NHL Talk Miscellaneous NHL Discussion CIII: 2024 Stanley Cup Playoffs for Thee

[Strawberry Fields]

Thats not just controversial, its criminal.

Please save your charges for more deserving criminals.

 

[kudymen]

Corey Perry, Ken Holland, Evander Kane, Tkachuk.....................
But then again Bob, Stolarz, Knoblauch, McDavid.

There is no right way for me to end this.

 

[Random Forest]

The reason I have zero problem with the offside call is that the NHL already changed the rules to give marginal instances deference to the attacking team.

Under the current rules, for it to actually be offside, even “by a millimeter”, you need to be well ahead of the puck. If it’s close at all, that means the player is already well ahead of the puck.

I hated when a player straddled the line but got called offside because his skate was in the air. That’s not the case anymore. This is a player whose entire body is fully ahead of the puck. That should be called offside. We already got rid of offside when it’s marginal. Sure, it’s literally a “close call”, but this is not a marginal instance of offside. It’s egregiously offside, and we’re only debating it because they’ve given the attacking team plenty of lenience already such that egregious instances are now “close calls”.

 

[GKJ]

I don’t know why it can’t just be the player’s job to make sure he’s onside.

 

[Cody Webster]

Why is it that when the puck is already in the zone and it's on the blue line it is still considered in the zone, but when the puck hasn't entered the zone and it's on the blue line, it isn't in the zone. Make it the same for both

 

[Random Forest]

Why is it that when the puck is already in the zone and it's on the blue line it is still considered in the zone, but when the puck hasn't entered the zone and it's on the blue line, it isn't in the zone. Make it the same for both

I think the logic is the same for both. The puck has to fully cross the outer edge to establish a change of zone. It’s intended to provide continuity with the zone that the puck is currently in. When it’s in the neutral zone, it has to fully exit the neutral zone before it’s in the offensive zone, and when it’s in the offensive zone, it has to fully exit the offensive zone before it’s in the neutral zone.

 

[Cody Webster]

I think the logic is the same for both. The puck has to fully cross the outer edge to establish a change of zone. It’s intended to provide continuity with the zone that the puck is currently in. When it’s in the neutral zone, it has to fully exit the neutral zone before it’s in the offensive zone, and when it’s in the offensive zone, it has to fully exit the offensive zone before it’s in the neutral zone.

I get what you're saying, but why not just make the beginning of the blue line coming from the neutral zone the offensive zone? Once it touches the blue line, it's the offensive zone. That would solve problems like these

 

[Random Forest]

I get what you're saying, but why not just make the beginning of the blue line coming from the neutral zone the offensive zone? Once it touches the blue line, it's the offensive zone. That would solve problems like these

I don’t think it would though. You’re just going to have the same issue but backed up a couple frames so that you’re looking at when the front edge of the puck crosses the leading edge of the blue line on entry. There is no solution where you’re not dissecting the frame-by-frame view unless you get rid of video review altogether in these situations.

The reason I like the current approach is that it basically allows players to enter the zone early, as long as they don’t fully break the plane. That means for it to be offside, 100% of his body has to be ahead of the puck. If video review rules it offside, it’s only because he was egregiously ahead of the puck. I think that’s the best option because you’re only calling things back when the player is 100% in the zone before the puck, which captures the spirit of the offside concept as best you can while letting it go otherwise.

 

[Cody Webster]

I don’t think it would though. You’re just going to have the same issue but backed up a couple frames so that you’re looking at when the front edge of the puck crosses the leading edge of the blue line on entry. There is no solution where you’re not dissecting the frame-by-frame view unless you get rid of video review altogether in these situations.

The reason I like the current approach is that it basically allows players to enter the zone early, as long as they don’t fully break the plane. That means for it to be offside, 100% of his body has to be ahead of the puck. If video review rules it offside, it’s only because he was egregiously ahead of the puck. I think that’s the best option because you’re only calling things back when the player is 100% in the zone before the puck, which captures the spirit of the offside concept as best you can while letting it go otherwise.

You could still allow the player to enter the zone early as long as they don't fully break the front plane. I think it would cut down on more of these off by millimeters calls. Last night it would have been onside and it wouldn't have been close.

 

[Random Forest]

You could still allow the player to enter the zone early as long as they don't fully break the front plane. I think it would cut down on more of these off by millimeters calls. Last night it would have been onside and it wouldn't have been close.

