Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[SEALBound]

You say that like offside was never a subjective call, which is false. Look at rule changes since the league’s inception.

The rule itself is not subjective. The linesmen are tasked with calling it to the highest level of accuracy possible. Which is why replays were implemented to begin with rules like offsides and goal reviews. Notice how they weren't implemented for tripping or cross-checking? Because those are not binary, yes/no rules. Offsides, however, is.

Icing most certainly does include subjective elements. It’s only an objective call in the most clear-cut circumstances.

The NHL was willing to free up a bit of objectivity to reduce the potential for injury. That's fine. The issue would come up when the linesman believes the offensive player will get to the puck first, waives it off, and the dman gets there first but the resulting play leads to a goal against. But honestly, how often does that really happen? The majority of the time, the dman will get the tie-breaker and icing is called. But if enough instances of this occurred, I would support the ability of the coach to challenge.

A referee making a mistake is not “subjectivity”.Normal human mistakes were made on offside calls for 90 years, and nobody saw this as an urgent issue. It’s just part of the game, sometimes the ref sees the high stick and sometimes he doesn’t, either way you play on. That isn’t subjectivity, a high stick is a high stick, but this is in no way a game that was designed to be stopped and re-played every time a high stick happens.

You're conflating several things here, and what was done 90 years ago up until video replay was available is irrelevant. The game evolves and every single professional sport and sports team has embraced the implementation of technology. As has been explained, offsides is an objective rule with very clear parameters. It is the responsibility of the league and refs to ensure the rules are upheld to the greatest extent possible, even if video replay is needed. When we talk about subjectivity, we are talking cross-checking, tripping, slashing, etc because of the wide range possibilities that exist within the dynamic game. Those things don't exist when it comes to off-sides and the scoring of the goal doesn't change that. It just doesn't. It's irrelevant. It's like when a penalty is called against a team, the offending team can't score a goal because the instant they touch the puck, the play is dead. The scoring of the goal does not usurp the rule.

You have obviously never had the experience of being in the arena when a key goal is scored, having the whole place explode into a frenzy, then everything dies down and descends into a chorus of soft boos while the ref argues with the coach, the players skate to their bench looking up at the scoreboard, the ref finally goes over to talk to the scorekeeper, the ref comes back and announces the review to a louder chorus of boos, then the refs conduct the review while the Jumbotron shows frame-by-frame replays while 18000 people squint to see exactly where a skate was at a particular millisecond, then the ref comes out an announces no-goal to extremely loud boos, then the ref goes over and argues with the other coach, eventually the coach sends out his guys for the next shift, then the furor dies down into a discontented mumble while they get set for the faceoff, and the loudspeakers play “let’s go ____ clap clap clap” which nobody participates in as they settle back down.

That feeling of the air slowly going out of a balloon deeply, deeply sucks. In live-arena time that turnaround of several minutes feels like it takes forever, and it leaves the building dead and the game changed. Over what? A guy picking up his foot at 48:09:08 instead of 48:09:09? It’s not worth it. People are paying to be entertained, not frustrated to tears.

Crappy argument. Then don't go to the game or don't watch the came if it bothers you that much. The fans reaction is irrelevant. How loud does the arena get when the goal is called back in favor of the home team? It works both ways. The "but the fans" is literally the worst argument that one could use here.

"Let's review this play. The puck didn't cross the goal line but the fans already cheered so we can't call it back." See how absolutely ludicrous that sounds?

I went to a football bowl game yesterday that took over FOUR HOURS to play.

I’m not even going to write more about it. FOUR HOURS.

Then don't go. Easy.

Boy was tonight the wrong night for you to pull THAT card. Here’s my post from our GDT about two hours ago:

I’m perfectly happy to watch an NHL where my team gets screwed by calls — guess what, I already watch that 82 games a year! It’s sports, bad calls happen. Come at me with terrible calls. 90% of the sports fan experience is being mad about something, so nothing changes.

What I don’t want to watch is a stupid mini-game between the coaches where they try find a way to screw each other out of good hockey goals by litigating irrelevant crap that happened elsewhere on the ice.

