Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[Pablo El Perro]

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.

I'm not arguing that at all. You are reading a lot into my comment that is just not there. I don't have too much of a problem with reviews and challenges. Just think they should allow more plays to be reviewed, including a mistaken offside call, with or without a challenge.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

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.

Strongly agree. If the offsides wasn't so obvious that it wasn't called live, then it did not affect the play and should not be reviewable.

Alternatively, it should not be reviewable if the goal comes more than 10 seconds after the puck crosses the blue line. What always bugs me is that there is a long period of play but then a goal is scored, in which case the offsides made no difference at all. Also, if the defenders can't get back and set within 10 seconds, they frankly deserve to have the goal scored on them.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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?

Because it can be eliminated. As opposed to (most) penalty calls which are inherently judgements based on the person making the determination. Penalties contain inherently more difficult to define boundaries for what is and is not a hold, or a hook, or a trip. Offside is "did an attacking player enter the zone before the puck?" It's often not an easy call. But as a referee, you can count on the fact that you and whomever else looking at it are on the same page in terms of what you are trying to see based on those set standards (ie the lines).

For icing, it's actually relatively common for linesman/referees to consult and put the faceoff at center ice when they consult and conclude they got an icing call wrong. I consider that a fair solution, considering what is possible, to that problem.

I'm not arguing that at all. You are reading a lot into my comment that is just not there. I don't have too much of a problem with reviews and challenges. Just think they should allow more plays to be reviewed, including a mistaken offside call, with or without a challenge.

Sorry if I "read into" your comment too much. Certainly did not mean to hold you to any inferences or arguments you didn't make.

But I am confused about your proposal about reviewing a "mistaken offside call"? What would that look like? If the play is blown dead for offside...no play ever happens. What is being reviewed? If it is determined that the offside call was bad, what comes next?

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Strongly agree. If the offsides wasn't so obvious that it wasn't called live, then it did not affect the play and should not be reviewable.

Alternatively, it should not be reviewable if the goal comes more than 10 seconds after the puck crosses the blue line. What always bugs me is that there is a long period of play but then a goal is scored, in which case the offsides made no difference at all. Also, if the defenders can't get back and set within 10 seconds, they frankly deserve to have the goal scored on them.

This isn't true though. Goals are not independent events in a vacuum. There is a whole series of events that comes prior to a goal. If a team's illegal entry into the zone allows them to establish themselves in the zone and set up a cycle that eventually leads to the goal...the illegal zone entry helped make the goal possible.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Horrible rule. The advantage of coming in offside is negligible at best! It's such an unnecessary rule. Worst rule in sports!

 

[Planetov]

Because it can be eliminated. As opposed to (most) penalty calls which are inherently judgements based on the person making the determination. Penalties contain inherently more difficult to define boundaries for what is and is not a hold, or a hook, or a trip. Offside is "did an attacking player enter the zone before the puck?" It's often not an easy call. But as a referee, you can count on the fact that you and whomever else looking at it are on the same page in terms of what you are trying to see based on those set standards (ie the lines).

For icing, it's actually relatively common for linesman/referees to consult and put the faceoff at center ice when they consult and conclude they got an icing call wrong. I consider that a fair solution, considering what is possible, to that problem.

To your first point, you said determining if an attacking player entered the zone before the puck is often not an easy call, just like penalties. Surely it can’t be as simple as “offside has a line, penalties don’t” to justify offside review. It has to be more than that.

To your second point, the officials conferring and overturning an icing call is still subjective. And that’s just fine by me.

 

[TheNumber4]

The rule is the rule. And the NHL needs more black and white rules that are easily enforceable.

Video review also finally gives much needed accountability to often incompetent NHL officials. It’s gives them a check and balance when they get things wrong, something that is a rarity in this League.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.

Well when it was brought in, Gary said be careful what you wish for, there will be no going back, and people will want more reviews. Turns out he was right about that.

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.

