GDT: G69: Bruins @ Wild 1pm CT, 7pm Sweden, 8pm Lapa (BSN)

[Wasted Talent]

Of course review wasn't imagined 100 years ago... that is again just hyperbole.

The rule was setup just like the offside rule in soccer... the forward can't precede the puck just like in soccer, the forwards cannot precede the ball.

When you make such a rule, then call it live as close as possible, it's not surprising now that technology allows, you review to correct missed offside when a goal results.

It's natural evolution. Ok, you don't like it... you've made it clear, but I have no problem with it at all, no matter how much anyone complains about it.

I actually generally agree with the concept of offside reviews to prevent blatant situations like that Duchene goal. The current system is just either implemented poorly or taken to an extreme. If a scenario is close enough that you can't determine it conclusively by watching it once in a replay, it should be close enough to be chalked to a human error.

It also annoys me more than it should when I see the coaching staff staring at their ipads every time a goal is scored. It's like there's just an extra layer of goal reviews done by the coaching staff before the actual coach's challenge. I doubt that was the original intent of the coach's challenge rule.

 

[Spurgeon]

IMHO, there's no mental gymnastics going on.

@TaLoN is merely stating that if you review icing, that goes against what icing was designed for. The team that ices the puck is "punished" for doing so. If you review the icing, it merely removes the punishment, thus making the icing call moot anyway.

The argument from the very beginning has been about wanting the rules properly enforced. If a team gains an advantage from dumping in a puck prior to reaching the red line, and you’re somehow okay with that being missed, but not okay with offsides being missed, then there’s mental gymnastics involved.

My entire argument is that review should only be in place to prevent egregious officiating errors that lead to goals. Offsides and an early dump-in are both things that are rarely egregious. I was told that allowing a goal that occurred from an offsides is not possible because of an illegal possession, a team securing a puck after forechecking an illegal dump-in, is an illegal possession.

 

[TaLoN]

I actually generally agree with the concept of offside reviews to prevent blatant situations like that Duchene goal. The current system is just either implemented poorly or taken to an extreme. If a scenario is close enough that you can't determine it conclusively by watching it once in a replay, it should be close enough to be chalked to a human error.

It also annoys me more than it should when I see the coaching staff staring at their ipads every time a goal is scored. It's like there's just an extra layer of goal reviews done by the coaching staff before the actual coach's challenge. I doubt that was the original intent of the coach's challenge rule.

And I have no problem with it myself. Though I did like the suggestion that contact with the blue line wild fit better as a rule overall instead of completely crossing it.

 

[TaLoN]

The argument from the very beginning has been about wanting the rules properly enforced.

No, it's been on such a clear binary rule, that's where review fits best. Since it fits so well, why not utilize it?

I even said, goaltender interference, review is a waste because of how judgemental it is.

 

[Spurgeon]

No, it's been on such a clear binary rule, that's where review fits best. Since it fits so well, why not utilize it?

How is it not clear to determine whether the puck reached a red line before the puck was released? Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[TaLoN]

How is it not clear to determine whether the puck reached a red line before the puck was released? Seems pretty clear to me.

Again, review entirely defeats the purpose of icing. Therefore, it doesn't support the rule.

 

[Spurgeon]

Again, review entirely defeats the purpose of icing.

No it doesn’t because you can only review a play when a goal is scored.

 

[TaLoN]

No it doesn’t because you can only review a play when a goal is scored.

So admit it, you just want all goals to count. Period.

 

[Spurgeon]

So admit it, you just want all goals to count. Period.

I’ve made my point very clear and very consistently that I only want goals to be overturned for egregious errors that lead to the goal, such as goaltender interference.

You have been incredibly inconsistent in what you believe should and should not be allowed to be reviewed.

 

[TaLoN]

I’ve made my point very clear and very consistently that I only want goals to be overturned for egregious errors that lead to the goal, such as goaltender interference.

You have been incredibly inconsistent in what you believe should and should not be allowed to be reviewed.

Goaltender interference is a waste to review because it's so subjective. It's terrible in the same way that the pass interference review was terrible and summarily abandoned in the NFL.

 

[Wabit]

I don’t want any of them to be reviewable. I’m trying to point out inconsistencies in what the NHL does and does not allow to be reviewed.

Who cares? The NHL isn't consistent on things, this is a just a given. The players need to stay onside plain and simple. Crying about it when they get caught on a review is just crying.

The linemen having that review fall back keeps allows for the flow of the game to continue instead of them blowing anything close dead. It goes both ways. How many barely onside goals have happened because the linesmen allowed play to continue? My guess would be that it evens out over the course of a season for a team where goals the were close onside or offside were allowed to happen and then get reviewed.

Let the play continue and review it after the fact if needed. The same for football and out of bounds or not, questionable if a player was down, or turnovers that should have resulted in a TD but were blown dead.

 

[Spurgeon]

Goaltender interference is a waste to review because it's so subjective. It's terrible in the same way that the pass interference review was terrible and summarily abandoned in the NFL.

There’s no subjectivity involved with a puck reaching the center line before being dumped in.

Goaltender interference is arguably the only play that can directly lead to a goal if it’s missed.

Who cares? The NHL isn't consistent on things, this is a just a given. The players need to stay onside plain and simple. Crying about it when they get caught on a review is just crying.

