Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[Golden_Jet]

After the whistle. Say play goes on for a minute, there's a missed high stick calls. Whenever play is whistled, coach can challenge for the missed call.

Or say there's a holding that goes missed that directly leads to a goal, after the goal before puck drop, coach has a chance to challenge it.

Not stop it mid play.

lol no, let’s not turn this into stopping the game after every whistle for a review.

 

[LokiDog]

You would change the review process to trying to figure out at which millisecond the play was offside and which millisecond the puck went into the net. In addition to the current part of the review.

Shoot me.

Only for the fraction of reviews that happened within leas than a half second of whatever the cutoff was. For 99% of reviews it wouldn’t fall at 29.98 seconds or 30.02 seconds. For 99% of reviews it wouldn’t fall at be 23 seconds or 34 seconds and be just as cut and dry. No time wasted. The number of goals where the offsides was literally right between 29.95 and 30.05 would be infinitesimal.

 

[absolute garbage]

After the whistle. Say play goes on for a minute, there's a missed high stick calls. Whenever play is whistled, coach can challenge for the missed call.

Or say there's a holding that goes missed that directly leads to a goal, after the goal before puck drop, coach has a chance to challenge it.

Not stop it mid play.

What if there's an obvious high stick at the opening faceoff, they miraculously play until 19:59 without any whistles, and then a team scores. You okay with challenging that goal because of the missed high stick at the opening faceoff and replaying the period?

 

[Toby91ca]

What if there's an obvious high stick at the opening faceoff, they miraculously play until 19:59 without any whistles, and then a team scores. You okay with challenging that goal because of the missed high stick at the opening faceoff and replaying the period?

At least make it a possible scenario.....there would be a whistle happening at the 20 min mark of each period.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

What if there's an obvious high stick at the opening faceoff, they miraculously play until 19:59 without any whistles, and then a team scores. You okay with challenging that goal because of the missed high stick at the opening faceoff and replaying the period?

Yes.


Which is why the entire concept of a missed call is dumb

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Here's how you fix the process:

Get rid of offside video reviews.

 

[absolute garbage]

Yes.


Which is why the entire concept of a missed call is dumb

By the way pretty much that same scenario could technically happen with offside challenges as well (gain entry on a missed offside call right after the opening faceoff and hold possession in the offensive zone for the rest of period until scoring at the final second), which is why it's also stupid. For the record that cannot happen with goalie interference, which is why I don't have a problem with those challenges.

 

[nturn06]

Only for the fraction of reviews that happened within leas than a half second of whatever the cutoff was. For 99% of reviews it wouldn’t fall at 29.98 seconds or 30.02 seconds. For 99% of reviews it wouldn’t fall at be 23 seconds or 34 seconds and be just as cut and dry. No time wasted. The number of goals where the offsides was literally right between 29.95 and 30.05 would be infinitesimal.

Actually, it is bound to happen that, at some point, we will have reviews that will fall into that category.

On another hand, I wonder how many offside goals have been scored after 30+ seconds, I would be surprised if the percentage is too big.

 

[AvroArrow]

What if there's an obvious high stick at the opening faceoff, they miraculously play until 19:59 without any whistles, and then a team scores. You okay with challenging that goal because of the missed high stick at the opening faceoff and replaying the period?

Be realistic lol

lol no, let’s not turn this into stopping the game after every whistle for a review.

You wouldn't have a review after every whistle ? Only if there was a blatant missed call that was immediately challenged.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Be realistic lol


You wouldn't have a review after every whistle ? Only if there was a blatant missed call that was immediately challenged.

lol no, let’s be realistic on what gets reviewed.

 

[Tawnos]

But, by your rule, the same offside is relevant if the goal was scored 29:87 and the goal needs to be taken back, right?

That's the issue with having a time limit, which is the correct time that 1 millisecond earlier it is offside but 1 millisecond later is not offside anymore.

And people who propose this change fail to realize that it will sometimes lead to even lengthier reviews. If a goal is scored about 30'' after the offside, the refs need to spend a huge amount of time figuring out the millisecond when the puck entered the zone (was it at 15':45'':87''' or 15':45'':93''' because in one case it is a goal, in the other is offside) and then the millisecond it crossed the line.

I’m not sure why you think it would take a lot of time to figure out exactly when the puck entered the zone. When they review if a puck went in before or after the buzzer, it takes very very little time to determine.

 

[DitchMarner]

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.

Yeah, I say let the goal stand... at least if the offside didn't happen on a rush that directly led to a goal. Games aren't going to be officiated perfectly regardless.

Goals following missed offsides stood for decades. I wouldn't lose any sleep if such goals stood now.


This whole checking for an offside way before a potential goal thing is rather tacky to me. It can also take away from the viewing experience as a fan. Now some people may be reluctant to cheer when their favorite team puts the puck in the net because they're worried the apparent goal may be overturned.

