Time to get rid of offsides review

[Nikki Potnick]

Keep it, I like when they get the right call.

I've yet to hear a better solution for a replacement to the review.

 

[sting101]

Agree just get rid of it.

What are the linesmen doing if they just overrule what they did or they call off side when it's not and then it's too late to create the real time 2 on 1 or whatever they blew dead. You literally watch 1-2 min of zone possession sometimes knowing it doesn't matter.

NFL is at the leading edge of reviews and even they dont call off sides and instead of inches we're talking 60 ft away from the net.

Would much rather they use the review times to help call correct infractions and review all goals automatically to negate the idiot short handed after getting scored on scenario that exists today when challenging a goal review.

Between LTIR and the way the refs are empowered the NHL is a troll league that can be manipulated and the commissioner is ok with it....

Figure it out idiots

 

[tarheelhockey]

Good celebration shouldn't make a good goal. The NHL as mere entertainment can do what it wants, but hockey as a sport should emphasize getting it right.

But the NHL is entertainment.

Hockey as a sport doesn’t do reviews. Just the NHL. Which is the one place they are least needed.

 

[SEALBound]

Well, hooking, tripping, roughing, high sticking….either is or isn’t, correct? Do we need to review those as well because those lead to power plays.

No because...

*We do have reviews for double minor high sticking and penalties that could be majors though for that exact reason - the call should be correct.

Hooking, tripping, and roughing are all judgement calls.

This.

It’s funny how posts like yours show that some people can only see things in black and white. You’re missing the crucial nuances of the discussion, which makes your adamant aggressive nature kind of funny.

Your problem is - offsides is a VERY black-and-white rule, though. There is no "well...it was close" aspect to it. It is or it isn't. There is a VERY defined rule for it and it's not hard to check if there is uncertainty.

The game has plenty of these rules as well. The puck MUST completely cross the goal line for it to be a goal. That is a rule that is black and white and everyone plays to that exact rule. If in OT, the puck goes over the line 90% of the way but there's still clearly some puck on the goal line - does it count? If the call if a goal, would you want it reviewed? And if the ref says "well it was most of the way there" and said no review, how would you feel?

We bitch and moan about the rulebook being called yet every once and awhile people get sour grapes because their team didn't get the benefit of cheating. That's all this ever amounts to. There are no second or third directions to these discussions.

 

[nturn06]

Enough time for the Sabres to salute the fans, and get to the locker room. The Oilers were also off the ice. A good number of fans had also left by the time it was announced.

There has to be a better way to do it.

Unless someone timed it exactly, this means nothing. Did they actually start reviewing it before or after the Sabres left the ice?

At the end of the day, any better way means that refs would not get the correct call.

 

[tucker3434]

If the offside isn’t so obvious that it can be overturned before the guys leave the ice, then just let it go. Going frame by frame is dumb. That level of human error is fine from the officials.

 

[TT1]

the review is fine but i think all sports should have an allowable margin of error for offsides, disallowing goals for being offside by 1mm is just silly (mainly soccer), it just has to be defined well enough

 

[JianYang]

It's funny when I look at old clips now from the 80s or 90s and even playoff ot goals from the 2000s, I'm conditioned to look for offsides now, and it's amazing how many potentially offside goals you can find.

We just didn't bat an eye back then to potential micro offsides.

This review rule has literally changed the way we watch the game.

 

[MS]

There should be a time limit on how long the league has after a goal to initiate a review and there has to be a time limit on how long that review can last. Enough of the lengthy reviews over a small fraction of an inch decision.

Also, there has to be some kind of provision that negates an offside if the possession lasts long enough. 30 seconds in the zone after a chincy offside should be enough to overrule the initial zone entry and make it a good goal. Defense had time to regroup and recover.

My two thoughts on this are :

1) If the opposing team touches the puck, like on a delayed penalty, the review process ends. You had a chance to clear.

2) If the puck goes behind the goal line, the review process ends.

I think everyone wants off-side plays that lead directly to a goal to be called correctly, and I also think that pretty much everyone gets really annoyed by these waived-off goals from something that happened 15 or 25 or 40 seconds later.

Like, we review if someone gloved or high-sticked the puck directly into the net. We don't review to see if there was a hand pass or high stick in the offensive zone 30 seconds earlier.

 

[TGWL]

What does this even mean?

Why is did Tuch "...place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip or fall..." a judgement call?