The linemen having that review fall back keeps allows for the flow of the game to continue instead of them blowing anything close dead. It goes both ways. How many barely onside goals have happened because the linesmen allowed play to continue? My guess would be that it evens out over the course of a season for a team where goals the were close onside or offside were allowed to happen and then get reviewed.

Let the play continue and review it after the fact if needed. The same for football and out of bounds or not, questionable if a player was down, or turnovers that should have resulted in a TD but were blown dead.

Or you can just deal with missed calls being apart of the game. Like they are in every other sport; including in hockey for other scenarios.

 

[TaLoN]

There’s no subjectivity involved with a puck reaching the center line before being dumped in.

Not sure why you keep going to that well when we know tree rule is intended to prevent icing as a defensive tactic, not prevent offensive possession. This is just you wanting to be difficult. Icing has many layers to it to even qualify.

Offside is... did the forward precede the puck into the zone, or not?

Sorry I don't see them the same like you, but that is the way it is. You bitching that I'm being inconsistent when comparing apples to oranges won't change my mind. I am fine with offside reviews and don't want to see them go away.

I am not fine with anytime wanting icing review because it defeats the entire purpose of the icing rule.

 

[Spurgeon]

Not sure why you keep going to that well when we know tree rule is intended to prevent icing as a defensive tactic, not prevent offensive possession. This is just you wanting to be difficult. Icing has many layers to it to even qualify.

Offside is... did the forward precede the puck into the zone, or not?

You can precede the puck into the zone without being offsides.

What is the intent of a review?

 

[Minnewildsota]

There’s no subjectivity involved with a puck reaching the center line before being dumped in.

Goaltender interference is arguably the only play that can directly lead to a goal if it’s missed.



Or you can just deal with missed calls being apart of the game. Like they are in every other sport; including in hockey for other scenarios.

Actually, that's not true. It depends on when the puck leaves the stick. It would be very subjective to determine when it actually leaves the stick

 

[TaLoN]

You can precede the puck into the zone without being offsides.

What is the intent of a review?

Review doesn't work for every scenario equally.

 

[Spurgeon]

Actually, that's not true. It depends on when the puck leaves the stick. It would be very subjective to determine when it actually leaves the stick

When the puck is no longer contacting the stick. It’s not subjective lol.

Review doesn't work for every scenario equally.

What is the entire purpose for a review? Is it not to prevent a team from scoring off of an advantageous scenario caused by them breaking a rule?

 

[TaLoN]

Actually, that's not true. It depends on when the puck leaves the stick. It would be very subjective to determine when it actually leaves the stick

Also subjective if the oppression could've played it, and subjective who got to the other end clearly first without lines to help identify.

 

[TaLoN]

When the puck is no longer contacting the stick. It’s not subjective lol.



What is the entire purpose for a review? Is it not to prevent a team from scoring off of an advantageous scenario caused by them breaking a rule?

Just because that is what review intends doesn't mean it fits all rules equally well. You know that.
The icing rule has many judgemental factors specifically because it's NOT intended to prevent offense. If the team icing the puck manages offense out of it, it's because those judgemental situations came into play that review isn't going to help anyway.

 

[Spurgeon]

Just because that is what review intends doesn't mean it fits all rules equally well. You know that.
The icing rule has many judgemental factors specifically because it's NOT intended to prevent offense. If the team icing the puck manages offense out of it, it's because those judgemental situations came into play that review isn't going to help anyway.

If it wasn’t intended to prevent offense, then why not make the requirement be to have cleared the defensive zone first? Why even make the center line be a requirement?

And no, teams manage offense off of dump-ins plenty of times. There’s a reason it’s a strategy.

 

[Wabit]

There’s no subjectivity involved with a puck reaching the center line before being dumped in.

Goaltender interference is arguably the only play that can directly lead to a goal if it’s missed.

So icing should be reviewed if there is a goal directly as a result of a missed call? Does the defending team have to touch the puck, get it out of the zone, past the red line, into the attacking zone; what are the parameters that negate the need for a review?

It's a coaches review required for offsides after a goal, so the same applies to icing?

 

[TaLoN]

If it wasn’t intended to prevent offense, then why not make the requirement be to have cleared the defensive zone first? Why even make the center line be a requirement?

And no, teams manage offense off of dump-ins plenty of times. There’s a reason it’s a strategy.

Because a tired exhausted team makes lazy plays and tries to take lazy outs by crossing the blue line, dumping, then changing all 5 players. Forcing them to gain the redline, forces them to earn the play instead. Makes for a better game.

 

[Minnewildsota]

When the puck is no longer contacting the stick. It’s not subjective lol.



What is the entire purpose for a review? Is it not to prevent a team from scoring off of an advantageous scenario caused by them breaking a rule?

It is subjective in the fact that unless we get cameras that can zoom into that level of detail, it's estimated when the puck actually leaves the stick, thus making it subjective.

 

[Spurgeon]

So icing should be reviewed if there is a goal directly as a result of a missed call? Does the defending team have to touch the puck, get it out of the zone, past the red line, into the attacking zone; what are the parameters that negate the need for a review?

It's a coaches review required for offsides after a goal, so the same applies to icing?

The entire game continues until the next goal is scored, which the opposing team can then challenge for an icing that occurred 30 minutes ago.

 

[Wabit]

The entire game continues until the next goal is scored, which the opposing team can then challenge for an icing that occurred 30 minutes ago.

So just a dumb thing to complain about with no thought added, gotcha.