Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[These Are The Days]

This rule is absolute f***ing crap. It doesn't need to go as much as it desperately needs to be amended.


Let me give you an absolutely realistic scenario

Game 3 and Stamkos is back.

Dallas is on the PK they win the faceoff and clear.

Hedman goes back and gets it, Point carries it through traffic into the zone with others on his wing transitioning into the zone. There's about another 1:30 to in the PP.Tic tac toe between Hedman, Kucherov, Stamkos. Dallas unsuccessfully clears twice. They have tired legs out there and bam! Stamkos scores.

But then the cavernous echoes from the bat cave can be heard because Kucherov was a f***ing micron over the line and Dallas found out. It had absolutely nothing do to with the play but you can see it.


There's a challenge



"iT wUz OfFsIdEs! LuLz!!!!"




So not only no goal but the PP time is gone too.



Stuff like this is absolute horse shit and needs to be abolished. If there's a direct goal off a rush then yeah. Challenge it all day. Fair enough. But if the other team has had possession and you're also on a like a minute of sustained zone time then f*** your offsides call. It's completely irrelevant



Seriously once you get sustained zone time or a change of possession and no clear, buddy that offside that is make/break by a damn skate not being on the line which happened 45 seconds ago is the LAST problem with that goal.

 

[hirawl]

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.

Hockey game is full of stoppages and the clock is not running. An occasional offside review is not really ruining any game flow.

Hockey is very much about gaining zones and it bares a real significance whether a zone was gained legally or not before a goal. The rule is black and white and we have the technology to call it accordingly. I'd rather get it right than afterwards argue what should've could've would've.

We don't really hear anything from the players or coaches about goals that were called back because of offside reviews. It's a good thing.

 

[Name Nameless]

The rule is good. It makes it possible for the refs to not blow the whistle if they are in doubt. Except they still blow the whistle, because they don't want the hazzle of getting a goal annulled, and the play reset, and so on. So it doesn't give the advantage it could.

I still think so much could be fixed by saying "we don't review an offside more than 10 seconds before the goal, water under the bridge. They could have just stopped playing if it was so obvious. "

 

[Islay1989]

The spirit of the offside rule was to stop cherry-picking, it wasn't to review if the skate was touching the ice by a millimeter, or if the puck was barely touching the blue-line.

 

[holy]

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

Oh true yeah I’ll go pick up Aesop’s Fables NHL Editon next. Can’t wait to learn more lessons from sports.

 

[Vikke]

The offside challenge was a monumental overreaction to the Matt Duchene fiasco. Frankly, I'd rather have a Matt Duchene goal each season than the abomination that is the offside challenge.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

It's a very bad look for the NHL to review something with no impact on the play. Generally the offside had no impact on the goal and it is often many seconds prior to the goal scoring where the defensive team deserved to be scored on. The coach uses the challenge in desperation.

Challenges should only come from the league and if it is blatantly game impacting. So many calls are missed leading to goals, or made in error halting a scoring opportunity. It's very odd the NHL ever went in this direction and it is more odd that some are accepting of it.

If this is the direction some want the game to be called then there are not nearly enough stoppages in play to satisfy. Call it all or leave it as is, with human error.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Hockey game is full of stoppages and the clock is not running. An occasional offside review is not really ruining any game flow.

Hockey is very much about gaining zones and it bares a real significance whether a zone was gained legally or not before a goal. The rule is black and white and we have the technology to call it accordingly. I'd rather get it right than afterwards argue what should've could've would've.

We don't really hear anything from the players or coaches about goals that were called back because of offside reviews. It's a good thing.

No one ever thought to argue about should've could've would've on most of these goals in the past. This is a non issue with hardly anyone concerned over these goals in the past outside of the very rare instance where the goal was created by a blatant offside.

Unnatural game stoppages do ruin the flow. The offside challenges where a goal is being validated absolutely ruins the flow especially when it takes several minutes due to being so irrelevant.

There was plenty of feedback from teams. Why else do you think there have been adjustments to the rule so soon?

 

[the paisanos guy]

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

Okay, new idea. In the quest to get every call exactly right, the NHL is going to have a team of people scrutinizing every replay while the game goes on in order to search for missed calls. A whole period of play goes by and finally one of the scrutinizers notices a missed icing call near the start of the game. They reverse the clock and everyone replays the period. This would be a good thing because the right call was made?

The right call also has to be a timely call. If players had tracking systems on them and an automatic whistle would be blown if they were offside, I don't think anybody would be complaining. But if human eyes can't blow it down and an entire minute of hockey including a goal has to be vanished just to right a minor missed call in a game full of minor missed calls, then I think we're really losing sight of what's important.

 

[Oddbob]

Need to get rid of it. The linesman do more than a great job 95% of the time that a few bad ones is no need to have to review every meaningless missed one. Especially when it has been over 30 seconds since they have entered the zone. Yes mistakes get made sometimes, but it is pretty even league wide and every team will get good and bad calls. Should be no reviews and no stops for this at all. Play on!

 

[Oddbob]

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

Puck over glass doesn't have big stops to gameplay while we review them.

 

[CanadienShark]

Puck over glass doesn't have big stops to gameplay while we review them.