Lmao, no it wasn’t.
It was to determine if it was a legit goal, or the play was offside and no goal.
Cherry picking ,

 

[McHelpus]

Another way for the league to control the outcome of games.

 

[TheNumber4]

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.

But imagine if that Matt Duchene offside happened in game 7 of the Cup Finals. What a clown show that would be and I wouldn’t put it past the incompetent officials in this League to let something like that happen.

 

[TheNumber4]

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.

Anything to get ref subjectivity and corruption out of the game would be a good thing. I agree. And this is what the NHL should strive for.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Another way for the league to control the outcome of games.

The league doesn’t control where a players skate is lol.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Because it can be eliminated. As opposed to (most) penalty calls which are inherently judgements based on the person making the determination. Penalties contain inherently more difficult to define boundaries for what is and is not a hold, or a hook, or a trip. Offside is "did an attacking player enter the zone before the puck?" It's often not an easy call. But as a referee, you can count on the fact that you and whomever else looking at it are on the same page in terms of what you are trying to see based on those set standards (ie the lines).

For icing, it's actually relatively common for linesman/referees to consult and put the faceoff at center ice when they consult and conclude they got an icing call wrong. I consider that a fair solution, considering what is possible, to that problem.



Sorry if I "read into" your comment too much. Certainly did not mean to hold you to any inferences or arguments you didn't make.

But I am confused about your proposal about reviewing a "mistaken offside call"? What would that look like? If the play is blown dead for offside...no play ever happens. What is being reviewed? If it is determined that the offside call was bad, what comes next?

I said what it would look like in the post above. Have the draw in the offensive zone. Simple enough. I'm not saying to give a team a penalty shot, free goal, or anything. This could be done like the icings you mention.

Regarding penalties, they do review majors and defer to the linesmen with certain missed calls (I've seen 3 in the last two weeks). I don't see why allowing challenges on penalties would be all that different.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

To your first point, you said determining if an attacking player entered the zone before the puck is often not an easy call, just like penalties. Surely it can’t be as simple as “offside has a line, penalties don’t” to justify offside review. It has to be more than that.

To your second point, the officials conferring and overturning an icing call is still subjective. And that’s just fine by me.

Why? One has quantifiable boundaries, the other doesn't. Seems the perfect place to draw a line on what is reviewable and what is not. There is literally...a line.

 

[Suntouchable13]

I don't think these reviews for a millimeter offside 20 seconds prior to a goal really help the game. If a guy is a millimeter offside, so be it. I don't really care. Takes too long to review. Waste of time. Not needed.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I said what it would look like in the post above. Have the draw in the offensive zone. Simple enough. I'm not saying to give a team a penalty shot, free goal, or anything. This could be done like the icings you mention.

Regarding penalties, they do review majors and defer to the linesmen with certain missed calls (I've seen 3 in the last two weeks). I don't see why allowing challenges on penalties would be all that different.

lol, now reviews to determine where a face off is, hard no,

Why would there be a review, if a ref that called an offside call, we are now going to review to see if it shouldn’t be offside.

Just to have a face off inside the zone, vs the offside dot. That is a satire post I hope, or am misunderstanding what you’re saying ( please say I’m misunderstanding).

 

[Suntouchable13]

Why? One has quantifiable boundaries, the other doesn't. Seems the perfect place to draw a line on what is reviewable and what is not. There is literally...a line.

That's BS, man. You don't need everything to be 100% in the game. I am sorry, you just don't. These offside reviews stink. We don't need them. Waste of time.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I said what it would look like in the post above. Have the draw in the offensive zone. Simple enough. I'm not saying to give a team a penalty shot, free goal, or anything. This could be done like the icings you mention.

Regarding penalties, they do review majors and defer to the linesmen with certain missed calls (I've seen 3 in the last two weeks). I don't see why allowing challenges on penalties would be all that different.

