Zegras Does It Again

[JKG33]

I agree. The only way to ensure that is review all scoring plays and penalties.

I'd be fine with officials calling penalties and such from a TV truck/office and radioing to an on ice official

 

[ff8]

I'd be fine with officials calling penalties and such from a TV truck/office and radioing to an on ice official

That would make sense. Doubt they ever do it but maybe it would put an end to all of us bitching about calls on here lol

 

[JKG33]

I’d rather officials just care about the actual spirit of the rule and allow more game flow and goals.

It’s a fundamental rule to build structure into the game. The offsides itself does a great job of that without reviews.


When duchene gets another major offsides pass in the next 10 years I’ll feel bad for the team it happens to



There’s literally ref/linesman discretion all over the game already.

We don't need more of it. If you start calling offside subjectively, players will really start to cheat. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

You and I are gunna have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Chips]

I'd be fine with officials calling penalties and such from a TV truck/office and radioing to an on ice official

They’d still ignore tons of calls arbitrarily because nobody wants to see 20 powerplays, and fans would complain just as much lol

 

[ff8]

The lines are there for a reason...If you cant grasp that, I dont know what to tell you. It was a nice play, it just didnt count.

You’re deliberately missing my point but whatever, not worth any more of my time

 

[Sean Garrity]

I disagree. There is a blue line for a reason. You cant make a grey area for the linesman to determine otherwise. Thats a can of worms that would not be good to open.

See below. If you don't want grey areas you might as well review all penalties.

If you say yes he’ll ask “what about 1 foot?” Until he goads you into his bickering match about the need for absolute certainty in every call that gets made, down to the millimeter. They should review every scoring play. Take a few minutes, let everyone get their iPads out and look for a reason that a goal shouldn’t count. Hell review all penalties!

There is an easy solution to this, just don't be offside. You can't selectively choose to ignore offside because a pretty goal is scored

No one is saying that because it's a pretty goal. The statement that started this was that there should be some discretion and the way that it is often time implemented is not the spirit of why it began.

Your point is that you want plays that are offsides, where the offsides (to you) didn't really affect the play, to stand. I disagree with that.

Just confirming that you don't understand my point.

It’s called all of the time *to the best of the linesman’s ability, no matter how small. I explained why that’s useful in the post you quoted.

Emotional fans in the moment auto wanting it taken back, cuz they don’t want the other team to score, is a thing that will always exist. We don’t need to create fewer goals and more game delays micro analyzing and or taking back great plays because of something that almost never brings a real competitive advantage.


The Wild defense could have recovered here. They got outplayed.

Better go back and review every single play for every infraction in the book then. It would be stupid if you could review a play for hooking earlier on in the sequence, it's stupid that offsides can be challenged.

If Zegras shoots the puck immediately as he gains possession and scores and then it's called back for offside nobody would be talking about it, there would be no main board thread. It would just be another disallowed offside goal the kind that happens all the time. Just because this disallowed goal was more appealing doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards looking for a way to allow it

This has nothing to do with Zegras or the optics of the goal. It's simply that the original thought process was not to disallow goals like this and rather to disallow that one Duchene goal where he was 3 feet offsides and it lead to him going on a breakaway where he subsequently scored. Your example is a good example of the spirit of the challenge and why it was originally implemented.

 

[Chips]

We don't need more of it. If you start calling offside subjectively, players will really start to cheat. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

You and I are gunna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Literally never said to call offsides subjectively. I don’t see how you can’t grasp that


The linesman do everything in their power to call every offsides still. That wouldn’t change. Players will know the linesmen intend to do that, and the players would play the same as they do now as the linesman will continue to catch the vast majority and it’s a stupid strategy to try and plan to be offsides.

And we’d have less annoying momentum killing/shifting stoppages and more goals

 

[JKG33]

Literally never said to call offsides subjectively. I don’t see how you can’t grasp that


The linesman do everything in their power to call every offsides still. That wouldn’t change. Players will know the linesmen intend to do that, and the players would play the same as they do now as the linesman will continue to catch the vast majority and it’s a stupid strategy to try and plan to be offsides.

And we’d have less annoying momentum killing/shifting stoppages and more goals

That's literally what you're asking for without outright saying it. If the players know there's no more risk of a video challenge, they'll push the envelope further hoping the official misses it

 

[Chips]

See below. If you don't want grey areas you might as well review all penalties.





No one is saying that because it's a pretty goal. The statement that started this was that there should be some discretion and the way that it is often time implemented is not the spirit of why it began.



Just confirming that you don't understand my point.







This has nothing to do with Zegras or the optics of the goal. It's simply that the original thought process was not to disallow goals like this and rather to disallow that one Duchene goal where he was 3 feet offsides and it lead to him going on a breakaway where he subsequently scored.

