Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[DitchMarner]

What do you think of the fact that the NHL does this?

I've hated it for years. Sure, it sucked when offsides were missed prior to goals, but hockey isn't impervious to mistakes.

Does it really make sense to determine whether an offside occurred before a potential goal was scored but not also wipe out potential goals because of things like missed icings or penalties?

In many instances, disallowed goals have no real relevance to missed offsides, making no-goal rulings based on missed offsides feel inorganic/contrived.

To me this rule is almost as bad as that stupid "toe in the crease rule" from the late 90s.

 

[GM Armchair]

Dumb rule. Won’t be going away tho. With it or without it you would still be getting mad at the refs for something.

 

[CanadienShark]

I'm ok with it. It's a pretty cut and dry rule. It's not really based on opinion, like some other calls.

 

[Nikki Potnick]

I'm ok with it. It's a pretty cut and dry rule. It's not really based on opinion, like some other calls.

Never understood the hate for it. Black and white.

 

[CanadienShark]

Never understood the hate for it. Black and white.

It's like the puck over glass penalty. Frustrating, but at least it can be applied with some consistency.

 

[DitchMarner]

I'm ok with it. It's a pretty cut and dry rule. It's not really based on opinion, like some other calls.

Sure, but for the majority of the NHL's history, goals scored following missed offsides were not overturned. This rule creates an historical inconsistency in that regard.

Also, why check for missed offsides but not missed penalties or icings?

 

[CherryToke]

Worst rule/gimmick in pro sports. Offside rule was created to stop cherry picking in the Ozone which doesn't require video review... ever

 

[CanadienShark]

Sure, but for the majority of the NHL's history, goals scored following missed offsides were not overturned. This rule creates an historical inconsistency in that regard.

Also, why check for missed offsides but not missed penalties or icings?

Rule changes always affect history.

The difference is that they're reviewing a goal.

 

[the paisanos guy]

Don't like it, it ruins the flow of the game. The spirit of the rule was to prevent cherry-picking, and if an offside call is so close that the ref can't call it during real time then it's really just nitpicking rather than enforcing the intent of the rule. On-ice call should stand and it shouldn't be reviewable.

 

[Nautica54]

Definitely after an opposing player touches the puck, if it returns to the original team who then scores a goal it should stand.

 

[coolboarder]

I do not mind challenges for offsides but I also am up for the challenges on any missed icing or puck over the glass where sometimes ref has missed some of those calls. Also I would up for a challenges on any missed penalty that led to a goal, this is also a black and white issue. Ref will not see any review but the war room determining that goes along with coach challenge. War room can only call a penalty only if the coach challenges any missed call. It shouldn't cost them a penalty but cost them a timeout because it is a subjective penalty. I do not mind this if they get this right. Even if a war room thinks that it is not a penalty, then it will cost them a timeout and no line change. I prefer that method of punishment for a failed challenge but for offside or goaltender interference cost them a penalty.

The penalty coach challenges must be tied to any missed penalty that led to a scoring. The coach cannot challenge a penalty that the ref missed during a normal play stoppage for example, offsides, puck frozen or icing or puck out of the glass. The coach must show the war rom a specific play that the ref missed that led to the goal. It could be a missed tripping that led to a 2 on 1 chance the other way.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Never understood the hate for it. Black and white.

The hate stems from taking away a goal and maybe swaying the game because a skateblade was off the ice or a nanometer ahead of the puck into the zone...

 

[Nikki Potnick]

The hate stems from taking away a goal and maybe swaying the game because a skateblade was off the ice or a nanometer ahead of the puck into the zone...

What if it's an inch ahead? 2 inches? 3? 4? Where's the line drawn? Ahead of the puck is offside. Simple, easy, no argument.
Should we not allow goals if the puck is a nanometer over the goal line? I mean they barely beat the goaltender.

 

[Chrisinroch]

I’m good with it. There were a couple really bad missed offsides that decided games prior to the challenge rule.

I’d rather get it right

 

[Filthy Dangles]

What if it's an inch ahead? 2 inches? 3? 4? If it's offside, it's offside.
Should we not allow goals if the puck is a nanometer over the goal line? I mean they barely beat the goaltender.

The rule was put in place after that crazy Matt Duchene missed call where he was like 20 feet offside. Those kinds of misses are rare, most of the time it's a skateblade over the plane of the line but in the air or like an inch offside.

That's why people don't like it. Personally, I'm all for nuking it. If not, they should at least extend the plane of the line upward like the goal line in the NFL so skates can be in the air but onside.

 

[Blackjack]

Never understood the hate for it. Black and white.

