Calling Back Goals Based on Missed Offsides...

[Tawnos]

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 ?

Just like 74.9999 feet from the end boards is the puck in the zone and 75.0001 feet is not.

The blue line can be somewhere else. But it’s not. In fact, it HAS been somewhere else in the past. If you set a rule, that’s the rule.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I don't get the complaints about offside reviews. It's one of the few black and white rules in hockey. Was the play offside? Yes, then whatever happens after that moment doesn't matter.

And they have video coaches on the bench specifically looking to see if the play is offside, so the vast majority of the time, if it's challenged, it's a good bet that it's offside.

And the stats back that up. Last year, 86% of offside challenged goals were overturned. The year before, 88%. It's a hard rule that's easy to review. Compare that to challenged GI calls, which (unsurprisingly) fall around 50% either way.

 

[Spurgeon]

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.


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 ?

Delegate it to an assistant or someone in the booths to call down. The point is that if it was not caught live by either the linesman or a team appointed official, then it was a completely inconsequential offsides.

I don't get the complaints about offside reviews. It's one of the few black and white rules in hockey. Was the play offside? Yes, then whatever happens after that moment doesn't matter.

And they have video coaches on the bench specifically looking to see if the play is offside, so the vast majority of the time, if it's challenged, it's a good bet that it's offside.

And the stats back that up. Last year, 86% of offside challenged goals were overturned. The year before, 88%. It's a hard rule that's easy to review. Compare that to challenged GI calls, which (unsurprisingly) fall around 50% either way.

Because someone being an inch offside is not the main driver behind a goal being scored. It’s the play preceding the goal that really is what caused it to happen. It’s not because the opposing team got an extra inch on a 200 foot rink.

I hate watching a team have a goal overturned because of a completely inconsequential play that no one could have caught live.

 

[wintersej]

I don't get the complaints about offside reviews. It's one of the few black and white rules in hockey. Was the play offside? Yes, then whatever happens after that moment doesn't matter.

And they have video coaches on the bench specifically looking to see if the play is offside, so the vast majority of the time, if it's challenged, it's a good bet that it's offside.

And the stats back that up. Last year, 86% of offside challenged goals were overturned. The year before, 88%. It's a hard rule that's easy to review. Compare that to challenged GI calls, which (unsurprisingly) fall around 50% either way.

Offside is to prevent cherry picking. Zooming in to check for inches is against the spirit of the rule. It’s stupid. I mean should we have reviews to see if someone winning the faceoff before a goal got the puck just before it hit the ice? Goals are good.

 

[PlayMakers]

Get rid of it.

Seriously, NHL officiating has the most inconsistent enforcement of rules in any sport, but we have to make sure we never get offsides wrong? That's the one place that has to be perfect? Stop.

 

[Blackjack]

I don't get the complaints about offside reviews. It's one of the few black and white rules in hockey. Was the play offside? Yes, then whatever happens after that moment doesn't matter.

And they have video coaches on the bench specifically looking to see if the play is offside, so the vast majority of the time, if it's challenged, it's a good bet that it's offside.

And the stats back that up. Last year, 86% of offside challenged goals were overturned. The year before, 88%. It's a hard rule that's easy to review. Compare that to challenged GI calls, which (unsurprisingly) fall around 50% either way.

Every rule is clearly defined in the rulebook and there is nothing special about offside. If you're in favor of retroactively disallowing goals for offside there is no rational reason to oppose it for every other rule.

 

[Blackjack]

Let me try it this way.

Scoring a goal is a fortunate event. Take a penalty shot for example: the shooter has at least as much of an advantage as an offside player has, normally much more. Yet he only scores about 30% of the time. A team that scores an "offside goal" has wasted the good fortune of scoring on a play that would have been overturned no matter the outcome.

This is why having a goal taken away for offside is such a uniquely frustrating experience. It feels unfair, because it is unfair, even if superficially it just appears that the correct call was made belatedly.

It's unfair because you're only correcting the call if the fortunate thing happens. Unfortunate things are not impacted.

 

[ijuka]

How do you propose this 1 foot threshold would be measured to determine if reviewable.

via a subjective judgment call. you don't seem to understand my position.

but I also wouldn't be against delegating such calls to an AI if you really require objectivity. It could even return a probability distribution and you could make it so that you require a 95% confidence interval in order to overturn a call. It could calculate this all as long as you had tracking devices in every player's both skates, and the puck. You'd just require location and orientation sensors.

They already are using such tracking technology for their NHL Edge Goal Visualizer(see gamecenter on nhl.com), which tracks the location of players and the puck by the precision of 1/1000 feet, 10 times a second.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Let me try it this way.

Scoring a goal is a fortunate event. Take a penalty shot for example: the shooter has at least as much of an advantage as an offside player has, normally much more. Yet he only scores about 30% of the time. A team that scores an "offside goal" has wasted the good fortune of scoring on a play that would have been overturned no matter the outcome.

This is why having a goal taken away for offside is such a uniquely frustrating experience. It feels unfair, because it is unfair, even if superficially it just appears that the correct call was made belatedly.