I was so caught up in the replays I didn’t notice how long it took the Wild to challenge

Short of requiring challengeable goals be on the rush and or an in zone time limit, there’s more they can do to restrict challenges and allow for those extreme offsides to be called


Severe time limits to challenge, and equal time limits for Toronto to look and decide. If it’s a serious offside with a guy leading way in receiving a pass, you’ll see it right away. No time to micro analyze zoomed in 19 angle slo mo views


Or limit what views the coach has

 

[Sean Garrity]

I was so caught up in the replays I didn’t notice how long it took the Wild to challenge

Short of requiring challengeable goals be on the rush and or an in zone time limit, there’s more they can do to restrict challenges and allow for those extreme offsides to be called


Severe time limits to challenge, and equal time limits for Toronto to look and decide. If it’s a serious offside with a guy leading way in receiving a pass, you’ll see it right away. No time to micro analyze zoomed in 19 angle slo mo views

I didn't notice, but as long as it's within the pace of play I'm ok with it. Teams will always use gamesmanship and tactics to buy themselves some more time for multiple reasons.

 

[Puck Tiss]

You’re deliberately missing my point but whatever, not worth any more of my time

I get your point. I will use a metaphor. You get pulled over on the highway going 70 when the speed limit is 65. Its not that much over, but, you need a line somewhere. In this case it is the blue line

 

[BKarchitect]

So smooth. I’ve noticed the “old hockey fan yells at cloud“ crowd getting smaller and smaller every time he does something awesome. Progress.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

That's literally what you're asking for without outright saying it. If the players know there's no more risk of a video challenge, they'll push the envelope further hoping the official misses it

Just like linesmen are more likely to err on the side of calling a play offside rather than have it reviewed and everyone see they screwed up the call.

And how exactly do you push the envelope further? It's still a blueline and the refs still have eyes.

 

[Chips]

I didn't notice, but as long as it's within the pace of play I'm ok with it. Teams will always use gamesmanship and tactics to buy themselves some more time for multiple reasons.

I think they could tailor the options of views the coach has such that it would be really easy to spot a major offsides that he’d feel safe challenging, but would feel too risky challenging the slight offsides

 

[A Loyal Demidog]

Incoming terrible Dad joke:

Zebras 1 - Zegras 0

(sorry, I just had to)

 

[Chips]

That's literally what you're asking for without outright saying it. If the players know there's no more risk of a video challenge, they'll push the envelope further hoping the official misses it

It really isn’t, unless you’re using the wrong word.


Linesmen do a great job. The game is very fast and the players are following a lot of stuff at once. They will play the same, the linesman will call offsides the same, and the game will be fine like it was for decades before offsides reviews.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I get your point. I will use a metaphor. You get pulled over on the highway going 70 when the speed limit is 65. Its not that much over, but, you need a line somewhere. In this case it is the blue line

With that metaphor, what's happening in the NHL is they're reviewing it to see if you were going 65.0001 mph.

 

[Puck Tiss]

With that metaphor, what's happening in the NHL is they're reviewing it to see if you were going 65.0001 mph.

No they dont. If its inconclusive they go with the original call. Dont play that BS

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

No they dont. If its inconclusive they go with the original call. Dont play that BS

That's not BS. That's literally what they're doing. If they can see by video review that the guy is offside by a millimeter, they call the play offside.

 

[Chips]

No they dont. If its inconclusive they go with the original call. Dont play that BS

A 5mph difference is much more significant safety wise compared to the significance of that guy being an inch over way before a non rush goal.


Could also use police cameras micro analyzing how close/slightly beyond that white stop sign line you manage to stop. “OH OH, we see you ran the stop sign yesterday, we’ll mail your ticket”

 

[Puck Tiss]

That's not BS. That's literally what they're doing. If they can see by video review that the guy is offside by a millimeter, they call the play offside.

Do you feel the same about goals over the goal line?

A 5mph difference is much more significant safety wise compared to the significance of that guy being an inch over way before a non rush goal.


Could also use police cameras micro analyzing how close/slightly beyond that white stop sign line you manage to stop. “OH OH, we see you ran the stop sign yesterday, we’ll mail your ticket”

Ok Ponch

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Do you feel the same about goals over the goal line?


Ok Ponch

Do I feel the same about what? I don't understand your question. I was pointing out your analogy was flawed.

 

[Chips]

Do you feel the same about goals over the goal line?


Ok Ponch

Damn, I still got it

 

[Gliff]

It was offsides. It sucks but it was.

Unless they change the rule it is what it is.

 

[Puck Tiss]

Do I feel the same about what? I don't understand your question. I was pointing out your analogy was flawed.

If a player is slightly offside and score a goal, can the same be said for a puck almost crossing the goal line but not all count as a goal?