Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Its one of the few good rule changes the league has made.


Offside is black and white and pretty easy to determine. Its exactly what reviews should be used for.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Linesmen should get 20 seconds to review it. If it’s “too close” to tell from and they cant figure it out by then, then the call on the ice stands. If it was clearly obvious and they realize it right away then overturn it quickly. It took like 5 minutes for them to overturn it today.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

I feel like the offside challenge should be time dependent, if a goal occurs within 5-10 seconds of the offside, sure call that back. However, if the play develops after that, it should still count.

 

[Rangers79]

Its one of the few good rule changes the league has made.


Offside is black and white and pretty easy to determine. Its exactly what reviews should be used for.

If it takes 6 mins it's clearly not black and white. Meanwhile they miss a high stick lol. It's just another way for the NHL and refs to control games. League can't determine what goaltender interference is or review missed penalties or injuries but they can offisdes? Sure

 

[KevinRedkey]

I kind of like it if it's a rush that leads to a direct goal
but I kind of hate it when it's been a long play where the offside was 15 seconds ago

Putting a timer on it seems gimmicky as well, so I have no solution and therefore don't complain about it.

 

[LOFIN]

Offside is black and white and pretty easy to determine. Its exactly what reviews should be used for.

And yet reviewing offsides has completely twisted the ruling from its original meaning and purpose.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Nearly every time it’s very incidental, the goal was not caused by the miss. For that reason, I’m not a fan.

We don’t review other things that are missed that have bigger impacts.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I feel like the offside challenge should be time dependent, if a goal occurs within 5-10 seconds of the offside, sure call that back. However, if the play develops after that, it should still count.

The goal doesn’t happen if the correct call is made, whether that’s 5 seconds after zone entry or a minute after. It all began with an illegal entry into the zone that shouldn’t have happened.

As plenty have alluded to, offside is a cut and dry rule (unlike say penalties, most of which have a degree of subjectivity). It’s a real buzzkill when a goal gets called back, but I think that’s a better alternative than seeing goals awarded on what were illegal zone entries.

Nearly every time it’s very incidental, the goal was not caused by the miss. For that reason, I’m not a fan.

We don’t review other things that are missed that have bigger impacts.

IMO, anything that isn’t subjective (ie penalties like hooking, tripping etc) should be reviewable. I think that’s the proper line to draw.

And yet reviewing offsides has completely twisted the ruling from its original meaning and purpose.

How so?

 

[LOFIN]

How so?

What is the original purpose of the offside rule? In both hockey and soccer, it's there to prevent players from camping in the OZ waiting for a pass. Instead, we are nowadays splitting hairs over skate/shoe laces being half an inch offside, and spending sometimes egregious amount of time doing it.

With an offside, the ref should only need 10 seconds to make a determination about the call. If he can't, it's not offside.

 

[LaVal]

Only the play directly leading to the goal should be reviewable. Therefor if it's a situation where the goal happened immediately after the offside (e.g. a 2-on-1 rush) then it should be reviewable. If the play only develops after entry (e.g. it's cycled around before the scoring chance) then it should absolutely not be reviewable.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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.

Saying that a technically correct call affects a team “psychologically” and “emotionally” is a very convoluted reason to disapprove of a rule IMO.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think it's fine. It just needs some checks to it, like if the defending team gains full possession, or if certain amount of time comes off the clock between entering the zone and scoring, and/or limiting replay time to a certain amount of seconds.

DO NOT make the referee's judgment as to if it "mattered" to the play. Do not want that.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

What is the original purpose of the offside rule? In both hockey and soccer, it's there to prevent players from camping in the OZ waiting for a pass. Instead, we are nowadays splitting hairs over skate/shoe laces being half an inch offside, and spending sometimes egregious amount of time doing it.

With an offside, the ref should only need 10 seconds to make a determination about the call. If he can't, it's not offside.

I’m really not opposed to what you’re saying about the time limit on making a determination. These 5+ minute long reviews on incredibly close calls end up producing what seems like arbitrary rulings.