It's unfair because you're only correcting the call if the fortunate thing happens. Unfortunate things are not impacted.

Wouldn’t a goal, by its definition, be a fortune thing for one team and an unfortunate thing for the other? And thus, calling back a goal is fortunate for one team and unfortunate for the other?

Take the Carolina/Minnesota game on Saturday. Minnesota was up 2-0, Carolina scores to make it 2-1. It’s called back because a player took too long to get on the bench, thus making the play offside. Unfortunate for Carolina, fortunate for Minnesota. Especially fortunate for Gus, since it kept his shutout that was maintained for the rest of the game.

And yeah, it sucks for Carolina, but there’s nothing to argue. The replay showed that the player, while in the process of getting on the bench, was past that blueline and thus, offside.

 

[Blackjack]

Wouldn’t a goal, by its definition, be a fortune thing for one team and an unfortunate thing for the other? And thus, calling back a goal is fortunate for one team and unfortunate for the other?

Take the Carolina/Minnesota game on Saturday. Minnesota was up 2-0, Carolina scores to make it 2-1. It’s called back because a player took too long to get on the bench, thus making the play offside. Unfortunate for Carolina, fortunate for Minnesota. Especially fortunate for Gus, since it kept his shutout that was maintained for the rest of the game.

And yeah, it sucks for Carolina, but there’s nothing to argue. The replay showed that the player, while in the process of getting on the bench, was past that blueline and thus, offside.

Yes, exactly. The rule put its thumb on the scale unnecessarily. What if, instead of scoring the goal Carolina turned it over and Minnesota scored? Why shouldn't that be overturned as well? The play should have been blown dead before Carolina could turn it over.

The rule only overturns things one way, not equally.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Yes, exactly. The rule put its thumb on the scale unnecessarily. What if, instead of scoring the goal Carolina turned it over and Minnesota scored? Why shouldn't that be overturned as well? The play should have been blown dead before Carolina could turn it over.

The rule only overturns things one way, not equally.

…Well, presumably because if Carolina turned it over and Minnesota went down the ice and scored, Minnesota wouldn’t be offside and thus, their goal would count.

Now, I believe coaches can challenge goals for “missed stoppages”, but I believe the “stoppage” must be caused by the team on “offense” (in this scenario, Minnesota), and thus, Carolina couldn’t challenge for a missed offside on themselves.

 

[Blackjack]

…Well, presumably because if Carolina turned it over and Minnesota went down the ice and scored, Minnesota wouldn’t be offside and thus, their goal would count.

So what? The whole play shouldn't have happened, it should have been a neutral zone faceoff. What if Carolina didn't score but earned an offensive zone stoppage and scored on the ensuing faceoff? Why shouldn't Minnesota be able to appeal that goal since presumably it wouldn't have happened if it was a neutral zone faceoff? Just as easy to presume that as any other goal that happens after an offside.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

So what? The whole play shouldn't have happened, it should have been a neutral zone faceoff. What if Carolina didn't score but earned an offensive zone stoppage and scored on the ensuing faceoff? Why shouldn't Minnesota be able to appeal that goal since presumably it wouldn't have happened if it was a neutral zone faceoff? Just as easy to presume that as any other goal that happens after an offside.

If you’re going to take the slippery slope argument, why stop there? The goal shouldn’t count because the game never should have happened, because it should have been the North Stars versus the Whalers.

 

[Blackjack]

If you’re going to take the slippery slope argument, why stop there? The goal shouldn’t count because the game never should have happened, because it should have been the North Stars versus the Whalers.

No, you can't respond to my point so you're just posting nonsense. It's not a slippery slope argument at all, it's an argument for consistency.

 

[danisonfire]

I hate this rule when it is called against my team and love this rule when it is called against the other teams.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

No, you can't respond to my point so you're just posting nonsense. It's not a slippery slope argument at all, it's an argument for consistency.

You presented a scenario that a goal off a faceoff from an offensive zone draw that came after a possible offside shouldn’t count because it should have been a neutral zone draw. When you’re arguing against goals after stoppages after the possible missed stoppage, you’re presenting a slippery slope.

I’m simply taking that slippery slope to its logical conclusion.

 

[Blackjack]

You presented a scenario that a goal off a faceoff from an offensive zone draw that came after a possible offside shouldn’t count because it should have been a neutral zone draw. When you’re arguing against goals after stoppages after the possible missed stoppage, you’re presenting a slippery slope.

I’m simply taking that slippery slope to its logical conclusion.

No, not after a possible offside, after a clear offside. Remember, it's black and white. You inserted the "possible" because you recognize that you have no argument here. The offside team gained an advantage from a a conclusively bad call and then scored from that advantage.

What if the defending team takes a penalty defending on an offside play? They would not have taken that penalty if the play had been blown dead. Why should a team get a erase a goal against but not a penalty against?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

No, not after a possible offside, after a clear offside. Remember, it's black and white. You inserted the "possible" because you recognize that you have no argument here. The offside team gained an advantage from a a conclusively bad call and then scored from that advantage.

