Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[Golden_Jet]

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

Got rid of it, didn’t last long.

 

[nturn06]

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.

Define egregious.

So your solution is to replace a clear rule by one which is at the refs discretion... Same play would lead to different outcomes...

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

What's your point? Team gains zone entry, establishes extended pressure and then scores.......we want that goal to stand even if they the whistle should have gone for offside? I've heard the argument before regarding how long ago the offside occurred, not sure if that is your point here, but I think that is total BS. If you never gain the zone within the rules, you don't get to keep that extended pressure.....when a team gets trapped in their zone, a good portion of the time it results in 1) icing and still trapped, 2) goal against or 3) penalty....and that all started with an offside, so none of that should have happened. The notion that the offside really has nothing to do with the play anymore if a certain amount of time has gone by is just silly.

I think you started this thread though and I think the difference between calling a goal back for this and not doing it for other things is simply black and white vs. subjective, simple as that.

 

[Oilslick941611]

I hate when a goal is called off because of a toe cap.

Offsides reviews should only call a goal off when the offside caused a clear advantage like a player bing fully over the line before the puck.

 

[Toby91ca]

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

Offside isn't and has never been a subjective call. Being difficult to get the right call all the time doesn't make it subjective. The puck either crosses the line before the offensive player or it doesn't.

Scratch that....there is some subjectiveness in certain circumstances......when a player in crossing the line first but is determined to be in control of the puck when doing so.....that is a subjective call....but I'll say this, that situation is rarely the subject of a challenge and review. I've seen it of course, but I'm guessing it's a low percentage of the reviews.

 

[FinlandPanther]

Florida got called offside on a 3 on 1 when it wasn’t actually offside. Why can’t they review that and give us the scoring chance back?

 

[Toby91ca]

Florida got called offside on a 3 on 1 when it wasn’t actually offside. Why can’t they review that and give us the scoring chance back?

This is why I think the linesmen sometimes let the close ones go, thinking that if it was offside the team can always challenge it. If they call offside and get it wrong, there is nothing you can do to give the scoring chance back.

Not sure the play you are talking about, but are you sure it was offside, or just in your opinion? Not sure if it was something that replays were shown several times to make it pretty clear....which would be an odd thing for the production crew to keep showing for an offside call.

 

[FinlandPanther]

This is why I think the linesmen sometimes let the close ones go, thinking that if it was offside the team can always challenge it. If they call offside and get it wrong, there is nothing you can do to give the scoring chance back.

Not sure the play you are talking about, but are you sure it was offside, or just in your opinion? Not sure if it was something that replays were shown several times to make it pretty clear....which would be an odd thing for the production crew to keep showing for an offside call.

100 percent sure it was onside. Saw multiple angles and it wasn’t even close.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think there need to be 4 tweaks.

1) Set a time limit for the gap between the offside and the goal. i.e. if the puck has been in the zone for 20 seconds or more, it can't be challenged for offsides. The exact time limit can be debated.
2) Make the offensive zone start on the neutral zone side of the blue line on entries. That's where the zone ends on exits and it should be the same in both directions.
3) Set a time limit for the review itself. If it can't be determined without doubt in 1 minute, the goal stands. Again, the exact time limit can be debated.
4) Do not allow reviews immediately following timeouts. If coaches can't determine whether it should be challenged in the 30-45 seconds between the goal being scored and the puck being dropped at center ice, the challenge shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Sheppy]

What's your point? Team gains zone entry, establishes extended pressure and then scores.......we want that goal to stand even if they the whistle should have gone for offside? I've heard the argument before regarding how long ago the offside occurred, not sure if that is your point here, but I think that is total BS. If you never gain the zone within the rules, you don't get to keep that extended pressure.....when a team gets trapped in their zone, a good portion of the time it results in 1) icing and still trapped, 2) goal against or 3) penalty....and that all started with an offside, so none of that should have happened. The notion that the offside really has nothing to do with the play anymore if a certain amount of time has gone by is just silly.

I think you started this thread though and I think the difference between calling a goal back for this and not doing it for other things is simply black and white vs. subjective, simple as that.

If there's a penalty called when there's a missed offside, you cant challenge the offside to negate the penalty.