That wasn't solely directed at you, that was for everyone. But I'm glad you have that mature stance.

The game within the game is part of the game. Again, fan reactions do not matter. One thing that doesn't get called out enough here is that, these reviews only happen when a coach initiates the challenge. There are 1,312 games in the league total. Last year, there were 126 challenges. Assuming there's only 1 per game, that's 1 per 11 games and 86% were successful, so that suggests that the majority of the time there is sufficient evidence to get the call correct.

Again, such a minute part of the game in all reality that it's difficult to feel bad when people whine about it. There are tv timeouts that take longer. If you're so concerned about fans and cheering and energy and flow in a game, why not go after TV timeouts?

 

[Maple Leaf]

What about if you allow offsides

 

[SEALBound]

Oh man, hard hard hard disagree.

This bullshit happens often enough that every time my team scores now my first thought is "ok but will it count?"

That's an awful outcome. Goals used to be celebrated without question or hesitation. It was fun! Now we're worried about whether a player was offside by an inch up to minutes before the goal.

Worst rule in hockey. Kill it with fire.

Sorry but that is an absurd exaggeration.

Last year, in 1,312 games, 8,086 goals were scored with 126 offsides challenges. 18 upheld, 108 overturned (86%).

1.5%. If you're worried about "whether it will count every single time"...then, man, I just don't know what to tell you. The number of occurrences are just not as prevalent as people suggest. Numbers do not support your emotional pleas.

 

[phrenssoa]

I like the rule. Especially in this day and age where gambling is so widespread, it’s important to get the call right.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The rule itself is not subjective. The linesmen are tasked with calling it to the highest level of accuracy possible. Which is why replays were implemented to begin with rules like offsides and goal reviews. Notice how they weren't implemented for tripping or cross-checking? Because those are not binary, yes/no rules. Offsides, however, is.

On a practical level, there has always been a degree of ambiguity on offside calls. Could a linesman really see whether everyone’s skates were firmly on the blue paint at the precise instant that a puck crossed the line 10 feet over their heads? Of course not. It was understood that there was a degree of common error, and that was fine — because the actual core purpose of offside is simply to restrict the offensive players from racing into the zone ahead of the puck. An inch here or there simply doesn’t matter on a practical level.

Only with the introduction of replay do we suddenly have this notion that the inch, the half-inch, the hundredth of an inch matters so much that the game hinges on it. That’s not the spirit of the rule, and conceptually does not fit in the game of hockey the way it might in a game like baseball or football.

The NHL was willing to free up a bit of objectivity to reduce the potential for injury. That's fine. The issue would come up when the linesman believes the offensive player will get to the puck first, waives it off, and the dman gets there first but the resulting play leads to a goal against. But honestly, how often does that really happen? The majority of the time, the dman will get the tie-breaker and icing is called. But if enough instances of this occurred, I would support the ability of the coach to challenge.

I meant that icing is subjective in the sense that officials routinely make a judgment call on whether a player was capable of retrieving the puck before it reached the line. Even if it’s just the defensive player skating back, the linesman makes that subjective call every single time. Every so often, one gets waved off because a defenseman is churning his feet to try and sell icing to a linesman who isn’t buying it. Zero people have an issue with that subjectivity, in the same way that 15 years ago zero people had an issue with offside calls.

You're conflating several things here, and what was done 90 years ago up until video replay was available is irrelevant. The game evolves and every single professional sport and sports team has embraced the implementation of technology. As has been explained, offsides is an objective rule with very clear parameters. It is the responsibility of the league and refs to ensure the rules are upheld to the greatest extent possible, even if video replay is needed.

I reject pretty much all of that. The history and core intentions of the game are absolutely relevant. What works in some other sport does not automatically work in hockey. And the league and refs have responsibilities other than, and even in contradiction to, enforcing every single rule to the nth degree.

Crappy argument. Then don't go to the game or don't watch the came if it bothers you that much. The fans reaction is irrelevant. How loud does the arena get when the goal is called back in favor of the home team? It works both ways. The "but the fans" is literally the worst argument that one could use here.