You’re still arguing for taking away goals that happen because of plays that happened before a stoppage. Let’s say in your scenario, there is a missed offside and Carolina takes a shot and it’s stopped by Gus. Then they go to commercial break. Then on the offensive zone faceoff after that commercial break, they score off the ensuing faceoff. You’re saying that it should all be taken back because of that missed offside call. But why stop there? What if multiple stoppages happen between a goal and the missed offside? What if the missed offside happened in the 1st and then the first goal is scored in the 3rd? Who’s to say a team didn’t get an advantage because of that offside call in the 1st?

What if the defending team takes a penalty defending on an offside play? They would not have taken that penalty if the play had been blown dead. Why should a team get an erase a goal against but not a penalty against?

Penalties are often called after the play is blown dead, so that argument doesn’t hold much water. Hell, penalties can be called off clearly offside plays. If a player is offside, and the whistle is blown, but he still shoots it towards the net, that’s a penalty that’s called. And if not that one, then the ensuing scrum from shooting that puck will certainly cause a few penalties to be called.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

If it takes 6 mins it's clearly not black and white. Meanwhile they miss a high stick lol. It's just another way for the NHL and refs to control games. League can't determine what goaltender interference is or review missed penalties or injuries but they can offisdes? Sure

It is though.... It just takes more time to find the definitive angle sometimes when its extremely close.


And FWIW even though it really is black and white in every scenario, I personally would also be completely ok with establishing some sort of timer that linesmen get to determine the call. I think 20 seconds would be too fast, but maybe 1 minute.

If they cant definitively find enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice within 1 minute, the goal counts. Because at that point it obviously would be close enough that it didn't actually have any real impact on the play itself.

 

[nturn06]

Just like 74.9999 feet from the end boards is the puck in the zone and 75.0001 feet is not.

The blue line can be somewhere else. But it’s not. In fact, it HAS been somewhere else in the past. If you set a rule, that’s the rule.

So why replace a rule you find arbitrary by a completely different arbitrary one. That's a lateral move.

 

[Golden_Jet]

So why replace a rule you find arbitrary by a completely different arbitrary one. That's a lateral move.

Ya it’s not a good idea, any counters of what if this….., just ignores those ones that rip holes in the theory.

 

[Toby91ca]

No, you can't respond to my point so you're just posting nonsense. It's not a slippery slope argument at all, it's an argument for consistency.

It absolutely is a slippery slope argument. Look, what you suggest is absolutely a logical thing....if team goes offside...uncalled and then defending team picks up the puck and goes down the ice and scores you could argue there should have been a stoppage in play and that shouldn't count. However, video review has been discussed an approved for different types of incidents for different type of reasons (for example, with offside, there were some bad missed calls that resulted in goals and everyone thought it was something easy to fix, should be easy reviews, etc.). I think a lot would suggest they don't like how it's unfolded since, but it is what it is. You can then argue, what about this, what about that....that is where the slippery slope comment would come in.

I'm totally fine with the current way where you look for offside and if a goal is scored before the puck comes back out, no goal. There are arguments about, what if we limit it to 30 seconds after the offside occurs 1) I've said it a few times, gaining zone entry and possession is more and more important these days in the NHL....I don't care how much time has past after an offside, the offside still led to that advantage, but more importantly 2) 30 seconds would be completely random and could be no way tied to whether the offside played part in leading to the goal or not. The real crazy zone would be to bring subjectiveness in and assess whether the offside really made a difference or not.

Anyway....absolutely slippery slope because you can keep suggesting many, many different incidents you could argue they could review for stoppage of play, etc. and there is no way the league is going to go there on a lot. They league does make adjustments from time to time of course....example, allowing challenge for puck over glass penalty is a new one.....and again, it's one of those ones that's there because they figure it's something you can go to replay and easily determine if the call was right or not. They don't want to go to replays a lot and the plan to limit that is to penalize a team that challenges a call that turns out to be the right call....in theory that all makes sense and seems to be a pretty good plan.....but the offside thing doesn't make too many people happy. The puck over glass rule is no big deal because you aren't talking about a goal that happened and then you wonder if it's going to stay on the board or not.

 

[nturn06]

Ya it’s not a good idea, any counters of what if this….., just ignores those ones that rip holes in the theory.

What do you mean by holes.... Things like it is entertaining when the refs miss an obvious offside against my team and the other team scores "it is not entertaining if they take a goal back even if it is the right call"?

 

[nturn06]

Delegate it to an assistant or someone in the booths to call down. The point is that if it was not caught live by either the linesman or a team appointed official, then it was a completely inconsequential offsides.

And do you think that this will stop the "but my team scored, it is not fair to take the goal back" whinning?

Also, a much simpler solution is to have a fifth ref in the review booth to call back all "clear" offsides. Why should be up to coaches/assistant coaches to fix refs mistakes? Of course, that would just increase the whinning around here.

 

[D1az]

With improved camera technology and automation this will probably become very easy to get 100% right with an automated system which stops the game, so that linesmen don't have to worry about getting it right by a few millimeters.