Are Delayed Offsides Challenges Good for the Game?

[x Tame Impala]

Reflecting back on the recent offsides review in Game 5 of the Caps/Canes series where the Capitals scored on a slapshot one timer from the point to take a 2-1 lead in the game. The goal was called back because on the zone entry the Caps skater was offsides by a few millimeters. 20+ seconds went by after the zone entry and a Canes player even touched the puck but the Capitals got it back.

Are these sorts of calls/reviews important for the integrity of the game? There's a real "rules are rules" argument to be had here but as a neutral fan watching that game it seemed like the players being offsides was so close that it was inconsequential to the goal being scored. What we were left with was an annoying delay for the viewer and then seeing a pretty cool goal and a huge goal for the Capitals be called back.

This Caps goal is just one example of many. Do you think it's more important to follow the rules as strictly as possible or is a more "let them play" approach the preferred option?

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

This has been debated an uncountable number of times on this forum.

My personal opinion is that cut and dry things should always be reviewable. If you were offside, regardless of how much times goes by, you entered the zone illegally. I think drawing a line where there’s an actual line is perfectly legitimate.

I think it’s also vital to truly consider the alternative. There are so many angles and replays available nowadays that the outrage will be ever present if goals are allowed that are later discovered to have come after an illegal zone entry. Simply finding it annoying that goals get called back after the fact because it is discovered the play was offside is a terrible reason to eliminate the rule.

I long ago accepted this as part of the game nowadays. I see no reason to change it back considering we’d probably even more people going apeshit.

 

[Prairie Habs]

A million things get missed every game, the fact something as minor as a guy bring a millimeter offside is challengable but so many more impactful things aren't is crazy. Review was brought in to correct immediately apparent and egregious mistakes, not to have guys in a war room counting pixels to try and get a cheap leg up.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

If we're going to have offside review, making it a black and white distinction is far better than asking the refs or the war room to determine whether the missed offside was material to the goal or not. There's a bit of subjectivity in goalie interference, after all, and that's a complete clusterf***

 

[Coffee]

first two periods let them play

 

[the paisanos guy]

timeliness of a call is an important factor. ultimately this is an entertainment product, and having a goal called back and having to replay game time because of something that probably had a negligible effect on the play feels bad and is bad for the game.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

timeliness of a call is an important factor. ultimately this is an entertainment product, and having a goal called back and having to replay game time because of something that probably had a negligible effect on the play feels bad and is bad for the game.

Yeah, but what “feels” right is irrelevant.

Calling back a goal minutes after it has been scored because of an offside play doesn’t “feel” right. Allowing a goal on an offside play doesn’t “feel” right either. Ultimately, it’s about deciding whether or not to enforce the rule (one that is governed not by judgment, but by a literal line painted beneath the playing surface) given the capability to do so with technology.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Offside calls are black and white. Either you are or you aren't. That's how it should be. And while it would be great if the linesmen get it right every time, that's not a reasonable expectation to have, so having the ability to challenge and review is necessary.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

timeliness of a call is an important factor. ultimately this is an entertainment product, and having a goal called back and having to replay game time because of something that probably had a negligible effect on the play feels bad and is bad for the game.

I agree. Plus, there are so many subjective calls officials make that have a greater impact on the game. I don't want to hear the argument against allowing the officials to determine if the offsides impacted the result of the play. This is where you want to draw the line against officials making judgments? Every game fans complain about calls or noncalls. This is part of the game. The negative of an overturned goal and the time it takes to review the play far exceeds the value of getting the call right when we are considering a player being 2 inches offsides and then the play proceeds for 20 seconds in the zone before a goal is scored. It's ridiculous considering the other calls not made in a game that actually impact the outcome of a play.

And why don't we ;look at icings the same way we look at offsides when a team scores?

 

[gtrower]

Yeah, but what “feels” right is irrelevant.

Calling back a goal minutes after it has been scored because of an offside play doesn’t “feel” right. Allowing a goal on an offside play doesn’t “feel” right either. Ultimately, it’s about deciding whether or not to enforce the rule (one that is governed not by judgment, but by a literal line painted beneath the playing surface) given the capability to do so with technology.

That’s not entirely true IMHO. What you’re describing here would the argument for an automated offsides call that dings the crew immediately. That’s not what we have though. We have a system that disrupts the game flow and can result in erasing things that have already happened (not just the goal). That introduces more variables than simply whether it “feels right.” Also, isn’t there already subjectivity built into the offside review about whether the defense gained possession after the alleged offside offense? So the rule does include judgement.

At its core a professional sport is an entertainment product. If the product is not entertaining, there will cease to be a sport. So what “feels” right is absolutely not irrelevant. Plenty of rules in plenty of sports have been adjusted for what “feels” right. The list of things of what is reviewable, what’s not reviewable, and how things are reviewed changes every year for every sport that has video review - and generally those changes are made as a result of something happening that didn’t feel right.

As a referee in another sport, I had long been a proponent of “a rule is a rule for a reason, enforce the rule.” But as I’ve started to understand sports more over the years I think I’ve realized that it’s more “a rule was created for a specific intent, and black/white enforcement of that rule often leads to instances that are contrary to the intent.”

I don’t know that I have a better solution to offer. It’s possible we already have the best solution. But I whole heartedly disagree with the statement “what feels right is irrelevant.”