I think that what you're talking about in your first paragraph is so rare that I really can't give a strong opinion one way or another. If they wanted to award the team a faceoff in the offensive zone, fine with me. If they didn't want to make it reviewable, fine with me. In my eyes, they've already completely killed the play. That sucks, but I don't see any real way to correct it.

In terms of challenging penalties, my answer is what it has been for the last number of posts. What is and what is not a penalty shifts based on who is making the determination. And that remains true to some degree regardless of training. Humans are not uniform in their interpretations of identically viewed events. But, for something like offside, there is a quantifiable boundary that limits the range of interpretation. The question is the same, with the same limits, for everyone viewing it. Did the player enter the zone prior to the puck?

Let's talk about the goalie interference rule for a second. A subjective (no set boundaries) review. When coaches first began challening for GI, I swear than I was 95% or above on determining the call after review based on replay. Now? I maybe get it right 3 out of every 4 times. I can't pinpoint exactly why my winning percentage on these calls seems to be dipping, but I can tell you a very big reason that I'm often caught off-guard by what the refs rule. Because, even with a rulebook full of apparent "boundaries", there is SUBJECTIVITY in such a call. There is no physical line saying, "this is goalie interference, that is not". Do I want reviews on GI out of the game? No, only because it is IMMEDIATE event prior to a goal. But for other events of subjectivity? You'd have endless interpretations varying from minute-to-minute, game-to-game. It would be downright impossible to truly create consistency.

What you start getting into in reviewing penalties is introducing the frustration and randomness of goalie interference calls all over the ice. For that reason, I am opposed to it.

That's BS, man. You don't need everything to be 100% in the game. I am sorry, you just don't. These offside reviews stink. We don't need them. Waste of time.

Well, agree to disagree then. Easy enough.

I'm not quite sure what "needing everything to be 100%" really means, but if it means that you can't make the game perfect and bad calls will happen, I do 100% agree on that point. Just not when it's applied to offside plays prior to a goal.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

I think that what you're talking about in your first paragraph is so rare that I really can't give a strong opinion one way or another. If they wanted to award the team a faceoff in the offensive zone, fine with me. If they didn't want to make it reviewable, fine with me. In my eyes, they've already completely killed the play. That sucks, but I don't see any real way to correct it.

In terms of challenging penalties, my answer is what it has been for the last number of posts. What is and what is not a penalty shifts based on who is making the determination. And that remains true to some degree regardless of training. Humans are not uniform in their interpretations of identically viewed events. But, for something like offside, there is a quantifiable boundary that limits the range of interpretation. The question is the same, with the same limits, for everyone viewing it. Did the player enter the zone prior to the puck?

Let's talk about the goalie interference rule for a second. A subjective (no set boundaries) review. When coaches first began challening for GI, I swear than I was 95% or above on determining the call after review based on replay. Now? I maybe get it right 3 out of every 4 times. I can't pinpoint exactly why my winning percentage on these calls seems to be dipping, but I can tell you a very big reason that I'm often caught off-guard by what the refs rule. Because, even with a rulebook full of apparent "boundaries", there is subjectivity in such a call. There is no physical line saying, "this is goalie interference, that is not". Do I want reviews on GI out of the game? No, only because it is IMMEDIATE event prior to a goal. But for other events of subjectivity? You'd have endless interpretations varying from minute-to-minute, game-to-game. It would be downright impossible to truly create consistency.

What you start getting into in reviewing penalties is introducing the frustration of goalie interference calls all over the ice. For that reason, I am opposed to it.

Yes. They are subjective, but in certain cases still subject to reviews and a ref huddle. And GI is probably the least consistent call. Only penalty that comes close is when refs decide to call hooks to the hands after letting them go all game. I doubt coaches would challenge non-egregious ones, but I'm not as pessimistic as most.

And I disagree that it's that rare, but that depends on our definition of scarcity. It's probably more common than 5 minute majors, but I might be biased on this, seeing a bad one a couple nights ago.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Yes. They are subjective, but in certain cases still subject to reviews and a ref huddle. And GI is probably the least consistent call. Only penalty that comes close is when refs decide to call hooks to the hands after letting them go all game. I doubt coaches would challenge non-egregious ones, but I'm not as pessimistic as most.

