Coaches Challenge on Offsides

[MattPie]

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.

 

OK, so if the player is 6" offsides, I shouldn't have put the dimension in there. Ennis has been offside by roughly 6" on both called-back goals.

[darksabre]

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.

Good post. Thank you.

 

We already have too many stoppages of play. We don't need more.

[Cage]

OK, so if the player is 6" offsides, I shouldn't have put the dimension in there. Ennis has been offside by roughly 6" on both called-back goals.

 

I disagree.  Linesman call offsides many times per game and even get most close calls right. So offsides get properly called as a matter of course. Both last night and the Kane goal that was called back in the first game, the replay had to get down to slow-motion, nearly "frame-by-frame" to see that he was offsides.  In that type of context there really wasn't an advantage to the attacking team.  If the linesman called it, then fine no problem the goal would never have been scored and more importantly our momentum unaffected.  Almost the bigger problem I have with this is how momentum shattering it is.  It basically handed them the game after the momentum was killed. I don't think they considered the impact of taking a goal down in these situations sufficiently in such a free-flowing game.  

[That Aud Smell]

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.

 

It is you. YOU ARE WEIRD.

 

No. Really. The kid's almost certainly taking his cues from me. I am weird, maybe. Definitely.

[MattPie]

I disagree.  Linesman call offsides many times per game and even get most close calls right. So offsides get properly called as a matter of course. Both last night and the Kane goal that was called back in the first game, the replay had to get down to slow-motion, nearly "frame-by-frame" to see that he was offsides.  In that type of context there really wasn't an advantage to the attacking team.  If the linesman called it, then fine no problem the goal would never have been scored and more importantly our momentum unaffected.  Almost the bigger problem I have with this is how momentum shattering it is.  It basically handed them the game after the momentum was killed. I don't think they considered the impact of taking a goal down in these situations sufficiently in such a free-flowing game.  

 

I didn't really see the one last night, I was cleaning up and listening. The other Ennis one, however, was way off. His skate was a foot off the ice and his other skate was 3 ft into the zone. Even live, I said to myself that it looked off-sides, and that's not something I usually notice.

 

EDIT: and last night, didn't the review take all of 30 seconds? The first game of the season it took forever, but it seems like they're getting the kinks worked out.

Edited November 18, 2015 by MattPie

[WildCard]

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.

Nope, it's you, you weirdo. Even with hockey I'm getting like that now. As soon as Goligoski pointed with his stick at the line I knew we were ######. Same thing in Florida, called offsides as soon as I saw it and was just praying a goal wouldn't happen

Edited November 18, 2015 by WildCard

[Samson's Flow]

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.

 

 

Good post. Thank you.

 

We already have too many stoppages of play. We don't need more.

Aww shucks guys  :wub:

 

First day back posting in a while and I'm feeling the love. Maybe I should jump into the politics thread so start hating life again.

Nope, it's you, you weirdo. Even with hockey I'm getting like that now. As soon as Goligoski pointed with his stick at the line I knew we were ######. Same thing in Florida, called offsides as soon as I saw it and was just praying a goal wouldn't happen

 

this is the reaction the major sports should be attempting to prevent at all possible. If your rule/review results in your fanbase wishing exciting things don't happen for the fear of you taking it away, then you have a major problem.

[PASabreFan]

Widening out... why do we have this? I googled earlier and saw one summary that mentioned a number of botched offsides in last year's playoffs but didn't read on. I guess I should. How close was the offside vote by the Board of Governors?

[Taro T]

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.

 

A few comments on this proposal:

 

1. You WILL increase the # of blown offsides calls by having the linesman look at 2 separate points on the ice to determine offsides. This assumes you are allowing the attacking player legal entry into the zone if his skate is touching the blueline at the point the puck "touches" the blueline. If you are making both be at the far edge of the blueline it would only be moving the point of issue - that does not appear to be your proposal.