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

That’s not entirely true IMHO. What you’re describing here would the argument for an automated offsides call that dings the crew immediately. That’s not what we have though. We have a system that disrupts the game flow and can result in erasing things that have already happened. That introduces more variables than simply whether it “feels right.” Also, isn’t there already subjectivity built into the offside review about whether the defense gained possession after the alleged offside offense? So the rule does include judgement.

At its core a professional sport is an entertainment product. If the product is not entertaining, there will cease to be a sport. So what “feels” right is absolutely not irrelevant. Plenty of rules in plenty of sports have been adjusted for what “feels” right. The list of things of what is reviewable, what’s not reviewable, and how things are reviewed changes every year for every sport that has video review - and generally those changes are made as a result of something happening that didn’t feel right.

As a referee in another sport, I had long been a proponent of “a rule is a rule for a reason, enforce the rule.” But as I’ve started to understand sports more over the years I think I’ve realized that it’s more “a rule was created for a specific intent, and black/white enforcement of that rule often leads to instances that are contrary to the intent.”

I don’t know that I have a better solution to offer. It’s possible we already have the best solution. But I whole heartedly disagree with the statement “what feels right is irrelevant.”

Your last paragraph is what I was getting at (and what I apparently didn’t convey well enough) with the statement that “what you feel is irrelevant”.

There’s a clear and plausible argument for both sides. Goal allowed on an offside play doesn’t “feel” right. Neither does it “feel” right when it’s not allowed (especially when it’s by a hair or comes a minute after the offside occurred). Therefore, the statement that one or the other doesn’t “feel” right without mentioning the exact same emotion applies to the alternative is myopic.

And yes, you’ve pointed out the downfall of rules in general by your mentioning of how your thinking has changed over the years. But at the end of the day, you still need rules and it doesn’t do much good if they are less concrete. Again, as both a viewer and a referee yourself, I’m sure you’ve seen the consequences of unnecessary subjectivity.

Seems like your response to me was purely based on semantics. Not sure there’s really any disagreement that I can discern in terms of the actual content of the argument.

Also, the “dinging” to the crew to alert them to stop a play immediately is probably close to possible at this point. But it would create additional stoppages in the game which I don’t think anyone wants (after all, most missed offside plays don’t result in goals so the play carries on until the next stoppage).

 

[gtrower]

Your last paragraph is what I was getting at (and what I apparently didn’t convey well enough) with the statement that “what you feel is irrelevant”.

There’s a clear and plausible argument for both sides. Goal allowed on an offside play doesn’t “feel” right. Neither does it “feel” right when it’s not allowed (especially when it’s by a hair or comes a minute after the offside occurred). Therefore, the statement that one or the other doesn’t “feel” right without mentioning the exact same emotion applies to the alternative is myopic.

And yes, you’ve pointed out the downfall of rules in general by your mentioning of how your thinking has changed over the years. But at the end of the day, you still need rules and it doesn’t do much good if they are less concrete. Again, as both a viewer and a referee yourself, I’m sure you’ve seen the consequences of unnecessary subjectivity.

Seems like your response to me was purely based on semantics. Not sure there’s really any disagreement that I can discern in terms of the actual content of the argument.

Also, the “dinging” to the crew to alert them to stop a play immediately is probably close to possible at this point. But it would create additional stoppages in the game which I don’t think anyone wants (after all, most missed offside plays don’t result in goals so the play carries on until the next stoppage).

We certainly were not agreeing as I whole heartedly disagreed with your main premise. If your position has evolved then it’s possible we agree. It seems that maybe it has as you went from being in favor of black/white offside rulings to now arguing that an automated system resulting in more stoppages (dare I interpret it as) doesn’t “feel” right.

 

[amnesiac]

this only became a rule because of the Matt Duchene 2 feet offside goal (years ago). Its black or white, so they dont really have a choice but to do it this way.

in other words, you cant say "well it was close so will let it slide" but then say its ok to recall a Duchene type offside.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

f*** no, they suck, I think the answer is to actually hold refs accountable and move ‘em up or down the ranks (AHL, college, whatever) accordingly.

 

[Bond]

I’m still on no reviews versus any reviews at this point. Nothing like getting any excitement killed when a review is called and it takes them ten minutes

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

We certainly were not agreeing as I whole heartedly disagreed with your main premise. If your position has evolved then it’s possible we agree. It seems that maybe it has as you went from being in favor of black/white offside rulings to now arguing that an automated system resulting in more stoppages (dare I interpret it as) doesn’t “feel” right.

My point on the “dinging” is very much hypothetical and a just a side remark to what we’re talking about in the present. I don’t think the league is interesting in implementing something like that because they’d rather keep the game moving the way they have it now (if refs miss call, play continues on UNLESS it stops naturally due to scoring play where play is reviewed and reversed).

I’m simply saying, in a vacuum, that people in general don’t favor additional stoppages. I’m not actually trying to make an argument for or agains the implementation of a system and the complexities that come with that.

 

[uncleben]

When it takes 5min of frame-by-frame pixel analysis, I think it's close enough... It just bogs down the game at that point


What sort of bothers me more is when they call back a goal for an offside 3min earlier, after puck possession has swapped three times, and there's been multiple shot attempts.

Once the offside team loses possession, I'd be okay with it lapsing.