to enter the zone. This entire puck has to cross the line thing is stupid and reduces angles you can shoot it in at and scoring chances. Also after 10 seconds pass, offsides can't be reviewed. Only the ###### idiots at the NHL would figure out a way to reduce flow and scoring more. Idc if the players like it and the coahces like it and the gms like it. The fans hate it and last time I checked we were why the league existed.

Now this I agree with.

[Wyldnwoody44]

I liked the Idea of getting rid of the blue lines and making it a 2 Zone game, now THAT will open it up!!

[LGR4GM]

I mean if the puck is in the zone you aren't offsides until the thing crosses the blue line a fleas tit hair of the way out, so why make it super easy to clear the puck and super hard to enter the zone. Touches the blue line it is onsides and the entire puck has to leave the zone for it to have cleared the zone.  Bam, flow improved.  The NHL should hire me to sit in on meetings and all my job is, is to say that is a terrible Idea and you are not doing it.

[dudacek]

once the puck touches the blue line on the entry you should be allowed to enter the zone. This entire puck has to cross the line thing is stupid and reduces angles you can shoot it in at and scoring chances. Also after 10 seconds pass, offsides can't be reviewed.  Only the ###### idiots at the NHL would figure out a way to reduce flow and scoring more.  Idc if the players like it and the coahces like it and the gms like it.  The fans hate it and last time I checked we were why the league existed.

 

For ball hockey we used something called the floating blueline where once you gained the zone, the blueline shifted to the red line for the purposes of offside.

Guys would dip the puck into the zone, then pull back as their teammates went deep. Opened up a lot of new space.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

Also you have to stay on your feet to block shots. No more falling down to do it.  Took me 2 minutes and almost no brain power to open up NHL hockey again without fundamentally changing the game. Group think however is alive and well at the NHL offices.

[MattPie]

2% seems like an underestimate if the Sabres record against the challenge so far is to be taken as somewhat normal.

 

I think the sabres are outliers here. They have 40 GF right now, so three called back means 7.5%.

 

I've responded in some detail to this theory. As have others. My antipathy is far more than sour grapes. A one-note, ears plugged insistence to the contrary is not something with which I care to engage.

 

 

Another good insight.

 

In an effort to dispel the sour grapes theory: Here's what I really, really (really) DON'T want to happen. SCF 2016. Potentially Cup-deciding game with team with chance to win playing at home. Game goes to OT. Team with a chance to win the Cup gains the offensive zone, after a close offside call is missed. Goal is scored 15 seconds later after possession was maintained in the O-zone. Winning team goes nuts. Crowd goes nuts. Equipment strewn all over the ice. 

 

But wait ... .

 

Just, NO. No. God, please. No.

 

I'm sure the team and their fans that gets hosed by that non-called offsides will be fine with maintaining your entertainment. I mean really, it's not like a guys skate was in the crease or anything. There's always next year, year?

 

From what I saw, he was jumping in order to avoid oncoming interference.

 

Maybe he should have taken the hit and gotten the call (ha ha).

[LGR4GM]

Also if Ennis was offsides then he was interfered with. Why isn't that review-able?  Seriously how dumb and arbitrary is the NHL.

[jad1]

The absolute worse impact of this rule is that players become more tenative entering the opposition's zone. You want guys to hit the blue line with speed. In the past, the reward for playing fast into the zone outweighed the risk (an offside call and a faceoff).

 

Now the risk (disallowing a goal after a missed call) is much greater than the award of taking the zone with speed.

 

Ultimately, this could have the effect of slowing down the game even more, as players become more tenative entering the zone because they don't want to be responsible for the negative impact of a disallowed goal.

[That Aud Smell]

I'm sure the team and their fans that gets hosed by that non-called offsides will be fine with maintaining your entertainment. I mean really, it's not like a guys skate was in the crease or anything. There's always next year, year?

 

I'm fully at peace with those fans yelling and screaming for years to come about how an offside preceded the goal that eliminated them. 

 

And I've never actually held a flame for No Goal -- I never liked the rule and was almost immediately okay with the fact that the call was missed in real time. That's life, folks.

 

In international top flight soccer, major trophies have turned on goals that were called offside (and shouldn't have been) or were not called offside (and should have been).

 

FFS. Let's just continue to atomize matters until there's no joy left in sports. I really am done with replay. My youngest is already depressingly (to me) habituated to not really celebrating when something good happens for the Sabres or Bills for fear of some review overturning it.

Edited November 18, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[wjag]

I know it's not all sour grapes, so I don't mean to imply it is. But there'd be a heck of a lot less angst if Ennis would just keep his feet on the ice when entering the zone.

 

 

ding, ding, ding

[darksabre]

once the puck touches the blue line on the entry you should be allowed to enter the zone. This entire puck has to cross the line thing is stupid and reduces angles you can shoot it in at and scoring chances. Also after 10 seconds pass, offsides can't be reviewed.  Only the ###### idiots at the NHL would figure out a way to reduce flow and scoring more.  Idc if the players like it and the coahces like it and the gms like it.  The fans hate it and last time I checked we were why the league existed.

This sounds good to me. I can't find anything I don't like about it. 

[MattPie]

This sounds good to me. I can't find anything I don't like about it.

The Sabres were only in the zone for 6 seconds (apparently) before the goal was scored, so last night would have turned out the same way.

[darksabre]

The Sabres were only in the zone for 6 seconds (apparently) before the goal was scored, so last night would have turned out the same way.

I don't follow.

[skaught]

6 seconds < 10 seconds, but your first sentence would've made him onside anyway.

[MattPie]

I don't follow.

For all the talk of "there should be a time limit" and Liger's post of 10 seconds, the play last night was only 6 seconds, so even by those standards it would have been reviewable. And the people that are complaining would still be complaining.

 

I'm coming around to not liking the review, not because it's hosed the Sabres but because of the "sinking feeling" that people have mentioned that they're waiting for the other shoe to drop when a goal is scored. I brought this up somewhere (either this thread or another), what would people say to the "booth" being able to blow a play offsides? The trick there is if they're doing it before a goal is scored, essentially they've eliminated the linesman.

[Cage]

The Sabres were only in the zone for 6 seconds (apparently) before the goal was scored, so last night would have turned out the same way.

 

How about its only review able if the guy coming into the zone with the puck scores?  That ways its immediate and most closely associated with the play.  As soon as a pass is made (much less 2-3) then its no longer review-able 

[qwksndmonster]

I thought the ten second rule would work better, but after last night's no goal I'm not so sure. The offsides still had nothing to do with the goal.

 

I'm starting to come around to Dudacek's idea of scrapping offsides altogether. Why not?

Edited November 18, 2015 by qwksndmonster

[MattPie]

How about its only review able if the guy coming into the zone with the puck scores?  That ways its immediate and most closely associated with the play.  As soon as a pass is made (much less 2-3) then its no longer review-able

I don't think that solves the issue, really. Scenario: LW is 4 ft offsides when C enters the zone. C sees LW behind the D, passes it to him, and he skates in a scores. Legal in your proposal, but exactly what the review is supposed to catch.

 

Update on my previous proposal: booth can call down an immediate Delayed Off-sides (either with a buzzer or in the linesman's ear, the mechanism is TBD). Attacking team must immediately leave the puck and tag up. If the attacking team touches the puck, it results in a normal or deliberate offsides on the judgement of the linesman.

[bob_sauve28]

once the puck touches the blue line on the entry you should be allowed to enter the zone. This entire puck has to cross the line thing is stupid and reduces angles you can shoot it in at and scoring chances. Also after 10 seconds pass, offsides can't be reviewed.  Only the ###### idiots at the NHL would figure out a way to reduce flow and scoring more.  Idc if the players like it and the coahces like it and the gms like it.  The fans hate it and last time I checked we were why the league existed.

Yes!!

[darksabre]

For all the talk of "there should be a time limit" and Liger's post of 10 seconds, the play last night was only 6 seconds, so even by those standards it would have been reviewable. And the people that are complaining would still be complaining.

 

I'm coming around to not liking the review, not because it's hosed the Sabres but because of the "sinking feeling" that people have mentioned that they're waiting for the other shoe to drop when a goal is scored. I brought this up somewhere (either this thread or another), what would people say to the "booth" being able to blow a play offsides? The trick there is if they're doing it before a goal is scored, essentially they've eliminated the linesman.

I think we're referring to two different parts of Ligers post. I'm just voicing favor with the change in offsides protocol. I still want the challenge eliminated. 