But I don’t think yesterday’s should have been onside! He was 100% ahead of the puck when entering the zone. That’s egregious. What is the point of offside if you’re letting that go? My point is that he was given plenty of leniency by the existing rules. If you find yourself in a “close call” like that, it’s only because you were ahead of the puck and used up every bit of leniency that the rule affords. If you’re allowing plays like that to go, then I’m not sure why we have offside at all at that point.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

 

[Beef Invictus]

Nurse sucks

 

[Beef Invictus]

The reason I have zero problem with the offside call is that the NHL already changed the rules to give marginal instances deference to the attacking team.

Under the current rules, for it to actually be offside, even “by a millimeter”, you need to be well ahead of the puck. If it’s close at all, that means the player is already well ahead of the puck.

I hated when a player straddled the line but got called offside because his skate was in the air. That’s not the case anymore. This is a player whose entire body is fully ahead of the puck. That should be called offside. We already got rid of offside when it’s marginal. Sure, it’s literally a “close call”, but this is not a marginal instance of offside. It’s egregiously offside, and we’re only debating it because they’ve given the attacking team plenty of lenience already such that egregious instances are now “close calls”.

View attachment 885647

The accuracy rate of linesmen is pretty much through the roof. It's a coin toss in this situation that they see it and blow it dead before we even have to talk about it

 

[Beef Invictus]

I think the logic is the same for both. The puck has to fully cross the outer edge to establish a change of zone. It’s intended to provide continuity with the zone that the puck is currently in. When it’s in the neutral zone, it has to fully exit the neutral zone before it’s in the offensive zone, and when it’s in the offensive zone, it has to fully exit the offensive zone before it’s in the neutral zone.

This is correct and it's also way easier for officials to spot when it exits into white ice rather than when it exits from white to blue, so there's practicality in play

 

[TCTC]

Nurse sucks

You think?

 

[Beef Invictus]

You think?

I KNOW

 

[GKJ]

When Cutter was traded, they said everyone was checking in to make sure this wasn’t happening to them. I wonder when this really happened.

 

[FLYguy3911]

I could be talked into something around 12 and pick swaps. Would have to be on the clock though.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

 

[Magua]

I could be talked into something around 12 and pick swaps. Would have to be on the clock though.

Really? I’m surprised. My read on him is he’s a well rounded middle 6 type, minus maybe the feet, but I’m pretty darn skeptical he has great upside or moves the needle for this team. It would be very status quo with their talent assembly.

 

[Random Forest]

Pretty tough to say for sure whether I’d prefer McGroarty over #12 without knowing who’s available, but I’m not really opposed.

If the board falls poorly and we’re looking at Yakemchuk, Eiserman, or Sennecke with that pick, I probably take McGroarty.

Helenius/Catton are tougher calls.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Really? I’m surprised. My read on him is he’s a well rounded middle 6 type, minus maybe the feet, but I’m pretty darn skeptical he has great upside or moves the needle for this team. It would be very status quo with their talent assembly.

Fwiw I thought he was much better than Gauthier in his draft year lol. The skating will be the holdup for most teams but I think he has the small area skill to make up for it. Lazy comp but he kinda reminded me of diet Tkachuk in his draft year.

As I said I would have to see what the board looked like on the clock to pass on a prospect two years younger but I can definitely see a scenario where he’s the best long term bet of the options, especially if you are looking to add a top six caliber forward. Other than Catton, I’m not too excited by the possible forwards on the board at 12.

And obviously I’d like a pick swap on top of it.

 

[Sombastate]

He's one of Cutter's best friends, isn't he? I don't see a world where he plays in Philly.

If my best friend wanted out of a previous job, their entire clientele, local media, etc completely dragged him, I'd be disinterested in going there.

Obviously NHL is different than other jobs, but I think the point at least kinda stands

 

[FLYguy3911]

He's one of Cutter's best friends, isn't he? I don't see a world where he plays in Philly.

If my best friend wanted out of a previous job, their entire clientele, local media, etc completely dragged him, I'd be disinterested in going there.

Obviously NHL is different than other jobs, but I think the point at least kinda stands

Don’t know if they are best friends but they played on the same USA teams. USNTDP, u18s, u20s.

 

[Cody Webster]

This is correct and it's also way easier for officials to spot when it exits into white ice rather than when it exits from white to blue, so there's practicality in play

That wouldn't matter if you made the zone start at the where it currently ends now