 

2. This 'improved angle' is all of ~0.4° and is only an issue at entry into the zone. The zones overlap at the blueline, so this is ONLY an issue if one is shooting from the boards IMMEDIATELY upon zone entry.

 

3. This isn't directed specifically to your post, but to the general sentiment: If a play is offsides, it's offsides. Can't see how getting tired defenders pinned in their own end for a long time due to a play they should have been able to get off the ice which results in a goal should be rewarded but scoring on a nice rush or an efficient play (like Sam's goal last night) shouldn't be rewarded.

 

Essentially, everybody proposing that an offsides should be reviewable, but only if a goal is scored IMMEDIATELY after the offsides are rewarding non-skilled offensive teams. To the good offensive teams (and conversely to the poor defensive teams): Hey, your team has snipers that can score on a rush and did on a barely offsides play, well tough, we're taking your goal back. You're good enough, go score it again Mr. Fancyshot. To the poor offensive teams (and conversely to the good defensive teams): Your team illegally got the puck in the zone when the other team was 35 seconds into a shift and took 45 seconds of fumbling around to finally get a 4 player ricochet to sneak in, well good for you, you earned that goal. :rolleyes:

 

[Edit: And the above comment was STRICTLY referring to the merit of allowing a long possession time offsides goal stand while calling back a short possession time offsides goal stand. It was not directed towards whether replay of offsides should occur.]

 

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.

How is following the current rules where the puck needs to get 100% over the blueline on way out of the zone to have the puck cleared any easier than needing the puck to be 100% of the way over the blueline on the way in to avoid offsides? :unsure: Edited November 18, 2015 by Taro T

[PASabreFan]

What is the philosophical reason behind an offside infraction when entering the zone? All I've ever heard is that you don't want players cherrypicking in the slot waiting for a home run pass. Fine, then call a penalty for cherry picking.

[Taro T]

What is the philosophical reason behind an offside infraction when entering the zone? All I've ever heard is that you don't want players cherrypicking in the slot waiting for a home run pass. Fine, then call a penalty for cherry picking.

In a league known for making seemingly objective calls boneheadedly subjective, do we really want to intentionally add subjectivity? Please, no.

[Samson's Flow]

What is the philosophical reason behind an offside infraction when entering the zone? All I've ever heard is that you don't want players cherrypicking in the slot waiting for a home run pass. Fine, then call a penalty for cherry picking.

What would this even look like? A 'ten second' call if you are behind the last defender for more than a certain amount of time? Would this be a penalty or just an icing/offsides like whistle and faceoff in your own zone.

 

An aside - Ovechkin would never leave the offensive zone :lol:

[LGR4GM]

Why not passive offsides like in in soccer.  You can stand in the o-zone all you want but someone else has to carry the puck in or touch it before you can.  Ennis going in offsides changed nothing about that zone entry at all. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by LGR4GM

[PASabreFan]

OK, I will admit it. I just wanted to imagine the ref's signal for cherry picking. He'd have to mime picking fruit, then make the "big " from Curb Your Enthusiasm V with his hands.

[Samson's Flow]

Why not passive offsides like in in soccer.  You can stand in the o-zone all you want but someone else has to carry the puck in or touch it before you can.  Ennis going in offsides changed nothing about that zone entry at all. 

As I was thinking more this is probably the better solution. Although with the speed of play this might be hard to accurately enforce. I would be interested as to how the tactics would change though.

[LGR4GM]

As I was thinking more this is probably the better solution. Although with the speed of play this might be hard to accurately enforce. I would be interested as to how the tactics would change though.

Should be easy to enforce.  It works similar to the glove pass rule.  If the puck is shot in and you are offsides you can't touch it or interfere until a teammate touches the puck. If you are offsides and someone else carries or passes the puck in to another teammate, you are good to go anyways. Not sure if this idea is feasible but a ticky tacky call like offsides is changing too much of the game. Ennis being over the line by a couple inches did not give the Sabres an unfair advantage especially when Ennis was interfered with on his entry.

