TaLoN
Red 5 standing by
I explained how I read it. Not sure what you think I'm missingIt’s been pretty well explained by @MNNumbers
I explained how I read it. Not sure what you think I'm missingIt’s been pretty well explained by @MNNumbers
No, implemented to prevent offensive players from preceding the puck into the zone.Offside.....implemented to keep offensive players from hanging out in their offensive zone when the puck is at the other end of the ice.
I explained how I read it. Not sure what you think I'm missing
Review is implemented to verify the offensive player did not precede the puck into the zoneReview is implemented when an attacking player, on a rush, is microscopically in the offensive zone too early, and a goal happens even 60 seconds later.
Inconsequential is my entire point. The review cannot defeat the rule purpose. If it was waived off, icing is not at all in play. If a review happens, the players rest anyway. It was subjectively waived off, so not as clear cut as offside anyway. It's not like offside is something that is waived off like icing can be.But what if the initial dump in, which the linesman let go because it was 'close' to the red line, and it didn't look like a soon goal scoring opportunity, was actually from just millimeters on his own side of the red line? That should have been icing. The other team clearly got to the puck first. They were unable to clear from their zone, and a goal happened.
No, it's not, it creates a potential icing scenario, but if the puck never reaches the goal line, it cannot be icing at all.If a player does not reach the center line prior to dumping the puck in, that play is icing.
No, it's not, it creates a potential icing scenario, but if the puck never reaches the goal line, it cannot be icing at all.
I agree that a linesman has the right to waive off an icing. But he does not have the right to waive off an icing because the player was "close enough to the red line to make it good enough." If all other parts of the play were such that the play should be icing, it's icing. Even if the linesman doesn't call it.Inconsequential is my entire point. The review cannot defeat the rule purpose. If it was waived off, icing is not at all in play. If a review happens, the players rest anyway. It was subjectively waived off, so not as clear cut as offside anyway. It's not like offside is something that is waived off like icing can be.
Not true either, icing isn't automatic. The NHL uses hybrid rules that has the linesman judge who wins the race down the ice... they typically use the hash marks as the point to judge, if the offending team gets the clear lead, by rule the icing is waived off as it was beaten out.If the linesman waves off icing because he believes that the player reached the center line, when he actually did not, then the play should have been blown dead for icing.
If the offending team scores off that missed call, then under your preference, that play should be reviewable.
Not true either, icing isn't automatic. The NHL uses hybrid rules that has the linesman judge who wins the race down the ice... they typically use the hash marks as the point to judge, if the offending team gets the clear lead, by rule the icing is waived off as it was beaten out.
Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.I agree that a linesman has the right to waive off an icing. But he does not have the right to waive off an icing because the player was "close enough to the red line to make it good enough." If all other parts of the play were such that the play should be icing, it's icing. Even if the linesman doesn't call it.
In this way, in these circumstances, it is EXACTLY parallel to an offside call.
Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.
The rule wasn't put in place to prevent what happened in this scenario. In the offside scenario, the rule was put in place specifically to prevent what happened.
Linesman are overall and tend to make mostly correct calls on offside situations that are microscopically close. Just because we saw a goal scored on the ice doesn't mean we should ignore that by the intent of the rule, it shouldn't have been scored.
Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.
Of course, but that doesn't mean it needs review.Talon, let me ask you honestly....
Have you ever seen a play where you thought, "that's icing", because you saw the puck leave the defenseman's stick slightly before he reached the red line, but the linesman didn't call it, and there was no real race to the puck because the other team clearly was getting there first?
The entire purpose was to prevent the use as a defensive tactic I said. The other punishments added to it came later because they didn't feel the rule was effective enough in the state it existed. Thus to prevent it further, they implemented no line changes for the offending team, and foregoing commercial breaks.It can't be true that the "entire" purpose of the icing rule is to force teams to defend with tired players. The rule was in place for years and years before the "no player change" phrase was added.
No, they said you can't precede the puck. You're the only one saying millisecond, for hyperbole purposes. That said, it's a clear binary rule that review only supports.It can't be true that the "entire" purpose of the icing rule is to force teams to defend with tired players. The rule was in place for years and years before the "no player change" phrase was added.
The purpose for the rule was originally to force teams to try to play the puck out of their, instead of just hacking it all the way down the ice. The 'no change' clause was added in the Dead Puck Era to try to create more goals in the game.
In the same way, the initial purpose of 'offside' way back was to prevent offensive players from hanging out in their offensive end when the puck was in the other end of the ice. I am absolutely positive that no one said, on principle, "hey, we need a rule that says you can't enter the offensive zone before the puck, because we don't want players in there a millisecond before the puck."
I'm quitting
The entire purpose was to prevent the use as a defensive tactic I said. The other punishments added to it came later because they didn't feel the rule was effective enough in the state it existed. Thus to prevent it further, they implemented no line changes for the offending team, and foregoing commercial breaks.
But we can ignore a team gaining an advantage from a dump-in that should have been whistled dead for icing?
Of course review wasn't imagined 100 years ago... that is again just hyperbole.If we're talking about the original intent of the rule, offsides was introduced to prevent players from waiting for the puck in the offensive zone after forward passing was introduced.
I doubt they were thinking about offside scenarios where you need five different slow-motion replay angles to determine if the puck entered the zone a millisecond late.
All I've gotten from every thing you've said is you want more reviews on the ice. Seems like a strange hill to die on after a game where MN got burned by reviews.
IMHO, there's no mental gymnastics going on.Yeah; the mental gymnastics involved is too much.