And did Tuch's "...skates completely cross the blue line dividing their offensive zone from the neutral zone before the puck completely crosses the same line..." not a judgement call.

Each tells the official what the rule is and asks him to judge whether or not it was violated?.

Because one is the ref acknowledging or missing a penalty taking place and the other is a stoppage in play. They're not the same.

 

[Ulysses31]

save it for PO only IMO

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

There's the false premise that the offside review is about "getting calls right."

When it really only increases the potential to get a call correct under a specific set of circumstances. Because it doesn't rely on high speed cameras, involves parallax angles, and includes the extended vertical plane of the blueline as potentially being onside, it still often involves a judgment call.

On top of those factors offside is only reviewed when a goal is scored. For example it is not reviewed when a defensive player commits a penalty on what is potentially an offside play. why not? A team getting a power play on an offside play isn't correct.

The idea behind the rule is you can't be in the zone well before the puck because it creates an obvious advantage. If the call is so close you have to review it for 5 minutes going frame by frame of blurry video, there is no real advantage.

The negative impact on the game is not worth the illusion it gets calls right.

 

[Oilslick941611]

offsides that don't affect the play ( toe cap over the line type) if they are missed live should not be reviewed. Ones where the player is like a 2 feet over the line and has a clear advantage should be called and reviewed.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

offsides that don't affect the play ( toe cap over the line type) if they are missed live should not be reviewed. Ones where the player is like a 2 feet over the line and has a clear advantage should be called and reviewed.

So.. we should have some arbitrary line after the blue line that's the real offside line?

 

[JianYang]

I don't have a great solution for this. It wasn't never a topic of discussion until that linesman completely botched the Duchene play. He literally changed the game with that moment of incompetence.

It reminds me of the toe in the crease rule where you immediately stop yourself to think about whether a toenail may cause a goal to get called back. It sucked.

It took a questionable cup winning goal to change that rule, but it's going to be even harder to take this rule out.

 

[SEALBound]

There's the false premise that the offside review is about "getting calls right."

When it really only increases the potential to get a call correct under a specific set of circumstances. Because it doesn't rely on high speed cameras, involves parallax angles, and includes the extended vertical plane of the blueline as potentially being onside, it still often involves a judgment call.

On top of those factors offside is only reviewed when a goal is scored. For example it is not reviewed when a defensive player commits a penalty on what is potentially an offside play. why not? A team getting a power play on an offside play isn't correct.

The idea behind the rule is you can't be in the zone well before the puck because it creates an obvious advantage. If the call is so close you have to review it for 5 minutes going frame by frame of blurry video, there is no real advantage.

The negative impact on the game is not worth the illusion it gets calls right.

What's the "negative impact on the game" though? Please say, "Because I, as a fan, had to wait 5 minutes!!!"

There's nothing more negative to the game than a goal counting when they shouldn't have. Nothing.

If you want to expand the scope of what is reviewable, that's fine. As is, the scope of what is reviewable is incredibly small compared to what it could be. Want to add an easy one? Pucks over the glass. That would be an easy 30-second review to get the call right.

 

[ijuka]

I don't have a great solution for this. It wasn't never a topic of discussion until that linesman completely botched the Duchene play. He literally changed the game with that moment of incompetence.

It reminds me of the toe in the crease rule where you immediately stop yourself to think about whether a toenail may cause a goal to get called back. It sucked.

It took a questionable cup winning goal to change that rule, but it's going to be even harder to take this rule out.

The Duchene play is still not an offside, though.

NHL rulebook 23-24:

If a player legally carries, passes or plays the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

What's the "negative impact on the game" though? Please say, "Because I, as a fan, had to wait 5 minutes!!!"

There's nothing more negative to the game than a goal counting when they shouldn't have. Nothing.

If you want to expand the scope of what is reviewable, that's fine. As is, the scope of what is reviewable is incredibly small compared to what it could be. Want to add an easy one? Pucks over the glass. That would be an easy 30-second review to get the call right.

Yes. Completely stopping the game for something that most often gives the team no advantage that led to the goal. Hockey is entertainment, not a a science experiment.

The over the glass call would not be easy to get right either. Again it involves various camera angles, blurry frames as people try and analyze if the blurred image of the puck touched the blurred image of a stick.

Like I said it's a false premise that these reviews get calls right.

 

[BayStBullies]

I feel like they need to be looser on offsides, at least have a time limit on review. Even something like if the play went on for more than 10 seconds, it counts.

Something I would like to see is getting tighter on line changes, though. Right now it is a discretion call by the officials and we can all agree they're f***ing brutal. Have a box drawn on the ice, if the leaving player isn't in it, you can't be on the ice. Keep the rest of the rules around it the same, where that guy still needs to get off quickly.

 

[MS]

offsides that don't affect the play ( toe cap over the line type) if they are missed live should not be reviewed. Ones where the player is like a 2 feet over the line and has a clear advantage should be called and reviewed.

This sounds nice in theory but all you're doing is creating a grey area that will be impossible to fairly police in reality.

 

[SEALBound]

Yes. Completely stopping the game for something that most often gives the team no advantage that led to the goal. Hockey is entertainment, not a a science experiment.

The over the glass call would not be easy to get right either. Again it involves various camera angles, blurry frames as people try and analyze if the blurred image of the puck touched the blurred image of a stick.

Like I said it's a false premise that these reviews get calls right.

You saying that doesn't make it true.

The over the glass would be incredibly easy. They already have all of the angles at their finger tips. The VAST majority of the calls in question would be 30 seconds, at most. That's IF you don't just send it to Toronto automatically. And 99% of the footage is not "blurry", especially the footage the refs have access to. What you just said there is complete and utter non-sense.

It is entertainment but still must exist on a level playing field. Arbitrarily determining which rules will be enforced is the single most destructive thing that could happen to the game, especially when the mechanism to avoid it are well within reach.

The number of times this happens is so incredibly low, the overall impact in minuscule. Trying to justify "well the pause in play is more of a negative impact than a goal that shouldn't be allowed" is absolutely bonkers.

Again, this is nothing more than "my team wasn't allowed to cheat to win, therefore I am mad and want rules change to help my team cheat in the future". Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[JianYang]

The Duchene play is still not an offside, though.

NHL rulebook 23-24:

Who is passing the puck back though? I watched it again, and an avs player flicked the puck to the neutral zone, and the preds player couldn't handle it.

Seems like the preds player never had possession to make a play in the first place.

Is that the explanation that the nhl gave? I say that there was no possession because if it was a delayed penalty, that touch would not have stopped play.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You saying that doesn't make it true.

The over the glass would be incredibly easy. They already have all of the angles at their finger tips. The VAST majority of the calls in question would be 30 seconds, at most. That's IF you don't just send it to Toronto automatically. And 99% of the footage is not "blurry", especially the footage the refs have access to. What you just said there is complete and utter non-sense.

It is entertainment but still must exist on a level playing field. Arbitrarily determining which rules will be enforced is the single most destructive thing that could happen to the game, especially when the mechanism to avoid it are well within reach.

The number of times this happens is so incredibly low, the overall impact in minuscule. Trying to justify "well the pause in play is more of a negative impact than a goal that shouldn't be allowed" is absolutely bonkers.

Again, this is nothing more than "my team wasn't allowed to cheat to win, therefore I am mad and want rules change to help my team cheat in the future". Nothing more, nothing less.

You saying that doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand how photographic angles work, frame rates or any of the technological limitations that still make it a judgment call in many situations. The NHL still can't get offside review correct 100% of the time WITH review because there's still judgment involved.

And I hate to break it to you, but the rules are already arbitrarily enforced.

My team wasn't involved in any offside play recently but if you need to dismiss people refuting your weak argument with excuses like that, knock yourself out.

 

[Devil Dancer]

This is exactly why we do need a basic form of offside review.

Under my proposed rule, the officials skate over to the box and look at the play once in real speed from each angle available in the arena. They then make a ruling. If it's inconclusive, the goal stands.

Problem solved. You no longer get a total joke like the pictured 'goal,' and you no longer waste everyone's time by reviewing goals like the one in the OP for ten minutes and then going 'well, it looks like he was about three electrons offside, so therefore, no goal.'

No, we don't. The reason everyone remembers this play is because it was a massive outlier. That kind of thing almost never happened.

The review is awful.

 

[11Messier]

I can't believe the amount of people that are okay with not getting it right. I guess until it affects your team in a big way it's okay to see it that way. My problem with offside review is that you need to have gone to university for 8 years to understand what offside even is. How is the casual fan supposed to understand all this possession crap. Take all that nonsense out and make it black or white. You got 30 seconds to review it and if it isn't obvious enough to figure out, then what ever the ref determined live, stands.