"Let's review this play. The puck didn't cross the goal line but the fans already cheered so we can't call it back." See how absolutely ludicrous that sounds?

Then don't go. Easy.

Professional sports is an entertainment industry first and foremost.

The entire purpose of the existence of the NHL is to capture people’s attention and make them engage as intensely as possible with the drama on the ice, so that they will want to pay money to see as much of it as possible. Telling people “just stop going to the games if you don’t like this shitty change” misses the entire point of what all of this is about.

And to that point — that game was the first time in my life that I’ve voluntarily left a pro or college game early to beat traffic, having attended several hundred. Even my teenaged boys, who have a bottomless appetite for football, wanted to get out of there as we rounded the end of the third quarter. It was just too much dead air, too much delay for reviews and injuries and commercials, and not enough actual game play going on. It was deathly boring. The boys told me thanks for bringing them but not to feel like we needed to do it again in the future. So there actually is a very real impact to what seems like just a small delay here and there, which adds up to a loss of drama and ultimately a loss of interest.

The game within the game is part of the game.

It’s part of the NHL product, not the game of hockey. It can be deleted with the stroke of a pen and no one would miss it.

Again, such a minute part of the game in all reality that it's difficult to feel bad when people whine about it. There are tv timeouts that take longer. If you're so concerned about fans and cheering and energy and flow in a game, why not go after TV timeouts?

Oh, to be sure, TV timeouts also degrade the quality of the game. Try attending a non-broadcast game some time. You’d be surprised how much more intense the game gets when one play builds on another without interruption. This isn’t noticeable from your couch at home but it makes a huge difference in the live presentation, where the game gets interrupted three times a period for screeching hosts to do mindless sideshow gags. I don’t know anyone who thinks that stuff is better than just continuing with the gameplay they paid to see.

The difference is that TV timeouts are not removable, as the league cannot exist without its TV contracts. Offside reviews are simply a rulebook issue and can be dropped at will by the Rules Committee.

 

[El Travo]

The offside challenge came into play because people were losing their shit over missed offside calls leading to goals. You reap what you sow. You can either get rid of the review and shut the f*** up when a Duchene situation happens, or you keep the review as it is. Adding arbitrary time limits will only complicate things further and add more controversial calls to the game.

 

[Star Platinum]

I have grown to despise challenge reviews in all sports because they slow down the game to obsess for too long over minuscule offenses. Review should only have ever been for egregiously blown calls that can be corrected in a minute or less. Hockey at least has the least amount of this, but as a fan of a team that has benefited greatly from overturning goals on successful offside call reviews, I think it's ridiculous to have a goal overturned for something that happened long before a goal. All penalties should be for something that gives the offending team a clear and unfair advantage.

The Ray Ferraro suggestions above sound like moving things in the right direction.

 

[Spurgeon]

On a practical level, there has always been a degree of ambiguity on offside calls. Could a linesman really see whether everyone’s skates were firmly on the blue paint at the precise instant that a puck crossed the line 10 feet over their heads? Of course not. It was understood that there was a degree of common error, and that was fine — because the actual core purpose of offside is simply to restrict the offensive players from racing into the zone ahead of the puck. An inch here or there simply doesn’t matter on a practical level.

Only with the introduction of replay do we suddenly have this notion that the inch, the half-inch, the hundredth of an inch matters so much that the game hinges on it. That’s not the spirit of the rule, and conceptually does not fit in the game of hockey the way it might in a game like baseball or football.



I meant that icing is subjective in the sense that officials routinely make a judgment call on whether a player was capable of retrieving the puck before it reached the line. Even if it’s just the defensive player skating back, the linesman makes that subjective call every single time. Every so often, one gets waved off because a defenseman is churning his feet to try and sell icing to a linesman who isn’t buying it. Zero people have an issue with that subjectivity, in the same way that 15 years ago zero people had an issue with offside calls.



I reject pretty much all of that. The history and core intentions of the game are absolutely relevant. What works in some other sport does not automatically work in hockey. And the league and refs have responsibilities other than, and even in contradiction to, enforcing every single rule to the nth degree.



Professional sports is an entertainment industry first and foremost.

The entire purpose of the existence of the NHL is to capture people’s attention and make them engage as intensely as possible with the drama on the ice, so that they will want to pay money to see as much of it as possible. Telling people “just stop going to the games if you don’t like this shitty change” misses the entire point of what all of this is about.

And to that point — that game was the first time in my life that I’ve voluntarily left a pro or college game early to beat traffic, having attended several hundred. Even my teenaged boys, who have a bottomless appetite for football, wanted to get out of there as we rounded the end of the third quarter. It was just too much dead air, too much delay for reviews and injuries and commercials, and not enough actual game play going on. It was deathly boring. The boys told me thanks for bringing them but not to feel like we needed to do it again in the future. So there actually is a very real impact to what seems like just a small delay here and there, which adds up to a loss of drama and ultimately a loss of interest.



It’s part of the NHL product, not the game of hockey. It can be deleted with the stroke of a pen and no one would miss it.



Oh, to be sure, TV timeouts also degrade the quality of the game. Try attending a non-broadcast game some time. You’d be surprised how much more intense the game gets when one play builds on another without interruption. This isn’t noticeable from your couch at home but it makes a huge difference in the live presentation, where the game gets interrupted three times a period for screeching hosts to do mindless sideshow gags. I don’t know anyone who thinks that stuff is better than just continuing with the gameplay they paid to see.

The difference is that TV timeouts are not removable, as the league cannot exist without its TV contracts. Offside reviews are simply a rulebook issue and can be dropped at will by the Rules Committee.

Just a Wild fan chiming in that the overturned goal against you guys should’ve counted. Completely inconsequential “offsides” that had absolutely no impact on the play.

My issues are these goals where I even had to question if that goal technically “counted”, I legitimately didn’t even know before the review. If the linesman waved it off, I feel it’s fair to just go with their assessment unless our bench immediately caught it.

 

[SEALBound]

On a practical level, there has always been a degree of ambiguity on offside calls. Could a linesman really see whether everyone’s skates were firmly on the blue paint at the precise instant that a puck crossed the line 10 feet over their heads? Of course not. It was understood that there was a degree of common error, and that was fine — because the actual core purpose of offside is simply to restrict the offensive players from racing into the zone ahead of the puck. An inch here or there simply doesn’t matter on a practical level.

Except that by and large, the call is easy to make. Again, the number of challenges vs the number of occurrences is minuscule in the grand scheme.

You are wrong on the "an inch here or there simply doesn't matter". It does matter. From the most basic fundamental structure of the game aspect, it matters. An inch, okay. What about two? Three? Four? A foot? When EXACTLY does it matter? Literally, name the distance. How far can a player violate a rule before it should be called? How much is too much? So you call the 6 inches offsides. Then you let the 1ft one go and a goal is scored. Is that fair to either team to have an undefined rule when looking for the utmost consistency and quality of the game at the professional level?

I go back to the goal line question. The rule states the puck must completely cross the goal line. Game 7 OT SCF - Oilers vs Canes rematch. McDavid puts the puck past the Canes goalie and it goes over the line 90% of the way. The refs say, "Well, geez, it's close, plus the fans might get mad if we review it because this is an intense game. Good goal, Oilers win". You're going to sit here and tell that is good for the league, that the inch doesn't matter, and that you have no issue with that? Please.

Only with the introduction of replay do we suddenly have this notion that the inch, the half-inch, the hundredth of an inch matters so much that the game hinges on it. That’s not the spirit of the rule, and conceptually does not fit in the game of hockey the way it might in a game like baseball or football.

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant. You know this. It matters just as much in baseball, basketball, and football as it does hockey. If a basketball player shoots with his foot inside the 3pt line, should it count as 2 or 3? "Well, he was close to the line...he's meeting the spirit, give him 3." If that was the viewpoint of the refs and NBA, the NBA would be the biggest joke on the planet. It would lose legitimacy as a "professional" league. If we're talking high school hockey, you'd have a point. Professional league? It's bonkers to suggest referees should be that lose with the defined rules.

I meant that icing is subjective in the sense that officials routinely make a judgment call on whether a player was capable of retrieving the puck before it reached the line. Even if it’s just the defensive player skating back, the linesman makes that subjective call every single time. Every so often, one gets waved off because a defenseman is churning his feet to try and sell icing to a linesman who isn’t buying it. Zero people have an issue with that subjectivity, in the same way that 15 years ago zero people had an issue with offside calls.

If the waived icing results in a goal that shouldn't have been, it should be reviewable. There have been instances of that in the past. It's not zero. To boot, when icing calls are "blown" and everyone knows it, the faceoff comes to center ice, not all the way down.

I reject pretty much all of that. The history and core intentions of the game are absolutely relevant. What works in some other sport does not automatically work in hockey. And the league and refs have responsibilities other than, and even in contradiction to, enforcing every single rule to the nth degree.

Reject all you want but that doesn't make you right. The league itself doesn't support that viewpoint either. The refs (and league) have the responsibility to ensure the parameters of the game are fair and enforced. Period. This "spirit of the rule" stuff is a bad argument. Again, see the goalline scenario above. This forum regularly has threads about how the rulebook is enforced. Extremely common occurrence especially around the playoffs as well. By and large, people want the rulebook enforced. It should be.

Professional sports is an entertainment industry first and foremost.

The entire purpose of the existence of the NHL is to capture people’s attention and make them engage as intensely as possible with the drama on the ice, so that they will want to pay money to see as much of it as possible. Telling people “just stop going to the games if you don’t like this shitty change” misses the entire point of what all of this is about.

And to that point — that game was the first time in my life that I’ve voluntarily left a pro or college game early to beat traffic, having attended several hundred. Even my teenaged boys, who have a bottomless appetite for football, wanted to get out of there as we rounded the end of the third quarter. It was just too much dead air, too much delay for reviews and injuries and commercials, and not enough actual game play going on. It was deathly boring. The boys told me thanks for bringing them but not to feel like we needed to do it again in the future. So there actually is a very real impact to what seems like just a small delay here and there, which adds up to a loss of drama and ultimately a loss of interest.

It’s part of the NHL product, not the game of hockey. It can be deleted with the stroke of a pen and no one would miss it.

Oh, to be sure, TV timeouts also degrade the quality of the game. Try attending a non-broadcast game some time. You’d be surprised how much more intense the game gets when one play builds on another without interruption. This isn’t noticeable from your couch at home but it makes a huge difference in the live presentation, where the game gets interrupted three times a period for screeching hosts to do mindless sideshow gags. I don’t know anyone who thinks that stuff is better than just continuing with the gameplay they paid to see.

The difference is that TV timeouts are not removable, as the league cannot exist without its TV contracts. Offside reviews are simply a rulebook issue and can be dropped at will by the Rules Committee.

You are greatly exaggerating the impact of "small delays". I mean, that's hockey. There's a million rule changes you can put in place to ensure the game keeps move and there are limited interruptions. You could increase the size of the glass to tighten up the netting and allow pucks to be played off it. You could let the refs subjectively determine if a goalie can freeze it.

We are getting into agree-to-disagree territory here. I want the rules called the way they are written in the rulebook. I want the right calls made. I want goals to be actual goals. I want to reduce ways for cheating goals to minimize to the greatest extent possible. If you don't want that, that's your right.

 

[Spurgeon]

Except that by and large, the call is easy to make. Again, the number of challenges vs the number of occurrences is minuscule in the grand scheme.

You are wrong on the "an inch here or there simply doesn't matter". It does matter. From the most basic fundamental structure of the game aspect, it matters. An inch, okay. What about two? Three? Four? A foot? When EXACTLY does it matter? Literally, name the distance. How far can a player violate a rule before it should be called? How much is too much? So you don't call the 6 inches offsides, no big deal. Then you let the 1ft one go and a goal is scored. Is that fair to either team to have an undefined rule when looking for the utmost consistency and quality of the game at the professional level?

I go back to the goal line question. The rule states the puck must completely cross the goal line. Game 7 OT SCF - Oilers vs Canes rematch. McDavid puts the puck past the Canes goalie and it goes over the line 90% of the way. The refs say, "Well, geez, it's close, plus the fans might get mad if we review it because this is an intense game. Good goal, Oilers win". You're going to sit here and tell that is good for the league, that the inch doesn't matter, and that you have no issue with that? Please.

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant. You know this. It matters just as much in baseball, basketball, and football as it does hockey. If a basketball player shoots with his foot inside the 3pt line, should it count as 2 or 3? "Well, he was close to the line...he's meeting the spirit, give him 3." If that was the viewpoint of the refs and NBA, the NBA would be the biggest joke on the planet. It would lose legitimacy as a "professional" league. If we're talking high school hockey, you'd have a point. Professional league? It's bonkers to suggest referees should be that lose with the defined rules.

If the waived icing results in a goal that shouldn't have been, it should be reviewable. There have been instances of that in the past. It's not zero. To boot, when icing calls are "blown" and everyone knows it, the faceoff comes to center ice, not all the way down.

Reject all you want but that doesn't make you right. The league itself doesn't support that viewpoint either. The refs (and league) have the responsibility to ensure the parameters of the game are fair and enforced. Period. This "spirit of the rule" stuff is a bad argument. Again, see the goalline scenario above. This forum regularly has threads about how the rulebook is enforced. Extremely common occurrence especially around the playoffs as well. By and large, people want the rulebook enforced. It should be.

You are greatly exaggerating the impact of "small delays". I mean, that's hockey. There's a million rule changes you can put in place to ensure the game keeps move and there are limited interruptions. You could increase the size of the glass to tighten up the netting and allow pucks to be played off it. You could let the refs subjectively determine if a goalie can freeze it.

We are getting into agree-to-disagree territory here. I want the rules called the way they are written in the rulebook. I want the right calls made. I want goals to be actual goals. I want to reduce ways for cheating goals to minimize to the greatest extent possible. If you don't want that, that's your right.

What matters if the linesman caught it live, if they didn’t, did the team they wants to challenge it? If not, it’s completely irrelevant.

 

[FastEddie]

Hated the offside challenge pretty much since it was introduced. Goals called off because of a couple millimeters that the refs couldn't even have noticed. I'll take the extremely rare Karlsson by a mile offside, honest mistake by the refs, episode over disallowing a hundred goals after the fact because they were less than an inch over the line. That the NHL won't abandon it makes me question Bettman's judgment as much as any other issue does.

My teams have benefitted from it as often or more. That's not the point. Feels like every time this comes up a whole bunch of people chime in defending it because last night it worked in their team's favor. And a whole bunch of people who were the victims of it say it's bad. No. It's just bad. No matter how it impacted you recently.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You literally had a ref on a hot mike saying he wanted to even up penalties. That's what people are upset about.

If the NHL cared about the quality of it's officiating they would grade officials the way MLB does and stop tolerating the game management. You think when people complain about officiating they're talking about icing and offside? LMAO

Lol, they literally fired the ref, how was that for grading him.
Officials are graded after each game, on each call of the game they make, or didn’t make, a referee said on a podcast.

 

[herzausstein]

This whole thing started because they someone missed Duchene being 2 feet offside and it led directly to him scoring a goal. I think the better solution is to hold the refs responsible for missing that kind of egregious issue and stop with the video reviews to see if a player is a gnats butthair offsides.

 

[Devil Dancer]

Sorry but that is an absurd exaggeration.

Last year, in 1,312 games, 8,086 goals were scored with 126 offsides challenges. 18 upheld, 108 overturned (86%).

1.5%. If you're worried about "whether it will count every single time"...then, man, I just don't know what to tell you. The number of occurrences are just not as prevalent as people suggest. Numbers do not support your emotional pleas.

My list got several likes and some positive quotes, so clearly I'm not alone.

It's an awful rule that fixes a nearly non-existent problem.

Did you watch NHL before the challenge was implemented? Were you regularly annoyed by missed offside calls? I did and I sure wasn't.

