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.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

first two periods let them play

This could maybe work in a game in which scoring is constant (say if there was somehow an offside rule in basketball). To argue about how one score out of fifty that took place back in the first quarter shouldn’t have counted and that determined the final outcome would appear silly. So in that environment, I feel like your idea could be potentially viable.

But hockey is a game that has plenty of two and three goal matches. To make one goal reviewable and not the other due to the time of the game it is scored doesn’t really solve anything in my opinion.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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.

I think the problem with that is we end up arguing about what is “possession” which is often unclear.

Also if a team enters the zone illegally and then gives the puck up below the goal line (thus losing possession), but then gets it back after a relentless forecheck, should that really wash out the fact that the puck got into the zone illegally? Doesn’t seem fair to me.

For the record, if 3 minute zone time was a common occurrence (I doubt this happens more than a handful of times a year in the NHL in any game period), I’d be more convinced as to implementing your idea. But in reality, that’s a huge exaggeration for what happens in a given game. 45 straight seconds possessing the puck in the other team’s zone is considered extended zone time by modern standards and even that is pretty rare.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

With the introduction of the blueline extending upwards in a vertical plane, or what constitutes possession of the puck, it is still quite often a judgment call even with video review.

And in terms of enforcing the rule, it only gets extra scrutiny when a goal is scored and not all the other situations where an offside or onside call could've impacted game play.

So it's not about getting the call right. It's about getting it "right" under a specific set of circumstances through a video review that often involves a judgment call.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

With the introduction of the blueline extending upwards in a vertical plane, or what constitutes possession of the puck, it is still quite often a judgment call even with video review.

And in terms of enforcing the rule, it only gets extra scrutiny when a goal is scored and not all the other situations where an offside or onside call could've impacted game play.

So it's not about getting the call right. It's about getting it "right" under a specific set of circumstances through a video review that often involves a judgment call.

Absolutely agree with everything here. There is no perfect solution and you’ve pointed out legitimate flaws in the current system.

I still haven’t seen anything that I feel is a better alternative. I do not think it is beneficial to partially or fully reverse the replay rule following a goal on offside plays. Are there things that don’t “feel” right along with fuzzy areas the current protocol does not solve? Absolutely. But it’s still better than any proposal I’ve seen offered.

 

[uncleben]

I think the problem with that is we end up arguing about what is “possession” which is often unclear.

Also if a team enters the zone illegally and then gives the puck up below the goal line (thus losing possession), but then gets it back after a relentless forecheck, should that really wash out the fact that the puck got into the zone illegally? Doesn’t seem fair to me.

For the record, if 3 minute zone time was a common occurrence (I doubt this happens more than a handful of times a year in the NHL in any game period), I’d be more convinced as to implementing your idea. But in reality, that’s a huge exaggeration for what happens in a given game. 45 straight seconds possessing the puck in the other team’s zone is considered extended zone time by modern standards and even that is pretty rare.

Oh, there's definitely flaws to the idea, and, yes, 3 minutes was an exaggeration.

As for possession, essentially if you would blow the whistle for a delayed penalty, that's pretty much where I would draw the line.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Oh, there's definitely flaws to the idea, and, yes, 3 minutes was an exaggeration.

As for possession, essentially if you would blow the whistle for a delayed penalty, that's pretty much where I would draw the line.

I feel like I see players and/or coaches get pissed once every handful of games because they feel the refs blew the whistle prematurely (or not) on a possession play on a delayed penalty. Introducing that relentlessly fuzzy line between “possession and not possession” to another aspect of the game seems like a net negative idea in my mind.

 

[Summer Rose]

Absolutely agree with everything here. There is no perfect solution and you’ve pointed out legitimate flaws in the current system.

I still haven’t seen anything that I feel is a better alternative. I do not think it is beneficial to partially or fully reverse the replay rule following a goal on offside plays. Are there things that don’t “feel” right along with fuzzy areas the current protocol does not solve? Absolutely. But it’s still better than any proposal I’ve seen offered.

That’s how I feel. Obviously in a perfect world, the linesmen would never make the incorrect call on a zone entry, but that will never happen, so we have what we have. Personally I feel the offside review system is just six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. They could scrap it and I wouldn’t care. It solves some problems, but creates some new ones according to some. I just don’t feel strongly about its existence either way, so whatever.

As you said though, none of the proposed changes I’ve ever seen would improve things in my opinion (I think they all make things worse, but we shall see). I’ll give a brief opinion of some of the main proposals I’ve seen.

“Let the goal stand if the offside player didn’t affect the play.” There would of course be some clear cut ones in both directions. However, now you’re adding a judgment call about what affects the play on top of the regular offside rule. No thanks.

“Put a time limit on how long they can review it, if time expires they have to let the call on the ice stand.” I don’t like this one at all. What if they run out of time on a review, and we find out later that the call was clearly incorrect but they couldn’t call it because they ran out of time? When does the timer start? Too many problems.

“Allow the goal if X amount of time has passed between the zone entry and the goal.” Do we really want to start also reviewing how much time has passed in addition to whether it was even offside in the first place? If X is 10 seconds, then they’d also have to review close calls like whether the puck entered the net 9.9 seconds or 10.1 seconds after the zone entry. This would suck.

“Wash out the offside zone entry if the defending team gains possession.” Another layer of judgement added to define what possession is, which would be subject to review as well. A more convoluted review process for no benefit.

If there even is a solution, it’s not an easy one. At least as it stands now, it’s black and white. Either it’s offside or it’s not. No in between. While it has its own problems, I’m not sure I see any change they could make that would improve anything, and all the proposals I just posted make things worse instead (in my personal opinion, of course).

 

[avocadosmoothie]

shouldn't be reviewable. if you didn't notice it, then it didn't matter.