NHL: "We want more goals!"
Also NHL: "Wait, lets disallow this because his skate was in the air or over the blue line by a third of an inch"
That’s the dumbest part of the rule.....the fact that the skate needs to be on the ice.
It’s akin to disallowing a goal that doesn’t cross the goal line along the ice.
Problem is they spent 2 minutes waiting to see if Montreal wanted to challenge or not which is ridiculous in itself. There should not be any delay whatsoever and they should not be asking the team if they want to challenge, Go to centre ice and drop the puck. If the team wants to challenge, they should do it quickly. The next problem is the league spent 3 minutes figuring out that Coyle's blade entered the zone 3 mm before the puck but they completely forgot about the fact that kicking the puck into the zone constitutes possession of the puck and allows the player to precede the puck into the zone. OOPs, oh well who cares about the rules anyway lol.
I feel like I'm repeating myself ad nauseam on this point but I think it's important to get across - the NHL official rulebook nowhere defines either 'possession' or 'control'. So while there's plenty of expert opinion on what 'possession' is, and plenty has been given in Coyle's favor in the last 24 hours, strictly speaking there is no official definition and as such it's left free for the folks in Toronto to interpret it as they see fit. The advantage of this for the league is that while people can say they disagree with the decision made in this or any similar case, no-one can say that it was completely against the rules because on one key aspect they're completely open to individual interpretation.
I see that WEEI radio has now wisely cottoned on to this and suggested that the rules need to be changed to include definitions of the critical terms, and I agree 100%. But I think the the issue will need to gain traction beyond just New England for any changes to take place.
NHL needs ‘Charlie Coyle rule’ to define possession on offside calls
Yes it is, paragraph 3 of the rule:
“However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.”
It’s the reason you can skate backwards into the zone if you wanted to.
perfectTo me it’s easy to fix. Treat it like a penalty shot. Simple. If they score on the initial rush and they were offsides, then I can be reviewed. If the play continues with no goal, then it’s not reviewable.
If you look at the last moment before the puck hits his skate, Coyle's front of the right foot points towards the outside. And just before the puck hits his skate he slightly straightens it to redirect the puck towards his left side. If the puck hits the skate before he straightens it the puck would go to his right side.Even in super slo motion, there's no kicking motion. Watch it again:
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/br...nadiens-overturned-controversial-offside-call
Exactly.Problem is they spent 2 minutes waiting to see if Montreal wanted to challenge or not which is ridiculous in itself. There should not be any delay whatsoever and they should not be asking the team if they want to challenge, Go to centre ice and drop the puck. If the team wants to challenge, they should do it quickly. The next problem is the league spent 3 minutes figuring out that Coyle's blade entered the zone 3 mm before the puck but they completely forgot about the fact that kicking the puck into the zone constitutes possession of the puck and allows the player to precede the puck into the zone. OOPs, oh well who cares about the rules anyway lol.
you are so rightThat’s the dumbest part of the rule.....the fact that the skate needs to be on the ice.
It’s akin to disallowing a goal that doesn’t cross the goal line along the ice.
Is lining up in the neutral zone reviewable?What??? That's like saying a penalty for lining up in neutral zone (football) is stupid.
Exactly.
Got to be honest
Even when offside involves other teams... even when it goes in your own favor...
It needs to be called out as the crappiest rule in sports
IF YOU CANT DETERMIN ITS OFFSIDE WITH A SINGLE REVIEW AT REAL LIFE SPEED... THEN IT DIDNT MATTER!!!
stop destroying the excitement of this sport over something none of us would ever complain about.
I guess there was ONE example of a matt duchesne style offside in my entire 45 year history as a fan. Every single viewer except the officials saw it. A single regular speed review would have seen it
EVERY SINGLE GOAL IN NHL SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY REVIEWED AT REGULAR SPEED FOR OFFSIDE/HIGH STICK/NET OFF/PUCK COVERED UP BY GOALIE/AND DANGEROUS GOALTENDER INTERFERENCE
No need for any coaches challange.
One view by the refs in real time
One view by the special judges in real time
If the goal passes both... then it was obviously close enough we want it to count!!!
Offense sells the game! We want goals to count!
But... start protecting goalies better... warn players that the tie goes to the runner in baseball. Contact with goalies will be called strict.
No dman is intentionally going to knock highspeed opponents into his own goalie. So collisions are THE FAULT of the attacking player
This is a safety issue for the goalie. Plays where a forward might brush against a goalie while fighting for position outside the paint dont matter. Screens are allowed. Its part of the game that doesnt endanger the goalie
Honestly, its always bothered me more when a penalty should be called but isnt resulting in a goal. That's INTENTIONAL cheating!
If we have to accept intentional cheating blown ref calls, we can sure as hell live with accidental normal plays that might technically break a rule, but so minorly no one would ever notice without superslowmo
Exactly. It is obvious there's a clear view that Coyle redirected the puck.Wasn't the purpose of having a challenge to get the call right?
I don't think you are reading his post correctly. He wrote that there is no definition of "possession" or "control" in the rules. He's right. What you posted does not contain any definition of either term.
Specially the goal was to find if Coyle was in possession of the puck which the video demonstrates he clearly was.It was put in to eliminate the obvious calls that get missed. I don't think the intent was to spend 3 minutes looking at the same play over and over blowing it up to see if a toothpick could fit between the blueline and the skate.
you’re right...I misread, but still..I think we all know what the words possession and control mean.
If you look at the last moment before the puck hits his skate, Coyle's front of the right foot points towards the outside. And just before the puck hits his skate he slightly straightens it to redirect the puck towards his left side. If the puck hits the skate before he straightens it the puck would go to his right side.
He was in control, he redirected the puck.
Actually this thread is literal proof that we do not know. Nobody does. Everyone has their own interpretation, including the refs. Hence the issue and the reason why nobody here can agree.