I can probably count the truly bad calls on one hand.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

I don't mind the offside video review , don't see why it's a big deal to so many people

 

[Rec T]

If it has to be reviewable (& I do think that it should be), then give the officials no more than one minute & up to 5 replays in real time speed. If they can't tell at full speed that it was offsides, then it probably didn't have that much/any impact on the play. No more of this stop motion, 1 frame every two seconds to determine that the player was 1/4" offside.

 

[Planetov]

It in fact WAS meant to officiated in a manner where there is an objective set of parameters in which the game is played. That is very, VERY clear in the rules that are written. The rules on things like icing and offsides are binary - it either is or it isn't. The inherent objectivity of this rule is important for maintaining the integrity of the game. If you allow subjectivity or inconsistency in the enforcement of such clear-cut rules, THAT will lead to an overall lower quality and fairness of the game. Imagine if all of a sudden, icing and off-sides and goals were called with the same level of subjectivity that they call goaltender interference.

So are you saying the game prior to the implementation of offside review was “an overall lower quality and fairness of the game”? That’s the only conclusion I can come to based on what you wrote. I mean, it must have been, right? And if so, is there a metric I can find to support that?

 

[BayStBullies]

I'm generally fine with it, except that it should have a time limit. After 10 seconds it should be void. Too many times a goal is lost after both teams are fully established in the zone. The advantage of being a foot ahead in entry many seconds prior is meaningless.

 

[MessierII]

There’s like two ridiculously offside goals that are missed a year so we have to suffer through hundreds of reviews to see if something is a quarter inch offside 45 seconds before the goal.

 

[charger66]

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.

%100. Disrupts the game, often is so close it's literally irrelevant in the scope of the game. Not a fan of it.

 

[LaCarriere]

This whole thing started because they someone missed Duchene being 2 feet offside and it led directly to him scoring a goal. I think the better solution is to hold the refs responsible for missing that kind of egregious issue and stop with the video reviews to see if a player is a gnats butthair offsides.

I hate that, in a way my favourite team lead to offsides being reviewable.

To be fair it was the complete brainfart by the linesman, and the league overreacting, but still.

One horrible call and now we're calling back goals from a minute and a half ago for a player being 1/8th of an inch offside.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I hate that, in a way my favourite team lead to offsides being reviewable.

To be fair it was the complete brainfart by the linesman, and the league overreacting, but still.

One horrible call and now we're calling back goals from a minute and a half ago for a player being 1/8th of an inch offside.

Yep Gary was right all along about video reviews, be careful what you wish for.

 

[BiolaRunner]

I've said it before. The NHL should adopt what the NFL used to do and put a clock on the offside review. NFL used to give the ref 90 seconds on a review. If it took longer than that, it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn. This will allow the clear cut offsides to be corrected but prevent the long breaks where they try to decide if a skate in just over the line or not

 

[nturn06]

This right here illustrates the whole problem with reviews. They’re supposed to take controversy out of the game, but instead they inject new controversy into the game.

Trying to fix this with more or different reviews just makes it worse. The focus just keeps shifting to new and stupider controversies.

The solution is to play the game and let the cards fall where they may. You will NEVER have a game where the fans are happy with the calls. You will NEVER have a game where half the people don’t feel they’ve been screwed. It’s impossible. Just play hockey and stop with the review crap.

In other words, your solution is to let the refs mistakes decide the games.

The reality is that the only times people are unhappy with the reviews is when their team scored an offside goal and it was called back. It has nothing to do with the review, and with the fact that it was the correct call, it has to do with the fact that it hurt their team.

 

[nturn06]

I've said it before. The NHL should adopt what the NFL used to do and put a clock on the offside review. NFL used to give the ref 90 seconds on a review. If it took longer than that, it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn. This will allow the clear cut offsides to be corrected but prevent the long breaks where they try to decide if a skate in just over the line or not

I suspect that the reason some offside reviews take so long is because they have many angles/cameras and some angles are not conclusive due players covering them. It takes time to get to the right camera/angle, and adding a time limit will simply lead to some calls where it is a clear offside but the refs simply didn't get to the right camera. And not only that this will cost a team a goal, it will also cost them a penalty.