 

Offsides is so you can stand in the offensive zone and just get fed pucks for 1v1 with the goalies.  It also helps the defense know what they need to protect. 

[pi2000]

Let's say Reinhart doesn't score that goal, the play continues and DAL scores a shorthanded goal.   Can Buffalo challenge that they themselves were offsides earlier during the play and the DAL goal should not count?   If not, I have a problem with it.     

[Taro T]

Should be easy to enforce.  It works similar to the glove pass rule.  If the puck is shot in and you are offsides you can't touch it or interfere until a teammate touches the puck. If you are offsides and someone else carries or passes the puck in to another teammate, you are good to go anyways. Not sure if this idea is feasible but a ticky tacky call like offsides is changing too much of the game. Ennis being over the line by a couple inches did not give the Sabres an unfair advantage especially when Ennis was interfered with on his entry.

 

Offsides is so you can stand in the offensive zone and just get fed pucks for 1v1 with the goalies.  It also helps the defense know what they need to protect.

 

So a set tic-tac-toe play to an Ovechkin camped out in the zone would be ok?

 

If it wouldn't, what is the criteria to determine whether the offsides players was "involved in the play?"

Let's say Reinhart doesn't score that goal, the play continues and DAL scores a shorthanded goal.   Can Buffalo challenge that they themselves were offsides earlier during the play and the DAL goal should not count?   If not, I have a problem with it.

 

No, they can't. Once play is whistled dead (for a reason other than an apparent goal being scored) or the puck is out of the zone, the possible offsides is no longer reviewable.

[SwampD]

I think the only change I would make to the rule is that if there is a change of possession (not merely a touching) in the zone after the offside occurs, and then a goal is scored, the play is not review-able.

[Taro T]

I think the only change I would make to the rule is that if there is a change of possession (not merely a touching) in the zone after the offside occurs, and then a goal is scored, the play is not review-able.

Make it a chnge of control, and methinks you're onto something. :thumbsup:

[X. Benedict]

I'm still angry today. Screw it. I don't need to be rational on this one; I just hate the rule. I don't need to be rational on this one I just hate the rule.

So a set tic-tac-toe play to an Ovechkin camped out in the zone would be ok?

If it wouldn't, what is the criteria to determine whether the offsides players was "involved in the play?"

 

No, they can't. Once play is whistled dead (for a reason other than an apparent goal being scored) or the puck is out of the zone, the possible offsides is no longer reviewable.

[SwampD]

Make it a chnge of control, and methinks you're onto something. :thumbsup:

I think that's probably what I meant, but not sure what term is used for what. If "control" is the same thing that stops play when a penalty is called, then yes.

[spndnchz]

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.

 

Sounds fine, but they'll still review it, delay play, etc. In addition they would need to review how many seconds (to the .01 sec) between offsides and the goal, taking even more time to review it and delay the game.

[LGR4GM]

Sounds fine, but they'll still review it, delay play, etc. In addition they would need to review how many seconds (to the .01 sec) between offsides and the goal, taking even more time to review it and delay the game.

So you prefer them to allow say 50seconds to run off the clock and then just be like whoops!

 

My point being we have witnessed times where a team will control the puck for over a minute in the offensive zone. What happens if you score a goal at the end of it?  Does the time go back on the clock? Is it fair? How much competitive advantage did you get by entering the zone 0.01 seconds before the puck?

Edited November 18, 2015 by LGR4GM

[spndnchz]

So you prefer them to allow say 50seconds to run off the clock and then just be like whoops!

 

My point being we have witnessed times where a team will control the puck for over a minute in the offensive zone. What happens if you score a goal at the end of it?  Does the time go back on the clock? Is it fair? How much competitive advantage did you get by entering the zone 0.01 seconds before the puck?

 

What I'm saying is I don't like the review and maybe have it just in the playoffs or something. Players that may think they were offsides and not called may just pass the puck around for 6 seconds before shooting.