Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[McHelpus]

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

When it's a close call it's all up to whatever they want.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's the dumbest thing the league has done in a long time.

Unless the goal is scored on the initial rush, it shouldn't be called back. The defending team had it's chance to actually play defense and failed

 

[Pablo El Perro]

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.



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

I've been told that there are no spirits of rules.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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.



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.

Should that be a lesson to change the rule or a lesson for viewers to acknowledge their biases?

 

[JianYang]

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.

Should we allow icings to be reviewed too? I feel like we used have the same attitudes towards offsides that we have for icings where we would not micro-analyze them. We only started micro-analyzing offsides when the review came in.

I think we would surprised if we really pay attention how many icing calls are wrong by the letter of the law.

 

[Planetov]

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.

Don’t worry, we both agree the blue line is the reference for offside. But I’m still looking for a solid reason why that justifies the offside review rule change. Because I’m not lobbying for a penalty review rule or an icing review rule—certainly not for a play that is not the play in question (a goal). Those would also be ridiculous.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Should we allow icings to be reviewed too? I feel like we used have the same attitudes towards offsides that we have for icings where we would not micro-analyze them. We only started micro-analyzing offsides when the review came in.

I think we would surprised if we really pay attention how many icing calls are wrong by the letter of the law.

The refs already review icing calls. It's so simple most people don't notice.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Have you ever seen them rethink an icing call?

I’ve never seen a video review for icing no.
It’s a terrible idea, to have a review to determine if faceoff should be inside the blue line, or outside the blue line.

It could be the worst suggestion for a review.

 

[JianYang]

The refs already review icing calls. It's so simple most people don't notice.

Icing calls are reviewable? I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

It’s a terrible idea, to have a review to determine if faceoff should be inside the blue line, or outside the blue line.

It could be the worst suggestion for a review.

I'm not saying you need to go to video review. Much like bad icing calls, a linesman could just give a my bad and change where the puck is dropped accordingly.

Icing calls are reviewable? I don't think I've ever seen it.

The confusion going on here is the difference between a quick ref pow wow and video review. Usually when there's a bad offside call, a player whines, linesman gives a my bad gesture. Simple solution, adjust the puck drop.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Easy fix to the rule

*Only goals scored within the first ten seconds of the missed offsides can be over turned.

Anything outside that is allowed, as the defending team had time to recover, and no clear advantage from the missed off sides was used to score.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Easy fix to the rule

*Only goals scored within the first ten seconds of the missed offsides can be over turned.

Anything outside that is allowed, as the defending team had time to recover, and no clear advantage from the missed off sides was used to score.

Yeah, there was the Duchene type goal, which sort of set the standard and was an obvious example. Surprised nobody argued about it as much when Sutter scored his in 1980. But now it's just an odd part of the game to look at every goal, and it keeps video teams busy, and encourages coaches to take time outs. If not a time limit, loss of possession could be an easy standard to draw a line.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm not saying you need to go to video review. Much like bad icing calls, a linesman could just give a my bad and change where the puck is dropped accordingly.

no not required, on offsides a linesman is standing right on the blue line, in the best position to make a call. It’s fine as they have it now, you can challenge on a goal.

Not always the case with icing, that the linesman are right on the lines.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

no not required, on offsides a linesman is standing right on the blue line, in the best position to make a call. It’s fine as they have it now, you can challenge on a goal.

Not always the case with icing, that the linesman are right on the lines.

Yet, sometimes they blow the call, know it, and shrug their shoulders. This seems like an equally good reason to get rid of offside challenges.

 

[noncents]

if the player who was offsides does not touch the puck between infraction and goal, or is not within three yards of the crease at time of scoring, the review shall be deemed unsuccessful

if, in the time between infraction and goal, a player on the potentially scored-on team commits an infraction, such as high sticking, roughing, spitting, philandering, unduly scuppering, friscalating, or engaging in oblique skimmington or apophasis, then shall be invoked - after a brief recess for spiritual nourishment - the ancient Gump-Rites whereby the offsides team gets a penalty shot but the goalie takes the shot and the infracting skater is in net.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Don’t worry, we both agree the blue line is the reference for offside. But I’m still looking for a solid reason why that justifies the offside review rule change. Because I’m not lobbying for a penalty review rule or an icing review rule—certainly not for a play that is not the play in question (a goal). Those would also be ridiculous.

You have to draw a line somewhere on reviews. I'm good with drawing it at the actual line. Or on something that is tangible or quantifiable.

We are going to have to agree to disagree after this (assuming we still disagree) because I've gone as in-depth as I can with my reasoning, which I feel is pretty straightforward. Things such as "did the puck clear the glass without deflecting?", "was the player offside before the goal?", etc. are based on tangible boundaries. When two (or however many) judges come together to make the call, they're looking for the exact same thing. If you bring two, or more, judges together to say whether something was or was not a penalty, there's a far wider possibility of interpretations. There is no material, tangible item that determines the call. It is based on INTERPRETATION of a rulebook.

My opinion is to eliminate as much opinion as possible from reviews. It's an unavoidable paradox for me in goalie interference situations, since despite being a judgment call, it immediately proceeds the goal and therefore should be eligible. But for everything else, draw the line where you actually can realistically draw a line. You can't draw a line across someone's interpretation. As I said before, you'd simply be taking the frustration that comes with a goalie interference call and spread more possibility of frustration and indignation (because interpretations vary based on biased and unbiased factors).