Make the entire blue line onside. Sometimes players tag up and never fully cross the blue to the neutral zone. I think making the entire blue line onside will be a step in the right direction.

 

[Toby91ca]

100 percent sure it was onside. Saw multiple angles and it wasn’t even close.

I want to say I find that hard to believe....but I haven't seen it at all. Just hard to believe it was onside and not even close yet called offside? Something doesn't add up.....have video?

I won't dispute it too much though as I remember watching a playoff game years ago...think it was PIT and PHI and thinking.....PHI was "way offside" "not close".....and replays confirmed that (before video review). I will say, I've said before "that looked way offside" at full speed and then the reply actually shows onside.

I think blowing something offside when it isn't even close is even more of a rarity though.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think there need to be 4 tweaks.

1) Set a time limit for the gap between the offside and the goal. i.e. if the puck has been in the zone for 20 seconds or more, it can't be challenged for offsides. The exact time limit can be debated.
2) Make the offensive zone start on the neutral zone side of the blue line on entries. That's where the zone ends on exits and it should be the same in both directions.
3) Set a time limit for the review itself. If it can't be determined without doubt in 1 minute, the goal stands. Again, the exact time limit can be debated.
4) Do not allow reviews immediately following timeouts. If coaches can't determine whether it should be challenged in the 30-45 seconds between the goal being scored and the puck being dropped at center ice, the challenge shouldn't be allowed.

Point 2 doesn’t change anything to improve the rule, all it does is move the line video judges look at.
Would actually make it harder to see close plays, with black against blue background vs black against white background

 

[Toby91ca]

1) Set a time limit for the gap between the offside and the goal. i.e. if the puck has been in the zone for 20 seconds or more, it can't be challenged for offsides. The exact time limit can be debated.

What is the logic for this though? I'm assuming people would say that the offside play really hasn't nothing to do with the goal being scored anymore, so no big deal....but I totally disagree with that.....getting zone entry is very important, you get the zone and get control of the puck and hem the team in their end....if you didn't get in earlier than you should have (offside)...you might not have been in that possession position to keep control of the puck.

Make the entire blue line onside. Sometimes players tag up and never fully cross the blue to the neutral zone. I think making the entire blue line onside will be a step in the right direction.

I'm indifferent on that, but how does this change anything? There is still a line that would need to be crossed for which you'd need to assess whether onside or offside...how is it easier?

 

[Sheppy]

What is the logic for this though? I'm assuming people would say that the offside play really hasn't nothing to do with the goal being scored anymore, so no big deal....but I totally disagree with that.....getting zone entry is very important, you get the zone and get control of the puck and hem the team in their end....if you didn't get in earlier than you should have (offside)...you might not have been in that possession position to keep control of the puck.


I'm indifferent on that, but how does this change anything? There is still a line that would need to be crossed for which you'd need to assess whether onside or offside...how is it easier?

Should you be able to challenge penalties if there's an illegal zone entry before hand?

 

[qc14]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think there need to be 4 tweaks.

1) Set a time limit for the gap between the offside and the goal. i.e. if the puck has been in the zone for 20 seconds or more, it can't be challenged for offsides. The exact time limit can be debated.

This just adds another arbitrary thing that would need to be checked and reviewed. Now not only do they have to look at whether something was offsides or not, but did the puck enter at 19.9 seconds or 20.1? Also, events are not independent. It's impossible to say that after "x" seconds whether you entered into the zone onside or not matters.

2) Make the offensive zone start on the neutral zone side of the blue line on entries. That's where the zone ends on exits and it should be the same in both directions.

This doesn't fix anything for reviews, just changes what line they're looking at.

3) Set a time limit for the review itself. If it can't be determined without doubt in 1 minute, the goal stands. Again, the exact time limit can be debated.

This defeats the entire point of a review for me. If you're looking at it, you want to get it right. Just wait until the first time something is allowed to stand because they only had a minute to look at it while a different angle showed that it was clearly offsides.

4) Do not allow reviews immediately following timeouts. If coaches can't determine whether it should be challenged in the 30-45 seconds between the goal being scored and the puck being dropped at center ice, the challenge shouldn't be allowed.

I like this idea, and I hate coaches slowing down restarts and delaying sending out their guys because they want to look at something.

 

[Tawnos]

What is the logic for this though? I'm assuming people would say that the offside play really hasn't nothing to do with the goal being scored anymore, so no big deal....but I totally disagree with that.....getting zone entry is very important, you get the zone and get control of the puck and hem the team in their end....if you didn't get in earlier than you should have (offside)...you might not have been in that possession position to keep control of the puck.

It's a matter of where the failure was that resulted in a goal. On the initial entry, if it were offside, the failure is on the part of the linesman. But at a certain point, it's more of a failure of the defending team to regain possession and clear.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

What is the logic for this though? I'm assuming people would say that the offside play really hasn't nothing to do with the goal being scored anymore, so no big deal....but I totally disagree with that.....getting zone entry is very important, you get the zone and get control of the puck and hem the team in their end....if you didn't get in earlier than you should have (offside)...you might not have been in that possession position to keep control of the puck.


I'm indifferent on that, but how does this change anything? There is still a line that would need to be crossed for which you'd need to assess whether onside or offside...how is it easier?

simple. after the initial rush, the offside isnt a factor in the goal anymore. after the initial rush, the defending team has a fair chance to actually play defense and regain the puck, a goal scored is a failure on them

 

[Machinehead]

I don't know if there's any way to prevent it, but I don't like that the coaches have the technology now to know whether they'll win the challenge beforehand.

They put in the delay of game penalty to prevent excessive challenging, and deter challenges on the plays coming down to millimeters, but it doesn't matter because the staff has already seen the replay before they challenge it.

 

[Tawnos]

This just adds another arbitrary thing that would need to be checked and reviewed. Now not only do they have to look at whether something was offsides or not, but did the puck enter at 19.9 seconds or 20.1? Also, events are not independent. It's impossible to say that after "x" seconds whether you entered into the zone onside or not matters.

Once it's defined, it's exactly the opposite of arbitrary. Figuring out when the puck entered the zone is extremely easy. I don't think this is an impossible thing to decide on a reasonable standard.

This doesn't fix anything for reviews, just changes what line they're looking at.

Sort of. I feel like I see a lot of these plays brought back when the puck was on the blueline itself, but not in the white. A lot of the concern about these reviews is that they're looking at things that are so marginal that they made little difference to the play itself. If you watch the goal the Rangers had overturned on Saturday, you can't seriously tell me that Berard entering the zone as it's defined right now made any difference to the play. It'll help more goals count within the rule, as well as reduce the number of challenges... and I believe both of those to be good things.

This defeats the entire point of a review for me. If you're looking at it, you want to get it right. Just wait until the first time something is allowed to stand because they only had a minute to look at it while a different angle showed that it was clearly offsides.

What matters most is the reason for the rule, rather than the letter of the rule. Offsides is supposed to prevent the team entering the zone from having an unfair advantage. If it's too close to determine within a minute or two, then the entering team didn't gain any advantage from it.

I like this idea, and I hate coaches slowing down restarts and delaying sending out their guys because they want to look at something.

At least we can agree on one of them!

 

[Dr Pepper]

Always felt it was a bit silly, zone entry offside by a hair, missed by the linesman (they can't catch 'em all), goal scored 30-40 seconds later and then some assistant coach runs over with an ipad saying they want a mulligan.

Even when it benefits my team I still think it's ridiculous. The league should figure out a better system.

 

[qc14]

What matters most is the reason for the rule, rather than the letter of the rule. Offsides is supposed to prevent the team entering the zone from having an unfair advantage. If it's too close to determine within a minute or two, then the entering team didn't gain any advantage from it.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Are we going to all of the sudden not count goals that deflect off of a defending player? The intent of the rule for scoring a goal is to reward teams for good offensive play, not lucky bounces. In a less devils-advocate scenario, what about icings on a clearly missed pass? Icing is in place to prevent teams from throwing the puck out whenever they're trapped defensively, but we still call it every single time even though a fair amount of them happen in completely different scenarios.