I've seen long stoppages for it. Maybe not quite as long as offsides, but one is reviewing a goal while the other is just a penalty that sometimes needs a discussion. I'm ok with taking some more time for reviewing goals.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Get "binary" rules out of the hands of refs, and into the hands of cameras/sensors/AI.

Offsides, icing, puck over glass, puck crossing the goal line, puck in contact with stick above the crossbar, trapezoid, etc.

 

[MessierII]

Never understood the hate for it. Black and white.

It’s actually not. What about plays that are actually onside where the linesman makes a mistake and whistles it down? Those don’t get a review and teams don’t get those plays back. Right now the rule only takes away goals it doesn’t add any.

 

[KinCornKarn]

The offside challenge was a monumental overreaction to the Matt Duchene fiasco. Frankly, I'd rather have a Matt Duchene goal each season than the abomination that is the offside challenge.

Exactly. I dont even celebrate a goal anymore until after the faceoff. Soon it will be like the NFL. Lets review every goal just in case.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

IMO if you are so close to onside that the linesman doesn't catch it, you have not broken the spirit of the offside rule. I hate video reviewing it.

 

[Lolonegoal]

If its offside to the point of reviewing it in slow motion and analyzing it for 5 minutes then it should count. Slow motion and frame by frame is not s luxury we have naturally. It's been determined that's it's not visible by the human eye therefore any ref wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This isnt horse racing. I'm okay with it being called back if it's obvious.

 

[Evergreen]

I hate it. The reviews kill the flow of the game. Plus the goals that get overturned are minute offside infractions that have to be looked at in slow motion and zoomed-in and never affected the play at all in the first place. The coach's challenge attempts to solve a problem that so rarely occurred (obviously missed offside calls) and replaces it with a bigger issue of ruining the flow of the game and causing uncertainty after goals as to whether they will stand.

 

[M88K]

I like it
But there's two sides of it.
1 is that Alot of time the inch or two that a player is offside by has no bearing in the play /goal.

With it it seems linesman have become hesitant to blow the whistle knowing that if they did get it wrong, itll get challenged and overturned anyway.

I think this has led to a lot of times where a goal has been scored that under the old system they would have been blown dead 90%of the time (they would still miss on occasion) so we see it more often than we realize /think is necessary.

2 is the opposite. That level of backup exist so they let things that might seem offside go, that may not have actually been, but under the old system they would have blown dead thus robbing a team of a scoring chance.

People think that the rule was created only for the most egregious goals and that it is applied too liberally to arbitrary offsides (inches etc) but they don't remember the days of legitimate on side plays being blown dead for offsides that now aren't because that fall back is in place.


If they called it as tight as they used to, we'd see it applied a whole lot less while still bemoaning them screwing up the legitimate on side ones.

 

[Vikke]

I think that, to solve my issues with the stupid challenge, there are a few steps to take.
1. no slowmos. just one replay.
2. don't give the conceding team 50-60 seconds to decide. within 10 seconds of the referee signal or you're out of luck.
3. scrap it entirely.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I think that, to solve my issues with the stupid challenge, there are a few steps to take.
1. no slowmos. just one replay.
2. don't give the conceding team 50-60 seconds to decide. within 10 seconds of the referee signal or you're out of luck.
3. scrap it entirely.

4) Let a computer call it.

 

[M88K]

I mean the easiest fix is the puck has to cross the blue line before anything else.
No one foot across the line and the other behind.
Problem solved.
But I see no problem with it

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Hockey game is full of stoppages and the clock is not running. An occasional offside review is not really ruining any game flow.

Hockey is very much about gaining zones and it bares a real significance whether a zone was gained legally or not before a goal. The rule is black and white and we have the technology to call it accordingly. I'd rather get it right than afterwards argue what should've could've would've.

We don't really hear anything from the players or coaches about goals that were called back because of offside reviews. It's a good thing.

I strongly disagree that an occasional offside review doesn't ruin game flow. It brings the game to a dead stop for several minutes. How is that not ruining game flow?

Again, it's about cost benefit. There is little benefit to offside review to justify the cost of stopping the game for several minutes.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The offside rule was not designed to be an ultra-precision exercise. Conceptually, the reason it exists is to eliminate cherry picking, which emphasizes puck-rushing and makes the flow of the game more entertaining to watch.

But having both skates perfectly touching the ice on the correct side of the blue line is not some sacred cow. It's not analogous to the puck going over the goal line. If a player is crossing the blue line along with the puck, he is obviously not cherry picking. Mission accomplished.

Using replay to measure this down to the micrometer is like reviewing to be sure that nobody on the previous line change was more than precisely 5' away from the bench when their sub came on. It misses the point of the rule and adds a negative element that was never intended.

 

[DitchMarner]

This afternoon the Rangers had a disallowed goal because of an offside that happened well before the puck went in the net. When the goal was overturned, I thought, "okay, that's the game. The Rangers aren't bouncing back from this."

Think about how much something like that has to affect a team psychologically/emotionally. It has to be draining and a momentum-killer when what could have been a big goal is called off because a player was a quarter of an inch offside 25 seconds before the puck found the back of the net.