Get rid of offsides review.

[Rodgerwilco]

I mean sure they wouldn't use that exact language (I would assume), but that's pretty much what it comes down to, no?

I would prefer a postgame statement, where applicable, that went along the lines of "The linesman clearly missed the call and the NHL will work harder on training officials who don't allow such blatant offside zone entries to occur prior to a goal - even if it's a full minute before any goal was scored".

That raises an interesting hypothetical.......can a coach challenge against his own team?

I'll use last night's play as an example; say Seattle brought the puck back and scored on a quick play.

Could Bednar argue that the play prior should've been blown dead because Compher, or whoever it was, was offside?

I mean, again, by the letter of the law the Avs WERE offside. If you're gonna enforce the rule, you want to be consistent about these things.

No, that's not what it comes down to. What it comes down to is the play was offside and the offside call was correctly ruled after review.

I wouldn't have a major issue with that being something a coach could hypothetically challenge. But if they're wrong then they'd get a minor penalty, like any wrong challenge. Although I think you just brought that up for the sake of argument rather than something you actual think is an important distinction.

At the end of the day, I don't think the offside review will ever be removed because the core of the argument is that proponents want more incorrect calls and want to create special time-centric situations where an established rule is not enforced. There is no logical (non-emotional) argument to want more incorrect calls.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

I've always believed, and still do, that offside is a minor issue and doesn't rise to the level of needing to be reviewed. These linesmen are good, they seldom miss the obvious ones, and seldom is it the obvious ones that get reviewed and/or challenged. Even when it benefits the Flyers, it just feels like a cheap letoff. I understand why the rule exists, it's a good rule, but microanalyzing things like a skate in the air, or the finest of margins, especially when it often had no impact on the goalscoring play. If the goal happens several seconds later, with the defense already set, any advantage of entering the zone a millimeter offside has long since been negated. Unfortunately, what happened last night in Denver was a big win for the offside review, for that was one of the aforementioned seldomly missed obvious ones.

 

[bleedblue94]

One of the greatest contradictions you can hear around this sport is "we need to review offsides to make sure we get the call right" while simultaneously hearing that officials should error to the side of not blowing down offsides bc if they end of missing it and it leads to a goal it can be reviewed.

So you want the calls right but you want linesmen to not always call it as they see since they can review it if a mistake leads to a goal?

Official doesn't blow down an offsides entry into team A's zone bc of this theory, team A then takes the puck on a turnover and goes down to the other end and scores a goal on team B. We didn't get the call right on the initial entry and it led to a goal the other way.

People just need to accept that sports have human error, it is part of what makes them great

 

[kihei]

he was skating and moving in with the rest of the line. That is not camping by any stretch.

No, but it is offsides. Consider if the teams were reversed. Would you still be happy with this argument that you are making?

 

[TLEH]

Personally feel like offside rule should be more about cherry picking egregiously than it is in its current state. Problem is that if you change the rule then people keep pushing the boundaries. I think goals like the Avs one should be goals, but not sure how you would ever write that into the rule book.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

I've always believed, and still do, that offside is a minor issue and doesn't rise to the level of needing to be reviewed. These linesmen are good, they seldom miss the obvious ones, and seldom is it the obvious ones that get reviewed and/or challenged. Even when it benefits the Flyers, it just feels like a cheap letoff. I understand why the rule exists, it's a good rule, but microanalyzing things like a skate in the air, or the finest of margins, especially when it often had no impact on the goalscoring play. If the goal happens several seconds later, with the defense already set, any advantage of entering the zone a millimeter offside has long since been negated. Unfortunately, what happened last night in Denver was a big win for the offside review, for that was one of the aforementioned seldomly missed obvious ones.

The league changed the letter of offside calls so that whether or not a skate is in the air no longer matters. I believe they changed it last year.

 

[Sheppy]

If you can determine whether the play was offside in real time after 20 seconds, the call stands.

 

[hohosaregood]

I see Matt Duchene continues to crush the dream of Avs fans everywhere

 

[TGWL]

I've watched quite a few games with people who don't normally watch hockey these playoffs and it's so obvious how these ridiculous offsides challenges turn them off from being an actual fan of the sport.

Like how dumb is it to explain how a millimeter of the skate raised 45 seconds before the goal means it shouldn't count. It makes 0 sense to casual fans

I don't think they should get rid of it completely, but there have been multiple instances these playoffs where the offsides was either minuscule or inconsequential (and I don't have a dog in this fight)

I bet those fans would be the first one yelling "His toe hit the white. He's out of bounce!" during an amazing football catch.

 

[Dirty Dan]

Why don't we just use AI and line technology to determine offsides then, rather than having goals scored a minute after an offside and calling it back

 

[MikeyMike01]

If you can determine whether the play was offside in real time after 20 seconds, the call stands.

One way to make reviews much worse is to make them inaccurate.