Do missed penalty calls (or what I believe are missed calls) lead to goals sometimes? Abso-frickin-lutely. But, as I think we've both established, you can't review EVERYTHING. You have to draw the line somewhere. I think that line, as of now, is roughly drawn appropriately. You're talking about shifting it to other areas in which I am not comfortable and in which I do not believe would solve any of the issues in which you and others bring up.

if the player who was offsides does not touch the puck between infraction and goal, or is not within three yards of the crease at time of scoring, the review shall be deemed unsuccessful

What about the defense that shifts its position to account for the player who eventually enters the zone offside? Clearly that player who entered illegally is having an effect on the goal scoring play in that case.

I'm not saying you need to go to video review. Much like bad icing calls, a linesman could just give a my bad and change where the puck is dropped accordingly.


The confusion going on here is the difference between a quick ref pow wow and video review. Usually when there's a bad offside call, a player whines, linesman gives a my bad gesture. Simple solution, adjust the puck drop.

I think that is a stretch to call that a "solution". The play has already ended.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

You have to draw a line somewhere on reviews. I'm good with drawing it at the actual line. Or on something that is tangible or quantifiable.

We are going to have to agree to disagree after this (assuming we still disagree) because I've gone as in-depth as I can with my reasoning, which I feel is pretty straightforward. Things such as "did the puck clear the glass without deflecting?", "was the player offside before the goal?", etc. are based on tangible boundaries. When two (or however many) judges come together to make the call, they're looking for the exact same thing. If you bring two, or more, judges together to say whether something was or was not a penalty, there's a far wider possibility of interpretations. There is no material, tangible item that determines the call. It is based on INTERPRETATION of a rulebook and the INTERPRETATION

My opinion is to eliminate as much opinion as possible from reviews. It's an unavoidable paradox for me in goalie interference situations, since despite being a judgment call, it immediately proceeds the goal and therefore should be eligible. But for everything else, draw the line where you actually can realistically draw a line. You can't draw a line across someone's interpretation. As I said before, you'd simply be taking the frustration that comes with a goalie interference call and spread more possibility of frustration and indignation (because interpretations vary based on biased and unbiased factors).

Do missed penalty calls (or what I believe are missed calls) lead to goals sometimes? Abso-frickin-lutely. But, as I think we've both established, you can't review EVERYTHING. You have to draw the line somewhere. I think that line, as of now, is roughly drawn appropriately. You're talking about shifting it to other areas in which I am not comfortable and in which I do not believe would solve any of the issues in which you and others bring up.



What about the defense that shifts its position to account for the player who eventually enters the zone offside? Clearly that player who entered illegally is having an effect on the goal scoring play in that case.



I think that is a stretch to call that a "solution". The play has already ended.

The play has already ended on icings.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

The play has already ended on icings.

That's a good point.

Considering the rarity in which something like that would occur, I can't say I'm opposed to it. Perhaps I'll shift my "indifferent" stance on that one to "lightly favor".

 

[Pablo El Perro]

That's a good point.

Considering the rarity in which something like that would occur, I can't say I'm opposed to it. Perhaps I'll shift my "indifferent" stance on that one to "lightly favor".

My original point was more in line with this thread itself. Namely, they take missed offside calls so seriously that they'll call back a goal however long after, so much so where the offside has contributed to the goal based on an odd insistence rules are rules, but wrong calls by the refs on the same play are just shrugged off when there's an easy solution.

So, I was being a bit fecicious, apologies if that was missed.

 

[MattMartin]

This is why the rule was put in place (1st highlight). Matt Martin was exiting the zone which clearly caused the goal for Kuhnackl. If Martin was on sides, no way does that puck go in,



Giant heap of sarcasm included

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yet, sometimes they blow the call, know it, and shrug their shoulders. This seems like an equally good reason to get rid of offside challenges.

Video review would be crazy
Huddling, not terrible, but prefer the ref standing on the blue line make the final decision.
I would NOT like it if a ref, can change his mind, by going, my bad,

I think that would be bad in any sport that’s refereed.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Video review would be crazy
Huddling, not terrible, but prefer the ref standing on the blue line make the final decision.
I would NOT like it if a ref, can change his mind, by going, my bad,

I think that would be bad in any sport that’s refereed.

It happens on other calls.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

My original point was more in line with this thread itself. Namely, they take missed offside calls so seriously that they'll call back a goal however long after, so much so where the offside has contributed to the goal based on an odd insistence rules are rules, but wrong calls by the refs on the same play are just shrugged off when there's an easy solution.

So, I was being a bit fecicious, apologies if that was missed.

Yup, I did miss it. My bad.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It happens on other calls.

Ya but it doesn’t change, what the end result of the call was. That would be terrible.
That’s why you don’t see any sport that has referees, allow them to make one call, and then turn around , and say my bad, change the call, and do it another way. (Other than video review).

It don’t think it would pass rules committees, that’s all, nor should it imo.

Edit: now I read, you were facetious

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Ya but it doesn’t change, what the end result of the call was. That would be terrible.
That’s why you don’t see any sport that has referees, allow them to make one call, and then turn around , and say my bad, change the call, and do it another way. (Other than video review).

It don’t think it would pass rules committees, that’s all, nor should it imo.

If the end result is where the puck is dropped, again, yes it does happen, and it's not terrible. Just accepted practice. I don't know whether you are being intentional in misunderstanding this for some purist sports thing or not.