And I disagree that it's that rare, but that depends on our definition of scarcity. It's probably more common than 5 minute majors, but I might be biased on this, seeing a bad one a couple nights ago.

Okay, I feel like you're sort of pivoting away from what we were talking about in prior posts, so I just want to bring it back there.

A line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE on what is or not is not allowed to challenged. You and I obviously see that line being in different places. My stance on it is...reviews should be allowed on goalie interference (which are more frustrating than perhaps anything because of the level of subjectivity, and therefore inherent randomness and inconsistency) and plays/violations with objective, tangible boundaries. What better place to draw the line than where there are actual lines?

Yeah, "bad offside call" reviews. I honestly don't think there's much you can do there. It's a very difficult situation to correct. The play has ended. Whatever comes when play begins again is independent of what came before the bad call. "I doubt coaches would challenge non-egregious ones". Okay, maybe, but that's not even the point. The issue is the inherent subjectivity and inconsistency that would come out of those reviews night after night. Even dismissing the fear of constant challenges, there would never be an outcome (IMO) on the ensuing call that would lower whatever level of frustration exists amongst teams and fans about bad penalty calls right now. There are as many people thinking one hooking call is "soft" and shouldn't be called because it isn't the "spirit of the rule" as there are people who think it's a good call by the letter of the law. I really just don't see any benefit in terms of fairness from having games stop on subjective calls so that referees or whomever can then apply additional subjective thought to settle on a subjective decision without clear lines.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Okay, I feel like you're sort of pivoting away from what we were talking about in prior posts, so I just want to bring it back there.

A line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE on what is or not is not allowed to challenged. You and I obviously see that line being in different places. My stance on it is...reviews should be allowed on goalie interference (which are more frustrating than perhaps anything because of the level of subjectivity, and therefore inherent randomness and inconsistency). What better place to draw the line than where there are actual lines?

Yeah, "bad offside call" reviews. I honestly don't think there's much you can do there. It's a very difficult situation to correct. The play has ended. Whatever comes when play begins again is independent of what came before the bad call. "I doubt coaches would challenge non-egregious ones". Okay, maybe, but that's not even the point. The issue is the inherent subjectivity and inconsistency that would come out of those reviews night after night. Even dismissing the fear of constant challenges, there would never be an outcome (IMO) that would lower whatever level of frustration exists amongst teams and fans about bad penalty calls right now.

They review hand passes, kicks, high sticks, and so on on goals. And that's a good thing. Regarding the offside issue, a team wines, refs huddle, much like a bad icing call. It's not complicated.

Regarding feels and frustrations, I'm not sure how you measure that. It's a qualia thing. Toronto fans were pretty frustrated when Gilmour took a stick to the face that went uncalled and they had to accept, I'm sure LA fans would be frustrated if Toronto could challenge that. So, both seem to be frustrating and the level of frustration is a non-factor, so why introduce a subjective thing when trying to eliminate subjectivity.

 

[Blackjack]

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.

Lots of goals happen after calls that should have been made. The league has arbitrarily determined a very narrow set of circumstances in which they will go back in time and take goals away.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

lol, now reviews to determine where a face off is, hard no.

Have you ever seen them rethink an icing call?

 

[57special]

Yeah, let's go back to the old rule so we can bitch and complain about goals that shouldn't have counted because they were offside.

 

[JianYang]

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.

It's very much like the zero tolerance crease rule from the late 90s where a a goal would be called back when a guy backdoor has a toenail on the edge of the crease.

It's against the spirit of the rule which was to protect goalies.

Yeah, let's go back to the old rule so we can bitch and complain about goals that shouldn't have counted because they were offside.

It's funny because when I go to back old highlights, I see some questionable offsides now that the broadcasters would never bring up. We just were not conditioned to micro-analyze plays at the blueline.