 

[Sheppy]

Like I've said, there's nothing worse than seeing your team score, then they pan the camera to the opposing coach and he's glaring at an iPad. It's the equivalent to hockey blue balls.

As a fan It's hard to even pop off at a goal without wondering "damn, was he offside 40 seconds ago?"

One way to make reviews much worse is to make them inaccurate.

If you need to look at a play for 5 minutes at 100 frames per second, you're looking for a reason for it not to count.

 

[NeelyWasAWarrior]

No, but it is offsides. Consider if the teams were reversed. Would you still be happy with this argument that you are making?

i'm a bruins fan. I have no stake in the avalanche.

 

[Emerald Duck]

I don't mind an offsides review on the rush. There's a potential advantage here that needs to reviewed.

I hate offsides reviews when it's been 45 secs+ after a team has been cycling the puck and then scores. Even if a skater was a couple of inches offside it had nothing to do with the subsequent goal.

 

[Sheppy]

No, but it is offsides. Consider if the teams were reversed. Would you still be happy with this argument that you are making?

Offside*

 

[Ducks DVM]

One of the greatest contradictions you can hear around this sport is "we need to review offsides to make sure we get the call right" while simultaneously hearing that officials should error to the side of not blowing down offsides bc if they end of missing it and it leads to a goal it can be reviewed.

So you want the calls right but you want linesmen to not always call it as they see since they can review it if a mistake leads to a goal?

Official doesn't blow down an offsides entry into team A's zone bc of this theory, team A then takes the puck on a turnover and goes down to the other end and scores a goal on team B. We didn't get the call right on the initial entry and it led to a goal the other way.

People just need to accept that sports have human error, it is part of what makes them great

Human error by the participants is part of what makes sports great. Human error by the officials who are supposed to be creating a fair match are what cheapens a victory, and diminishes sport.

 

[bleedblue94]

Human error by the participants is part of what makes sports great. Human error by the officials who are supposed to be creating a fair match are what cheapens a victory, and diminishes sport.

Weird, so players can be imperfect but officials need to be flawless? They do a great job and if they make a mistake so be it. We are t set on getting calls right, we are just sorta trying to get fixated on getting calls just prior to goals right. There is a significant difference.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Weird, so players can be imperfect but officials need to be flawless? They do a great job and if they make a mistake so be it. We are t set on getting calls right, we are just sorta trying to get fixated on getting calls just prior to goals right. There is a significant difference.

You cannot fairly fix player mistakes with technology. You absolutely can with the officials. Technology has advanced to where it’s not just a guess, it’s a known issue, within minutes to hours. There’s a significant difference.

edit - the idea is to make the rule as non-arbitrary as possible. Enforcing the rule as written is not arbitrary. Trying to set a certain time, circumstances, or degree of influence is the definition of arbitrary.

 

[bleedblue94]

You cannot fairly fix player mistakes with technology. You absolutely can with the officials. Technology has advanced to where it’s not just a guess, it’s a known issue, within minutes to hours. There’s a significant difference.

The nhl's goalie interference ruling completely blow up your argument that with officials we can somehow have no more guessing on calls.

 

[Ducks DVM]

The nhl's goalie interference ruling completely blow up your argument that with officials we can somehow have no more guessing on calls.

The NHL’s goalie interference ruling, which is based on a completely arbitrary description of what GI is, is the exact reason why offside should be enforced to the letter of the law, and not by some arbitrary other standard.

 

[bleedblue94]

The NHL’s goalie interference ruling, which is based on a completely arbitrary description of what GI is, is the exact reason why offside should be enforced to the letter of the law, and not by some arbitrary other standard.

You said fix this with officials. Tripping, interference, hooks, etc are ALL subjective calls. If you want to scrutinize offsides to the point of perfection then don't halfass it and do it on every call and stop advocating for it selectively only on goals. It won't happen bc it's irrational

 

[Ducks DVM]

You said fix this with officials. Tripping, interference, hooks, etc are ALL subjective calls. If you want to scrutinize offsides to the point of perfection then don't halfass it and do it on every call and stop advocating for it selectively only on goals. It won't happen bc it's irrational

This discussion is about the offside challenge. Everything you just said was never brought up by me or anyone else, is moving the goalposts because there’s no logical rebuttal to the post you quoted, and is irrelevant.

 

[bleedblue94]

This discussion is about the offside challenge. Everything you just said was never brought up by me or anyone else, is moving the goalposts because there’s no logical rebuttal to the post you quoted, and is irrelevant.

It is. Go back to my original comment of why I have an issue with it and then we eventually get to you saying that there is no reason to have issues w making sure offsides is correct. As I said if you expect perfection with it prior to goals then find a system of perfection on all plays and not just ones directly prior to goals. That's not moving the goalposts at all, that's just expecting consistency in expectations of perfection.

 

[Derailed75]

Or you could just be on side!