OT: NHL decides not to tweak offsides rule

[GordonHowe]

Originally Posted by Glove Malfunction View Post
Honestly, I have a bigger problem with asking refs to review goaltender interference, because you're asking them to police themselves and reverse a call that they themselves made. human nature says that's not going to happen very often. So unless they are going to have these calls reviewed by someone removed from the game, like the Toronto war room, I'd just as soon get rid of the coach's review altogether.


I this to some friends that I was watching the game with last week pretty much word for word! Great minds!

the unbelievably ill-conceived "Coach's Challange"

Agree COMPLETELY!! Me thinks that we were separated at birth!

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I let you say it!

Gordon,

I would only add that referees do a thankless job pretty damn well, most of the time.
If they're all over the place, which can happen, that is human error.

The primary irritant here is arrogant league management that assumes it can regulate every last jot & tittle of the game.

Why?

Things went pretty well in years' past without the stupid "Coach's Challenge." What is the sudden obsession with getting it absolutey right, every time, all the time?

I see, again, the same trend you always see from the NHL *owners* and their puppet league "President," whomever that happens to be.

* CYA (No fighting = No legal liability)

* Expansion to ****ing Vegas. Jesus Christ. No Quebec. No Seattle. Effing Las Vegas!
And, again, let's keep AZ on life support. Why, exactly? Bettman's Folly. Just like the rest of his dumb ass "Sunshine Belt" expansion foolishness.

*I hate, hate, hate Gary Bettman.* Jesus ****. Oy!

 

[GloveSave1]

I hate the review, and hate that it is a coach challenge (should be left up to Toronto and not used as a Gotcha card), but all they had to do to save face and restrict it to actual goals that were impacted by the outsides is limited it to 5 seconds after puck enters the zone, otherwise there is no advantage.

Still hate the rule any which way. But that would make it somewhat tenable.

Exactly. It's always been pretty simple to me, it shouldn't be a strategic play where a coach catches a mistake and has the ability to score a win...

Toronto should instantly review every goal. That's something that a "best in the world" league should do.

It should be about getting it right, not being fortunate enough to get it right.

I understand there's a lot of money involved, and they don't want teams going home on the horrible calls we see all the time...but man, they've got a lot of work to do there. Haha

 

[disfigured]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The purpose of the rule is to force teams to move through the zones incrementally. It was never meant to be a foot fault like in tennis or bowling. Where in those two sports (and others), a minor infraction of the rule would give an advantage (however small). Even when close offsides calls are missed, the rule is still serving its purpose.

I've always hated the phrase "the spirit of the rule" since so many use it to circumvent or weaken the structure of a game, but this is where it applies.Do we go back and review game winning goals for championships and put asterisks in?

Hockey moves fast at the NHL level. There's the old story of a non-fan saying "I don't like the game because I don't know where the puck is", and the answer is "neither do the players". It's inherent in the game that these calls are going to be "missed". The review process only adds insult to injury. It's used as a momentum killer as much as a legitimate grievance.

The argument is that if the call had been made the goal wouldn't have happened. How existential of the league. Who's to say that the call being made wouldn't have prompted a line change and thus an ensuing goal? Or any one of an infinite amount of scenarios. We're getting into alternate reality time lines, a place the NHL should not be. Hockey and especially the NHL is one of the least static games played at this level. A shot that strikes a post denying a team a goal can result in a breakaway in the opposite direction. It's practically free-for-all other than a few rules. All of which if not examined at the micro level are serving their purpose.

My solution: Just make the blue line about 2 feet wide and have it be a neutral area. You can enter it preceding the puck but will be offsides once you enter the white. That way only the most egregious offsides can be called, and it gives skilled (and unskilled) players an area to handle passes. Just stacking the line or making a well timed poke-check won't break up a rush.

At that point you won't need a review because you'd have to be so offsides any linesman will get the call.

 

[ODAAT]

Such a silly rule. On a show down here Brian Burke was on discussing some of the past rule changes that were discussed but not implemented over the years and he mentioned that Bob Gainey a few years ago suggested a rule to increase scoring by submitting the idea that players should not be permitted to hit the ice to block shots which I thought was interesting.

This offside rule/challenge is a joke, this game is so systems based these days that I like the shot block idea being revisited.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/prime-time-sports/prime-time-sports-march-7-6pm-3/

 

[Bad Hat Harry]

Talk about being tone deaf.
I haven't heard one person say anything positive about the rule and how it is implemented.

 

[JRull86]

Great more coaches going to play "gotcha". That was not the way the rule was intended to be enforced, and the NHL misses the boat on fixing it. Shocking.

 

[BsEuphoria]

Disgraceful if you ask me. What a bunch of dinosaurs! This is the worst rule in hockey, an utter disgrace. I hope those teams that were against tweaking this rule get royally screwed in the playoffs.

So do I, it's the stupidest **** ever.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Why tweak something that works so well?

Teams should be able to challenge offside even when there is no goal so the clock can come back to that point and win valuable time when trying to come back...

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

I wonder what the majority of fans think of the offside coach's challenge?

I would have to believe they're against it (but hell I could be wrong on that). Fans opinion should carry weight in this debate, no?

 

[ksp1957]

It should definitely be changed. Maybe the rule change should be that the coach loses the timeout whether or not the offside is found. If you're going to waste the fans' time on getting the call right, it should cost you the timeout. Or, if the challenge is overturned, give the challenging team a 2 minute minor for delay of game

 

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

It should definitely be changed. Maybe the rule change should be that the coach loses the timeout whether or not the offside is found. If you're going to waste the fans' time on getting the call right, it should cost you the timeout. Or, if the challenge is overturned, give the challenging team a 2 minute minor for delay of game

Disappointing and then some that they chose to not do anything to correct the offside mess they created.

Did hear one change that was accepted was to not allow a time out to be called on an icing call. Allows the intent of the icing "no player changes allowed" to be enforced.

 

[GordonHowe]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The purpose of the rule is to force teams to move through the zones incrementally. It was never meant to be a foot fault like in tennis or bowling. Where in those two sports (and others), a minor infraction of the rule would give an advantage (however small). Even when close offsides calls are missed, the rule is still serving its purpose.

I've always hated the phrase "the spirit of the rule" since so many use it to circumvent or weaken the structure of a game, but this is where it applies.Do we go back and review game winning goals for championships and put asterisks in?

Hockey moves fast at the NHL level. There's the old story of a non-fan saying "I don't like the game because I don't know where the puck is", and the answer is "neither do the players". It's inherent in the game that these calls are going to be "missed". The review process only adds insult to injury. It's used as a momentum killer as much as a legitimate grievance.

The argument is that if the call had been made the goal wouldn't have happened. How existential of the league. Who's to say that the call being made wouldn't have prompted a line change and thus an ensuing goal? Or any one of an infinite amount of scenarios. We're getting into alternate reality time lines, a place the NHL should not be. Hockey and especially the NHL is one of the least static games played at this level. A shot that strikes a post denying a team a goal can result in a breakaway in the opposite direction. It's practically free-for-all other than a few rules. All of which if not examined at the micro level are serving their purpose.

My solution: Just make the blue line about 2 feet wide and have it be a neutral area. You can enter it preceding the puck but will be offsides once you enter the white. That way only the most egregious offsides can be called, and it gives skilled (and unskilled) players an area to handle passes. Just stacking the line or making a well timed poke-check won't break up a rush.

At that point you won't need a review because you'd have to be so offsides any linesman will get the call.

Fine post.

 

[GordonHowe]

...

I wonder what the majority of fans think of the offside coach's challenge?

I would have to believe they're against it (but hell I could be wrong on that). Fans opinion should carry weight in this debate, no?

As another poster mentioned, not a single fan I have encountered -- verbally, by email, HF, or the media writ large -- has voiced support for "the Coach's Challenge." Literally, EVERY FAN (save perhaps Jean Jacket) and many hockey people detest this game killing foolishess.

So, again, the question: Why does the league insist the sky is blue when everyone knows it's gray? Arrogance and stupidity.

Endless, unnecessary and beyond lame video review belongs, comfortably, to the NFL.

It has no place whatever in the NHL.

Except in the mind of Gary Bettman, who has likely never skated a day in his life.

 

[Number8]

Talk about being tone deaf.
I haven't heard one person say anything positive about the rule and how it is implemented.

If the NHL were remotely in touch with their customers (fans) they'd make an effort to do some market research or focus groups. I'm with you -- the vast majority of people I read and talk to about hockey think the current offside review rule in its present implementation is bad. Ask the question of your fans NHL-- you'll get your answer.

I'm not suggesting that fans suddenly be the rule making arbiter by the way. It's just that anyone with a remote pulse on fan reaction will know most don't just dislike this rule...... they really dislike this rule.

I've yet to see anyone in NHL clearly articulate what it's supposed to do and how that improves the game. Mistakes happen in games --- players, coaches, refs, and linesmen.

It's a new rule and it doesn't work and does NOT improve the game IMO. Not sure I see harm with admitting that. Cut your losses NHL.

 

[Number8]

Just put up a very simple poll on Main Boards.

Do you like current offsides challenge rule as currently implemented. Yes or No.

Not that NHL cares ......... just figured I'd give them an opportunity to listen to their customers.

 

[Spanky185]

Reminds me of when MLB expanded replay and for the first few weeks calls were being overturned because the ball wasn't in the pocket or the "neighborhood play" at second.

MLB fixed that pretty fast though

 

[Jdavidev]

Gordon,

I would only add that referees do a thankless job pretty damn well, most of the time.
If they're all over the place, which can happen, that is human error.

The primary irritant here is arrogant league management that assumes it can regulate every last jot & tittle of the game.

Why?

Things went pretty well in years' past without the stupid "Coach's Challenge." What is the sudden obsession with getting it absolutey right, every time, all the time?

I see, again, the same trend you always see from the NHL *owners* and their puppet league "President," whomever that happens to be.

* CYA (No fighting = No legal liability)

* Expansion to ****ing Vegas. Jesus Christ. No Quebec. No Seattle. Effing Las Vegas!
And, again, let's keep AZ on life support. Why, exactly? Bettman's Folly. Just like the rest of his dumb ass "Sunshine Belt" expansion foolishness.

*I hate, hate, hate Gary Bettman.* Jesus ****. Oy!

In a league that allows a ridiculously loose player substitution, very loose icing calls, they want to take away goals on a skate off the ice by half inch 25 seconds before a goal is scored?

Ridiculous!

 

[Lobster57]

I hate the challenge in general, it seems so arbitrary to have picked offsides and goalie interference as the only things that can be challenged, why not the puck over the glass rule or literally any other call that can be made? But if they're committed to keeping it, there needs to be a limit on how far back the offside can be, something like 5 or 10 seconds. And there needs to be a limit on how long the officials can look at it, probably 30 seconds. If you can't make a decision in that time it's obviously inconclusive.

I have a hypothetical scenario (or two) that i've wondered about since the challenge thing started:

1 - The Jets bring the puck into the Bruins zone, Blake Wheeler is (surprise!!) offsides, but it is initially missed. B's get the puck, clear the zone, but Hayes (surprise!!) turns it over, Jets re-enter the zone (onside) and score. Can Butch challenge?

2 - Jets are offside entering the B's zone, not called, Pasta gets the puck, goes up ice and scores. Can Jets challenge due to the fact the play should have been whistled dead when they were offside?