Obviously the intent matters, but if you start going down the "intentions" route it's a very slippery slope. Offsides is -- all things considered -- a very clearly defined rule. If we are going to have video reviews (something everyone asked for!) then I would like those reviews to apply that rule as correctly as possible every single time, even if it seems ridiculous or takes a couple of minutes.

simple. after the initial rush, the offside isnt a factor in the goal anymore. after the initial rush, the defending team has a fair chance to actually play defense and regain the puck, a goal scored is a failure on them

But they never would have had to set up and play defense if the initial rush was (correctly) called offside

 

[Tawnos]

I fundamentally disagree with this. Are we going to all of the sudden not count goals that deflect off of a defending player? The intent of the rule for scoring a goal is to reward teams for good offensive play, not lucky bounces. In a less devils-advocate scenario, what about icings on a clearly missed pass? Icing is in place to prevent teams from throwing the puck out whenever they're trapped defensively, but we still call it every single time even though a fair amount of them happen in completely different scenarios.

Obviously the intent matters, but if you start going down the "intentions" route it's a very slippery slope. Offsides is -- all things considered -- a very clearly defined rule. If we are going to have video reviews (something everyone asked for!) then I would like those reviews to apply that rule as correctly as possible every single time, even if it seems ridiculous or takes a couple of minutes.

Well, the rule about goal scoring has nothing to do with rewarding teams for good offensive play. The reason for the goal scoring rule is to count the number of times the puck goes into the net in order to determine a winner. I also wouldn't suggest this for anything but a reviewable play. Goals (and the direct reason for them) are the only things that are reviewable.

The worry about a slippery slope is laughable, TBH. I guess in theory you could be right. But the reality is that there's no worry that this kind of tweak would lead to any further adjustments like that. Everyone asked for the offside review to prevent things like that insane Matt Duchene goal. No one really wanted it for ticky-tacky crap.

 

[Dr Pepper]

I fundamentally disagree with this. Are we going to all of the sudden not count goals that deflect off of a defending player? The intent of the rule for scoring a goal is to reward teams for good offensive play, not lucky bounces. In a less devils-advocate scenario, what about icings on a clearly missed pass? Icing is in place to prevent teams from throwing the puck out whenever they're trapped defensively, but we still call it every single time even though a fair amount of them happen in completely different scenarios.

Obviously the intent matters, but if you start going down the "intentions" route it's a very slippery slope. Offsides is -- all things considered -- a very clearly defined rule. If we are going to have video reviews (something everyone asked for!) then I would like those reviews to apply that rule as correctly as possible every single time, even if it seems ridiculous or takes a couple of minutes.


But they never would have had to set up and play defense if the initial rush was (correctly) called offside

You're asking the linesmen to get it right, 100% of the time.

It'll never happen.

 

[Toby91ca]

Should you be able to challenge penalties if there's an illegal zone entry before hand?

You mean, as the defending team....you take a penalty, but the offensive team was offside? Or as offensive team taking penalty in offensive end? I suppose it doesn't matter......but to answer the question....no, I don't think you should be able to challenge it. Theoretically, I'm in favour of challenging everything to get it right, but it's just going to disrupt the game too much. I actually don't like offsides being subject to challenge as I think the linesmen are incredibly good at getting in right, but you simply can't go backwards....you've gone to video review to get something correct, you can't go back and leave it to human error now, you are stuck. Some have suggested some tweaks that could be made though, like time limit to call for review and time limit to complete the actual review.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Well, the rule about goal scoring has nothing to do with rewarding teams for good offensive play. The reason for the goal scoring rule is to count the number of times the puck goes into the net in order to determine a winner. I also wouldn't suggest this for anything but a reviewable play. Goals (and the direct reason for them) are the only things that are reviewable.

The worry about a slippery slope is laughable, TBH. I guess in theory you could be right. But the reality is that there's no worry that this kind of tweak would lead to any further adjustments like that. Everyone asked for the offside review to prevent things like that insane Matt Duchene goal. No one really wanted it for ticky-tacky crap.

What was the refs' reasoning for that one again?

I don't have the replay handy but did the refs just flat out miss it completely, or did they say it deflected off a Preds player, negating the offside in the first place?