Following up on what you said: What if the team that gained the zone offside concedes a goal following an offside that was missed? Let's say the opposition gains control of the puck and springs a player on a breakaway or gets a two on one and scores. Should the goal be wiped out because the other team went offside moments earlier?

What if a team enters the offensive zone offside and the offside is missed and then the other team ices the puck and a goal is scored off the faceoff? Should we wave it off because the whistle should have been blown before the puck was iced and the ensuing face-off never should have happened?

What if a team goes offside and the offside is missed and then a minute of game play passes before a penalty is called. Should the penalty be called off because the play should have been blown dead well before it was taken?

There's so much shit that can potentially be looked at. I say if it's not directly related to a goal, f it.

This is my stand and I don't expect everyone to agree. But it looks like some do.

 

[nturn06]

I’m not sure why you think it would take a lot of time to figure out exactly when the puck entered the zone. When they review if a puck went in before or after the buzzer, it takes very very little time to determine.

That's because they can compare the slow motion of the image versus the actual time. This is pretty simple: you have the time going down, and compare the puck vs "Did it hit 0:00 or not?".

For offside reviews, they first have to establish the exact time the puck entered the zone, and this is a bit more complicated than a goal if the player dangled over the line (it does not matter if the puck entered the net and came out after, but it matters if the puck goes over the line, and back out and back in). And then, what do they do? Do they start a timer there? If yes how, since the review is done in slow motion? Or do they write down the start time and the exact time when the puck entered the net and subtract? And if the result is exactly 30'', then they have no idea if it was slightly below or over 30'.

I'm just curious: how do you see the time review being implemented?

 

[Sheppy]

Ideally if there's a challenge, I'd like to see the play reviewed at full speed. Zoom in, do whatever, but in real time. 30-45 seconds to review. It's not even a coaches challenge anymore, it's a "nerd upstairs on a computer relaying every single part of the game" challenge. If it's a coaches challenge, make the coach challenge it.

If you're looking at zoomed in grainy ass footage at 100 frames per second you're actively looking for a reason the goal shouldn't count.

I also wouldn't be upset if they abolished the ipad on the benches thing as well.

 

[Tawnos]

That's because they can compare the slow motion of the image versus the actual time. This is pretty simple: you have the time going down, and compare the puck vs "Did it hit 0:00 or not?".

For offside reviews, they first have to establish the exact time the puck entered the zone, and this is a bit more complicated than a goal if the player dangled over the line (it does not matter if the puck entered the net and came out after, but it matters if the puck goes over the line, and back out and back in). And then, what do they do? Do they start a timer there? If yes how, since the review is done in slow motion? Or do they write down the start time and the exact time when the puck entered the net and subtract? And if the result is exactly 30'', then they have no idea if it was slightly below or over 30'.

I'm just curious: how do you see the time review being implemented?

You clearly have no experience with video software. Literally all they need to do is put a time marker at the moment the puck enters the zone (which isn’t all that complicated, despite you trying to make it seem that way) and a second marker at the time the puck crosses the goal line. Then you compare the two numbers. There’s no need to “start a timer.” It’s suuuuper simple to do this.

I honestly don’t see it taking much more than 30-45 seconds to accomplish this. The guys who set up your replays for your broadcast do a similar process, though with less precision. It doesn’t even take 10 seconds.

 

[K1984]

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.

It didn't even. The number of times a goal was scored after an offside that anyone noticed around the league per season could have probably been counted on one hand. The NHL found themselves a problem in search of a solution to a problem that basically didn't exist. Sadly they can't go back now, because you can bet that the moment review goes away fans and media are going to be crying foul at every goal that wouldn't had counted had review not been taken away.

I wish there was a way to see how much different things would be historically had offsides been reviewed going back 40/50 years. Just for my team I can think of a handful of big goals that were definitely close, but nobody cared then so it didn't matter. In a weird way, the Duchene egregious offside that started this nonsense might have been one of the most consequential plays for the sport in the past 20 years.

 

[K1984]

Wonder if a solution to the issue of an offside being called minutes after the zone entry is to qualify it by the impact on the goal.

Ie. if the player that was offside and/or the puck carrier on entry got an assist on the resulting goal, that offside is eligible for challenge. Addresses only the goals that were specifically scored directly from being offside, and eliminates the ones where the puck was cycled for minutes prior to the goal.

 

[Planetov]

My hope is that in the near future we see: Dallas Stars @ Buffalo Sabres, Game 6 Stanley Cup Final (DAL leads 3-2), third overtime period, the Stars score after 1:42 of possession in the the offensive zone. After a Sabres challenge, even with replays showing the Stars being offside by the smallest of margins, the goal is confirmed.