On the “original” intention of the rule, I don’t agree with your narrative there. Yes, obviously offside prevents cherry picking but, at least as far as I know since implementation, the referees/linesman have attempted to call it with precision on zone entries. You can’t simply define it as an “anti cherry picking” rule to make what is a call based on precision seem so outrageous when they’re trying to determine the correct call by the book.

 

[Blackjack]

I think it's fine. It just needs some checks to it, like if the defending team gains full possession, or if certain amount of time comes off the clock between entering the zone and scoring, and/or limiting replay time to a certain amount of seconds.

DO NOT make the referee's judgment as to if it "mattered" to the play. Do not want that.

Yes, surely the answer to the frustration about arbitrarily taking goals away is to introduce more arbitrary conditions to the reviews.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I think it's fine. It just needs some checks to it, like if the defending team gains full possession, or if certain amount of time comes off the clock between entering the zone and scoring, and/or limiting replay time to a certain amount of seconds.

DO NOT make the referee's judgment as to if it "mattered" to the play. Do not want that.

This exactly.

People propose this kind of thing all the time and seem to have a complete inability to see the other side of the coin and the problems that would produce.

Yes, surely the answer to the frustration about arbitrarily taking goals away is to introduce more arbitrary conditions to the reviews.

you may disagree with taking a goal off the board that came following a zone entry 20 seconds before, but that hardly elevates it to “arbitrary” status.

 

[LOFIN]

On the “original” intention of the rule, I don’t agree with your narrative there. Yes, obviously offside prevents cherry picking but, at least as far as I know since implementation, the referees/linesman have attempted to call it with precision on zone entries. You can’t simply define it as an “anti cherry picking” rule to make what is a call based on precision seem so outrageous when they’re trying to determine the correct call by the book.

Obviously there has to be a reference point. With hockey, it's the blue line, with soccer it's the 2nd to last defending player (goalie counted as a defender). And the refs are obviously trying to enforce the rule as best they can. But we are humans after all, and some mistakes will slip through. And in tight cases, advantage should ALWAYS go to the attacking player. We want more goals, more excitement.

I would like to either remove offside challenges altogether, and maybe Toronto can call back the most egregious ones by checking each goal after scoring. Or then it has to be limited to offsides directly leading to a scoring play, and then you limit the time for the referee as well to view it.

 

[chris kontos]

Why not just check for all line violations electronically and then we could have 4 bad referees instead of just 2?

 

[Pablo El Perro]

The odd part of the rule is that it seems to imply that being offside had a major impact on the goal, yet don't do anything when linesman mistakenly call offside on plays that clearly weren't. At least admit the error and drop the puck in the offensive zone

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Obviously there has to be a reference point. With hockey, it's the blue line, with soccer it's the 2nd to last defending player (goalie counted as a defender). And the refs are obviously trying to enforce the rule as best they can. But we are humans after all, and some mistakes will slip through. And in tight cases, advantage should ALWAYS go to the attacking player. We want more goals, more excitement.

I would like to either remove offside challenges altogether, and maybe Toronto can call back the most egregious ones by checking each goal after scoring. Or then it has to be limited to offsides directly leading to a scoring play, and then you limit the time for the referee as well to view it.

Yeah, I agree with the gist of your post. I think there should be time limits to determine the correct call. If they still can’t tell, the goal should count. I also think that it should be an automatic review. The added element of a “coach’s challenge” for goal scoring plays is unnecessary IMO. Should be centralized in Toronto, as you said.

Only thing we (maybe) disagree on is that I don’t think the review should go away. It’s 2025. There’s too much quick, cheap and easy access to tech out there for leagues (especially the highest ones in whatever sports) to excuse away missed calls. Yes, there is still necessary human subjectivity in many areas. But offside shouldn’t be one.