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm fully at peace with those fans yelling and screaming for years to come about how an offside preceded the goal that eliminated them. 

 

And I've never actually held a flame for No Goal -- I never liked the rule and was almost immediately okay with the fact that the call was missed in real time. That's life, folks.

 

In international top flight soccer, major trophies have turned on goals that were called offside (and shouldn't have been) or were not called offside (and should have been).

 

FFS. Let's just continue to atomize matters until there's no joy left in sports. I really am done with replay. My youngest is already depressingly (to me) habituated to not really celebrating when something good happens for the Sabres or Bills for fear of some review overturning it.

 

It's weird, or maybe I'm weird, because I don't get this feeling at all. I think the only time in all of sports I'm actually looking to see if a flag dropped is DPI on long incomplete passes in the NFL.

[Cage]

I don't think that solves the issue, really. Scenario: LW is 4 ft offsides when C enters the zone. C sees LW behind the D, passes it to him, and he skates in a scores. Legal in your proposal, but exactly what the review is supposed to catch.

 

Update on my previous proposal: booth can call down an immediate Delayed Off-sides (either with a buzzer or in the linesman's ear, the mechanism is TBD). Attacking team must immediately leave the puck and tag up. If the attacking team touches the puck, it results in a normal or deliberate offsides on the judgement of the linesman.

 

ahh NO... we're talking about what's reviewable to wipe out a goal.  Your scenario would have been easily called by the linesman.  These are microscopic infractions we're debating that aren't really tilting the playing field and then wiping out a goal after the fact.  The linesmen are still there to call offsides in the normal way.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cage

[Iron Crotch]

IMHO, being a couple of inches offsides should constitute a significant "unfair" advantage for the rule to really make sense.  I kind of see offsides in hockey as similar to guys going offsides on kickoffs in football.  You get an extra few inches of a head start, but it normally doesn't have a huge impact on the play that follows.  On the Sabres second goal, that Ennis was a few inches on the wrong side of the blue line had little practical impact on the subsequent goal.  That's one of the reasons the replay challenge was so disappointing.

 

...just another rule to decrease scoring in an already offensively starved game.   :(

 

 

[Samson's Flow]

I will echo the same sentiment as a lot of others on the replay situation, in that it seems incredibly arbitrary when a review can take place. There is no outcry to correct all the offsides calls throughout the game, only the ones which shortly after a goal is scored. Why not try to correct all the offsides calls? Answer: because it would be a huge PITA and slow down the game a ton for a relatively meaningless call.

 

In my opinion, there are certain sports, such as hockey, soccer, basketball that shouldn't have replay at all. These sports all have continuous end to end play to varying degrees and many subjective officials calls throughout. The allure of these sports is the build up of excitement and momentum throughout the game. Can you imagine stopping a soccer game after a goal to review an offsides call or handball? a basketball game calling off the game winning shot to enforce a 3 seconds in the paint call?

 

North American society has a new fascination with inserting technology into things that do not require it and calling this progress. the NHL linesmen were not doing a poor job calling offsides IMO, if anything the calling of penalties is the thing that needs improvement.

[Iron Crotch]

I will echo the same sentiment as a lot of others on the replay situation, in that it seems incredibly arbitrary when a review can take place. There is no outcry to correct all the offsides calls throughout the game, only the ones which shortly after a goal is scored. Why not try to correct all the offsides calls? Answer: because it would be a huge PITA and slow down the game a ton for a relatively meaningless call.

 

In my opinion, there are certain sports, such as hockey, soccer, basketball that shouldn't have replay at all. These sports all have continuous end to end play to varying degrees and many subjective officials calls throughout. The allure of these sports is the build up of excitement and momentum throughout the game. Can you imagine stopping a soccer game after a goal to review an offsides call or handball? a basketball game calling off the game winning shot to enforce a 3 seconds in the paint call?

 

North American society has a new fascination with inserting technology into things that do not require it and calling this progress. the NHL linesmen were not doing a poor job calling offsides IMO, if anything the calling of penalties is the thing that needs improvement.

 

Excellent post.  Where does the incessant reliance on video replay end?  To me, using it to review whether a puck went over the goal line still makes a lot of sense.  Otherwise, let 'em play and live with the human judgmental element of the game.