In the ensuing press conference, Gary Bettman refuses to answer questions about offside review, and it is removed prior to the start of the next season.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You clearly have no experience with video software. Literally all they need to do is put a time marker at the moment the puck enters the zone (which isn’t all that complicated, despite you trying to make it seem that way) and a second marker at the time the puck crosses the goal line. Then you compare the two numbers. There’s no need to “start a timer.” It’s suuuuper simple to do this.

The timer has to sync up at the moment 100% of the puck is over, the blue line, just as you see white ice ice.
Or what if the puck is up on end, when does timer start
What if the puck is 3-4 feet in the air, when it goes over the blue line,
you would then have to sync the timer up, to the spot you think it actually crosses the line, likely via video review.

 

[Spurgeon]

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.

Which is why I think the fix for this is to require the coach to call it live. Give them 10 seconds after a team enters the zone to initiate an offside review & if the opposing team scores on that possession, then it goes to review.

Completely eliminates the element of a team overturning a goal after a minute of reviewing slo-mo replays.

 

[Machinehead]

Which is why I think the fix for this is to require the coach to call it live. Give them 10 seconds after a team enters the zone to initiate an offside review & if the opposing team scores on that possession, then it goes to review.

Completely eliminates the element of a team overturning a goal after a minute of reviewing slo-mo replays.

I like this.

 

[nturn06]

You clearly have no experience with video software. Literally all they need to do is put a time marker at the moment the puck enters the zone (which isn’t all that complicated, despite you trying to make it seem that way) and a second marker at the time the puck crosses the goal line. Then you compare the two numbers. There’s no need to “start a timer.” It’s suuuuper simple to do this.

I honestly don’t see it taking much more than 30-45 seconds to accomplish this. The guys who set up your replays for your broadcast do a similar process, though with less precision. It doesn’t even take 10 seconds.

OK, lets say that is the case.

Still, there is a much more important point no-one seems to address with having a time limit, lets say 30' (same argument can be made with any limit). The bigger issue is that we will end up with the following scenario:

A team challanging an offside goal scored after 29'' and 88/100 would be succesfull. A team challanging an offside goal scored after 30'' and 13/100 would be unsuccesfull, the goal would stand and the challanging team would be on PK.

So here is my question: why do you think that a quarter of a second should be the difference between no goal and a goal + a penalty? Is that 1/4 of the second really that huge of a difference between "not enough time passed" and "more than enough time passed"?

1 goal and 1 penalty vs nothing can be the two different outcomes for (much) less than a second...

 

[EXTRAS]

We need an AI referee & linesman someday. They could watch a million proper calls and incorrect calls from the past, and see the entire ice and players at all times. Every call would be correct, or at minimum entirely fair for both sides. Downside may be it could take some of the charm out of the game, i guess. You wouldn't need to worry about goals called back late due to incorrect offside calls, since they would have it right from the beginning.
Fairness and keeping people safe would improve though. Probably better game flow too.

 

[Tawnos]

OK, lets say that is the case.

Still, there is a much more important point no-one seems to address with having a time limit, lets say 30' (same argument can be made with any limit). The bigger issue is that we will end up with the following scenario:

A team challanging an offside goal scored after 29'' and 88/100 would be succesfull. A team challanging an offside goal scored after 30'' and 13/100 would be unsuccesfull, the goal would stand and the challanging team would be on PK.

So here is my question: why do you think that a quarter of a second should be the difference between no goal and a goal + a penalty? Is that 1/4 of the second really that huge of a difference between "not enough time passed" and "more than enough time passed"?

1 goal and 1 penalty vs nothing can be the two different outcomes for (much) less than a second...

This is legitimately a hilarious point to try to make in a conversation about literal millisecond and millimeter differences in player and puck movement and position.

Oh, and by the way. The same thing that can be done in review can be done by the video coach recommending they challenge or not. The chances of a team even challenging a play that is outside the time limit is minimal.

 

[nturn06]

Which is why I think the fix for this is to require the coach to call it live. Give them 10 seconds after a team enters the zone to initiate an offside review & if the opposing team scores on that possession, then it goes to review.

Completely eliminates the element of a team overturning a goal after a minute of reviewing slo-mo replays.

I would rather have my coach watch the game and try to figure out who needs to be benched or not and which lines adjustments need to be made, instead of spending most time reviwing almost all zone entries and deciding if they should challange or not. 10' is probably not long enogh to rely on the review room.

This is legitimately a hilarious point to try to make in a conversation about literal millisecond and millimeter differences in player and puck movement and position.

Oh, and by the way. The same thing that can be done in review can be done by the video coach recommending they challenge or not. The chances of a team even challenging a play that is outside the time limit is minimal.

So just to be clear, are you really saying that in your oppinion 29'' 88/100 is not enough to eliminate the advantage the team gained from the offside but 30'' 13/100 is ?