Why not review every scoring play all the way back to the original faceoff? If the scoring team gained an unfair advantage by a missed call at any point, take the goal away.

Also, what if you win a faceoff in the offensive zone and score, but you only got the offensive zone faceoff because the linesman missed an earlier offside? Isn't that also unfair?

The hate for it is because it's completely arbitrary to turn back the clock and right a wrong in that one circumstance, but not any other. What about the hand-pass goal for San Jose last year? It's not black and white that Meier gloved that puck?

I've seen so many gorgeous goals taken away with this stupid rule, it's infuriating. It's a ruinous, awful rule. If you're that obsessed with the offside rule, if you can't stomach a Matt Duchene crazy-offside goal once a decade or so, fine. Automate the offside calls with sensors and computers, so offside plays are blown dead immediately and we don't have to watch this stupid shit anymore.

 

[Nikki Potnick]

Why not review every scoring play all the way back to the original faceoff? If the scoring team gained an unfair advantage by a missed call at any point, take the goal away.

Also, what if you win a faceoff in the offensive zone and score, but you only got the offensive zone faceoff because the linesman missed an earlier offside? Isn't that also unfair?

The hate for it is because it's completely arbitrary to turn back the clock and right a wrong in that one circumstance, but not any other. What about the hand-pass goal for San Jose last year? It's not black and white that Meier gloved that puck?

I've seen so many gorgeous goals taken away with this stupid rule, it's infuriating. It's a ruinous, awful rule. If you're that obsessed with the offside rule, if you can't stomach a Matt Duchene crazy-offside goal once a decade or so, fine. Automate the offside calls with sensors and computers, so offside plays are blown dead immediately and we don't have to watch this stupid shit anymore.

You're extrapolating on another level.

People will complain when refs get the call wrong. People will complain when they get the call right. Fans are a funny bunch.

 

[Blackjack]

You're extrapolating on another level.

People will complain when refs get the call wrong. People will complain when they get the call right. Fans are a funny bunch.

I'm not extrapolating anything, I'm pointing out an inconsistency. And you're right on the second point, these dumb rule changes are because fans are babies and the leagues don't have the guts to do the right thing.

I believe MLB instituted replay after an ump blew a call that cost a pitcher a perfect game. The batter was out BY A MILE (just like Duchene) and it was devastating for the pitcher to lose his perfect game that way, but now MLB is an unwatchable morass of video review.

 

[holy]

Part of the advancing technology. I like it. I’m not okay with seeing replays and realizing my team got their balls stomped on by some blind linesman.

 

[Nikki Potnick]

I'm not extrapolating anything, I'm pointing out an inconsistency. And you're right on the second point, these dumb rule changes are because fans are babies and the leagues don't have the guts to do the right thing.

I believe MLB instituted replay after an ump blew a call that cost a pitcher a perfect game. The batter was out BY A MILE (just like Duchene) and it was devastating for the pitcher to lose his perfect game that way, but now MLB is an unwatchable morass of video review.

I don't disagree about the inconsistency of when they choose to apply reviews. But I'm never going to be against getting the call right.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I'm ok with it. It's a pretty cut and dry rule. It's not really based on opinion, like some other calls.

It gives linesmen an incentive to blow the whistle on close offside calls. Better to call it dead than not and have everyone see you missed the call on review.

Beyond that, it's a solution in search of a problem. There were a few egregious missed calls over the years but overall linesmen do a good job. A player's skate being a millimeter offside does not give them some massive advantage that led to a goal.

One of the things I love about hockey is how fast the flow of the game is. To bring it to a screeching halt for something that ultimately didn't factor into the goal isn't worth it.

 

[hirawl]

Getting the call right is a bad thing? Think again.

 

[Blackjack]

Part of the advancing technology. I like it. I’m not okay with seeing replays and realizing my team got their balls stomped on by some blind linesman.

One of the best lessons that sports can teach you is that life is not fair sometimes.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's like the puck over glass penalty. Frustrating, but at least it can be applied with some consistency.

The puck over the glass penalty incentivizes defenseman to make a play on the ice rather than try to fire it off the high glass. It encourages a skill play that will keep the game going, whether the result is a successful pass or a turnover.

The offside review does the opposite. It stops the game dead for something that 99.9% of the time did not give any significant advantage that led to the goal.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Getting the call right is a bad thing? Think again.

That's an oversimplification.

Ideally you want all calls to be right, but there's inevitably a cost to do that. Stopping the game for several minutes for a lengthy video review that often ends in a judgment call anyway.

It's cost-benefit. And the benefit of getting the call right if someone's skate is barely over the blueline is not worth the cost of stopping the game and potentially overturning goals that in no way benefitted from the offside.