The odd part of the rule is that it seems to imply that being offside had a major impact on the goal, yet don't do anything when linesman mistakenly call offside on plays that clearly weren't. At least admit the error and drop the puck in the offensive zone

At least from my angle, this almost never happens anymore. Because the play can be reviewed, refs are always leaning on letting potential offside plays play out.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Yeah, I agree with the gist of your post. I think there should be time limits to determine the correct call. If they still can’t tell, the goal should count. I also think that it should be an automatic review. The added element of a “coach’s challenge” for goal scoring plays is unnecessary IMO. Should be centralized in Toronto, as you said.

Only thing we (maybe) disagree on is that I don’t think the review should go away. It’s 2025. There’s too much quick, cheap and easy access to tech out there for leagues (especially the highest ones in whatever sports) to excuse away missed calls. Yes, there is still necessary human subjectivity in many areas. But offside shouldn’t be one.



At least from my angle, this almost never happens anymore. Because the play can be reviewed, refs are always leaning on letting potential offside plays play out.

It does happen, and, yeah, it's rare. But it happens. It's not a big deal, just think it's odd the missed offside is a big deal even if it was a minute or whatever before a goal gets scored.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

It does happen, and, yeah, it's rare. But it happens. It's not a big deal, just think it's odd the missed offside is a big deal even if it was a minute or whatever before a goal gets scored.

I don’t see why the very rare mistake of calling a legal entry ‘offside’ is good reason to say that goals should count on plays that should never have been allowed to develop due to being incorrectly called onside. If it was possible to reverse time and let plays continue that were not offside, then I’m sure they would do it. Haven’t yet found the key to time travel, unfortunately.

You’re basically saying it’s better to get it wrong both ways than use what we have to get it right at least some of the time. I just don’t agree with that premise. There’s nothing “more fair” about that to anyone. It would just mean more calls are wrong.

 

[Classic Devil]

So, I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand I like the idea of making offsides not reviewable. If it's close enough that a linesman misses it, then the spirit of the rule is working as intended: to prevent cherry-picking. But if it were made non-reviewable, linesman might get a lot more aggressive about calling offsides to avoid missed calls, and you may end up with a lot of scoring chances lost unfairly because of that.

It's probably best to just keep it how it is.

 

[Planetov]

Yeah, I agree with the gist of your post. I think there should be time limits to determine the correct call. If they still can’t tell, the goal should count. I also think that it should be an automatic review. The added element of a “coach’s challenge” for goal scoring plays is unnecessary IMO. Should be centralized in Toronto, as you said.

Only thing we (maybe) disagree on is that I don’t think the review should go away. It’s 2025. There’s too much quick, cheap and easy access to tech out there for leagues (especially the highest ones in whatever sports) to excuse away missed calls. Yes, there is still necessary human subjectivity in many areas. But offside shouldn’t be one.



At least from my angle, this almost never happens anymore. Because the play can be reviewed, refs are always leaning on letting potential offside plays play out.

To the bold, I’m genuinely curious as to why you think offside shouldn’t be a subjective call. I feel the exact opposite.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

To the bold, I’m genuinely curious as to why you think offside shouldn’t be a subjective call. I feel the exact opposite.

…because there’s a line on the ice marking the threshold between the neutral and attacking zones?

I think objective lines should be drawn wherever possible to reduce biases and “differences of opinion”. This is largely possible with rules such as offside and icing, in which the boundaries are largely quantifiable, but far more difficult in judgment calls such as say a hook or a trip. That’s why those plays are not (and should not IMO) be subjected to reviews.

 

[Planetov]

…because there’s a line on the ice marking the threshold between the neutral and attacking zones?

I think objective lines should be drawn wherever possible to reduce biases and “differences of opinion”. This is largely possible with rules such as offside and icing, in which the boundaries are largely quantifiable, but far more difficult in judgment calls such as say a hook or a trip. That’s why those plays are not (and should not IMO) be subjected to reviews.

Icing and offside were enforced subjectively before offside review, and those lines existed then as well. Why must we now eliminate that subjectivity?

To that point, is there (or should there be) a solution to getting icing calls exact as well, considering it has a line?