Toggle sidebar

Leafs goal called good after review

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
...Tavares brought it back in, therefore he should have been deemed to have possession and it should have been offside, imo...that said, Makar had it happen in last year's Playoffs and they counted it, so who the F**K knows these days...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmoggyTwinkles
To me it looks like Tavares clearly touches it again in the zone before Nylander tags up. Should've been an offside. They probably have an angle that shows it not to be so clear since they didn't overturn it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BB79
Looks on-side to me



Seems that both Tavares and Nylander are on-side when Tavares touches the puck in the zone. He doesn’t appear to touch it while Nylander is on the delayed offside.

Anyway, the 5-2 empty net goal with a 1:30 left is hardly relevant to the result of the game so I don’t think this is thread worthy. Definitely not as significant as the Makar offside debate. The refs reviewed it and determined it was on-side.

Clearly this isn’t anywhere close to egregious as the Duchene offside that basically created the coaches challenge. That was a clear offside that couldn’t be reviewed. This was called on-side after being reviewed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BayStBullies and banks
Good thing we've got the offside review to get the call right, no?

The NHL managed to make an offside rule ambiguous by throwing in what they consider possession. You can apparently maintain possession of the puck while not having it on your stick, but you can simultaneously still be onside in spite of the puck being in the zone early and you having "possession" as long as you're not actually touching the puck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BraveCanadian, dgeezus, tarheelhockey and 1 other person
93LEAFS said:
It's because it wasn't called on the ice, and it was very hard to tell when Tavares touched the puck again after letting it go at the blue-line. It's similar to this.

Click to expand...

This same thing happened to the Sabres in 2021, and of course the league screwed it up during the game which robbed the Sabres of a game tying goal, and then said "whoops we got it wrong" after the game. One of the many reasons why the whole idea of "gotta get it right" is bogus. They still manage to get it wrong even with all of the reviews, at the cost of slowing the game down, taking the fun out of scoring goals, and even leading to me hoping that the D clears it on close plays. Love having to root against my own team at random points of watching hockey.

scoutingtherefs.com

NHL Admits Error in Sabres’ Goal Overturned for Offside

The linesmen got it right. The NHL has admitted the Situation Room made a mistake in disallowing the Buffalo Sabres’ game-tying goal against the Rangers.
scoutingtherefs.com scoutingtherefs.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDaddyLurch
To me, it looks like Nylander tagged up in time from the original angle. Seems like a case where there was no point really going in depth with it, since the game was already over.
 
It looks like the leaf player touches the puck before the tag up, but it isn't clear.

The next time you can't tell definitively that the leaf player touches the puck, Nylander (or whomever the other leaf is) is tagged up.

So, I'd have to say this is a good call.
 
I can’t believe anyone would think this is Duchesne-level offside when it was onside.

This is the like the 4th post in 24 hours where an indignant poster points out a “situation” that only exists because of their lack of understanding of the NHL’s rules.
 
So after watching this decision and the Makar one linked above, I believe the NHL has begun to violate the delayed offside rule (83.3) in the way it’s administering these reviews.

For clarity, here is the relevant portion of the rule:
————————————————————————
83.3 Delayed Off-side — A situation where an attacking player (or players) has preceded the puck across the attacking blue line, but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its defending zone without any delay or contact with an attacking player, or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone.

If an off-side call is delayed, the Linesperson shall drop his arm to nullify the off-side violation and allow the play to continue if:
(i) all players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or
(ii) the defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone

If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesperson shall stop play for the off-side violation.
————————————————————————

My understanding of these review decisions is that the play is treated as a “delayed offside” for the fraction of a moment that the puck is pushed ahead, but not being actively touched. Under that interpretation, the off-side player (Nylander in this case) has a split second to tag-up before his teammate touches the puck again.

This interpretation is justified by taking only a fraction of one line of this rule in isolation: “If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck… the Linesperson shall stop play…”

And in the instructions clarifying what constitutes a “cleared zone”: “all players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line)…”

If those were the only two considerations, both the Makar and Tavares plays would be rightfully ruled on-side.

But this interpretation ignores the sum total of the rule, which clearly indicates that this sort of play ought to be called offside:
- First, in the actual definition of what constitutes a “delayed offside” in the first place: “A situation where an attacking player (or players) has preceded the puck across the attacking blue line, but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its defending zone…”
- Second, in the complete reading of the final paragraph: “If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck,”

If we are calling these pucks “loose”, which is the only way to justify the interpretations above, then the violation occurs in the mere act of “attempting to gain possession” of it by skating and reaching toward it — which both Makar and Tavares do as a continual motion throughout the sequence.

What we have here is the subtle re-writing of the offside standard according to what’s convenient for the league during replay review, rather than following the rulebook. It opens up a can of worms with respect to what a player can legally do to maintain control of the puck while in a state of offside. They either need to correct the rule to legalize this type of play, or they need to start calling this by the letter and spirit of the law.

Just another unintended, adverse consequence of offside review.
 
Not gonna lie, the NHL really messed up with whole thing about "possession" which turns it into a yet another judgement call. Hockey players in possession of the puck don't have their stick touching it 100% of the time so... I have no idea how they decide.

Nylander clearly felt he was offside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastOne2100 and BigDaddyLurch
Looks pretty offside to me.
1740419461598.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDaddyLurch and kingsholygrail
Lazlo Hollyfeld said:
Good thing we've got the offside review to get the call right, no?

The NHL managed to make an offside rule ambiguous by throwing in what they consider possession. You can apparently maintain possession of the puck while not having it on your stick, but you can simultaneously still be onside in spite of the puck being in the zone early and you having "possession" as long as you're not actually touching the puck.
Click to expand...
If a Football player tosses the ball upward into the air, would you say they possess the ball? Similar question for Basketball.

It's a stupid rule to go off possession and not the puck, but that was called by the rule.
 
BraveCanadian said:
Not gonna lie, the NHL really messed up with whole thing about "possession" which turns it into a yet another judgement call. Hockey players in possession of the puck don't have their stick touching it 100% of the time so... I have no idea how they decide.

Nylander clearly felt he was offside.
Click to expand...

“Possession” is defined by touch, “control” is more ambiguously defined as a general influence on the puck until it hits another player or the goal.

In both of these plays, the logic of calling no-offside is that the players are in control but not possession. According to a fragment of the rule quoted above, that means there is an opportunity for a delayed-offside in which the attacking team can tag up.

The problem is that the rule also very clearly states that the defending team must have an opportunity to control the puck and exit the zone, and that the offside team cannot continue to pursue possession. That part of the rule was clearly violated in both of these cases, nullifying the delayed offside.

The correct call in both cases was offside. I’m waiting for someone to point out another rule that makes me wrong about this, because it certainly looks like the league is operating outside of the rules on this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDaddyLurch and kingsholygrail
tarheelhockey said:
“Possession” is defined by touch, “control” is more ambiguously defined as a general influence on the puck until it hits another player or the goal.

In both of these plays, the logic of calling no-offside is that the players are in control but not possession. According to a fragment of the rule quoted above, that means there is an opportunity for a delayed-offside in which the attacking team can tag up.

The problem is that the rule also very clearly states that the defending team must have an opportunity to control the puck and exit the zone, and that the offside team cannot continue to gain possession. That part of the rule was clearly violated in both of these cases, nullifying the delayed offside.

The correct call in both cases was offside. I’m waiting for someone to point out another rule that makes me wrong about this, because it certainly looks like the league is operating outside of the rules on this topic.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't know why they went out of their way to introduce more ambiguity. Just call it offside and we're done. Rather than waiting several minutes last night for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom