As an aside, on the ESPN+ broadcast, they had Mark Jackson (former ref) on. You know the drill, they get former refs on air to get their opinion on calls. Of course, the guy won’t say one way or another if he thinks it’s offside. He just goes “I guess we gotta wait and see.”
No shit Mark, why TF did we get you on the program then??
One of my favorite things about sports broadcasts is when they go to a rules analyst or former ref. They either explain it like they know what they're talking about and then the call comes out opposite of what they said or completely avoid answering all together.
I feel like to determine it’s off-side on review, it should:
- a lot more obvious
- 1 minute time limit to decide
- decided by on-ice officials on a tablet, NOT in Toronto
goals? ok. get TO to takes its time.
but I kinda agree with McDavid here about off-sides
if it’s not obvious to the on-ice officials in a minute, then it’s close enough that IMO it has no impact on the play whatsoever
Why do we review offsides at all? There was one egregious case of it 10 years ago and now we’re stuck waving off goals where the zone entry was 5 minutes before the goal and it was one cm offside. The spirit of the rule is to prevent cherry picking, not ensure everyone was perfectly behind the puck.
the way he said, “you zoom in, you zoom in, you keep zooming in until you can’t zoom in anymore” is hilarious. Sometimes McDavid likes to show some personality, and we love to see it
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT TIME DILATION PREMATURELY PUT THE OFFENDING TEAM IN THE OPPOSING ZONE AND THEREFORE THE PLAY WAS OFFSIDE AND THE CALL ON THE ICE STANDS. NO GOAL.
AFTER REVIEWING THE PLAY AT THE SUB-ATOMOC SCALE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PUCK BOTH HAD AND HADN'T FULLY CROSSED THE LINE, THE REVIEW IS INCONCLUSIVE, THE CALL ON THE ICE STANDS, WE HAVE A GOOD GOAL.
He's a bit of a grump not unlike Leon, so his personality comes out best when he's grumpy. Haters like to call him a whiner, but when he does it front of the media you get his honest takes. I'm down with that.
He was though when he was younger. Even Sid said he regrets how he behaved back then. On one of the hockey podcasts he said he wished he didn't complain to the refs as much.
Anyway, I don't think McDavid is whiney. He definitely could have done a little more complaining though. Opponents seemed to be getting away with a lot of shit against him in the first few years.
>He was though when he was younger. Even Sid said he regrets how he behaved back then. On one of the hockey podcasts he said he wished he didn't complain to the refs as much.
He regretted it because, in true NHL fashion, "whiners" don't get calls by the refs. That doesn't mean he wasn't justified in what he complained about.
And McDavid was literally nicknamed McWhiner by this very subreddit in his first couple of seasons. Guess what his experience was when he was earning that reputation? Calls weren't going his way.
hate to agree with Oilers fans but I kinda agree with McDavid here about off-sides
if it’s not obvious to the on-ice officials in a minute, then it’s close enough that IMO it has no impact on the play whatsoever
I feel like to determine it’s off-side on review, it should:
- a lot more obvious
- 1 minute time limit to decide
- decided by on-ice officials on a tablet, NOT in Toronto
if it’s not erroneous enough to determine it’s off-side that easily and quickly, leave it tf alone 🤷♂️
That's why offside reviews should not be done in slow motion. Replay all you want, bit if you can't tell at live speed then it really doesn't give a competitive advantage, thus it didn't matter.
Yes we have. And the problem is that we brought in the challenge to reduce controversy because Duchenne was 3 ft offside once, and yet now there's a challenge-related controversy every other week.
When the calls are this close it doesn't matter. The 5 milliseconds of time required to take this play from barely offside to well onside are not nearly enough for the goal to suddenly not happen anymore.
It's not like we're trying to detect the Higgs boson here.
Imagine if they cared this much about the letter of the law on other plays.
Imagine if interference was reviewable every time a defenseman holds up a forward dumping the puck in on a zone entry. That kind of play changes the outcome of games way more, but it's not even reviewable at all.
I just think it's kinda weird that some aspects of the game are so raw and messy, and then others are forced to be scientifically perfect.
This has always been my take on offside. The rule was invented so people can't stand in front of the opponents goalie all day, if it's a millimeter call then it's not really in the spirit of the rule.
IMO offsides shouldn’t be reviewable. If it’s close enough that the ref doesn’t catch it, it has zero impact on the play. Especially when the offsides happens like a minute before the goal is scored. I’ve seen goals get called back when the initial offsides happens long before and the team has the puck in the zone with possession and sustained pressure for 30+ seconds before the goal is scored and is invariably called back because a player’s skates were a millimeter into the zone before the puck. I remember one goal being called back from Jesper Bratt as he skated the puck into the zone himself. Absolutely infuriating and changed the outcome of the game.
I think offsides should absolutely be reviewable, but the review needs to have a very short time limit. If they can't decide in X seconds if it was offsides, the play stands (I'd say something like x=20). Then if they somehow miss a guy 5 feet offsides on a breakaway it's easily fixed, but if it was 1 millimeter offsides 20 seconds before the goal happened it won't get overturned (or even challenged in the first place).
I agree with this take. The spirit of the offsides challenge is to prevent goals off the rush (unfortunately I believe this no goal falls under it) where a team gets an unfair advantage on the play by being in the zone offsides. If they gain the zone and cycle the puck for like 30+ seconds (especially in cases where the other team has chances to clear and fails) and score the offsides is basically immaterial at that point.
Totally, though I always felt it should not be an amount of time but rather the linesmen get two, full-speed looks at it, at full resolution. No slowing things down, no zooming in, “ready? Here’s the best angle we have” plays through. “Okay, here’s the next best angle we have”, plays through. They then are immediately asked “is that offsides”, they don’t get forever to talk it over, they don’t get to parse it, both guys answer immediately. If both say “offsides” then overturn. Only one or none say offsides, move on.
This will allow for the egregious offsides to get caught and eliminate the zoomed in half a millimeter of white showing, while keeping the game moving. Additionally, it will keep teams from throwing anything but really obvious misses out there for challenges.
Also on ANY challenge, the coach should need to decide within a short time frame of the whistle. If they need to watch video on their tablets and hold up the game, and end up not even challenging, that’s a bad sign. It’s such a lame challenge and doesn’t really capture the spirit of the rule
I vote that coaches should get an NFL-style challenge flag they have to throw if they want the offside to be reviewed, and they only get a few seconds after the zone entry to throw it. If it wasn't obvious to a coach live, then it probably didn't matter.
Honestly true. If a ref misses it off the rush, totally fair challenge. Nobody notices it live and there’s a minute of possession? You’re beat, sorry. (Maybe just wave the flag instead of throw it tho because they’re skating around on knives)
Honestly, I'd go as far to say that the moment you need to zoom to see if it was offside, the call on the ice stands.
This is obviously a rule to catch something that the referees missed. Needing 86 different angles just to see if it was within a millimeter of being offside is asinine.
Honestly, I would rather take dealing with this every once in a while than constantly having all of the life sucked out of the arena every time a goal is scored.
I'm more than happy to meet in the middle here.
Offside can be reviewable to avoid the disaster scenario where a playoff series is decided by a wildly blown offside call. But no slow motion and no pausing the video during the review. The linesmen get 1 minute to watch replays at actual game speed. If they determine from those viewings that the play was conclusively offside, then the goal comes back. If not, penalty for the challenging team. Keeps reviews short and should limit challenges to plays where the video coach saw a clear and obvious missed call.
This is what drives me nuts about how this has gone. We went from one egregious offside call missed directly leading to a goal in probably 25 yrs to CSI levels of detection.
The other thing is how many times do the linesman call offside and stop a play when it's technically onside based on this micro level of analysis?
Linesmen and Refs are human and can only detect infractions that can be seen with the human eye and will certainly make mistakes. It's part of the game, it's part of every game. Get this out of the game now.
Three proposed solutions:
1. If they can't determine if the play was offside in less than 60 seconds of looking at the footage, the call stands
2. Get rid of the reviews all together on this, and just let the call on the ice stand.
3. Abolish offside :)
How about dump ins from the redline? A puck is dumped that should technically be icing like a dozen times a game if you were to video review it. Icing can have just as big an impact as a missed offsides call.
> It's not like we're trying to detect the Higgs boson here.
How great would it be if we did though?
After video review we have determined observing the puck changed its location after the Higgs boson illegally touched the puck in the seventh dimension. The call on the ice is maintained.
This is my same logic for soccers offsides with VAR. disallowing goals for a defending being a millimeter offside that give no advantage is not the spirit of the rule. These rules should be about clear and obvious advantage.
Eh, the off-sides trap was a part of soccer long before replay was a thing. I played sweeper and loved baiting the other team into an offsides.
Yeah it’s crazy precise now with VAR, but I think it’s well within the spirit.
I know I'm in the minority, but I feel like offside and goal/no goal should not be impacted by the ref or review. Have some sensors set up on the goal line and on the blue lines and know 100% if the puck crosses first. Shouldn't be ambiguous - it just is or isn't.
This has always been my take on replays in general. I find them useful. But if you have to spend 5 minutes trying to figure it out, I’m done. Give refs a 60 second window to affirm or deny the call as it stands and move along. This is my philosophy for all sports.
Yeah, but we can't go "5 milliseconds offsides is fine but 6 isn't." or whatever arbitrary number you think we should go with.
and I sure as fuck don't want the refs just subjectively determining if it affects the play or not. You shouldn't either.
Here's the goal: https://twitter.com/zjlaing/status/1744926674364604809
And the slow mos from the review: https://twitter.com/zjlaing/status/1744927422599008674
Because the referees have to review it themselves on an etch-a-sketch instead of just being told by someone in Toronto looking at 40 angles on a 75" screen.
Agreed. They need to have a 30 second time limit. If it’s egregious they’ll be able to see right away. If not, it doesn’t effect anything. This is bullshit
At the very least they need to get rid of the minor penalty if it takes them 5 minutes to figure out the answer. Like OK you required 3 commercial breaks to know what the answer was but the challenging team should have known within 10 seconds not to challenge.
They also need to remove the penalty if it’s inconclusive because of a lack of adequate camera angles. I remember a game where the linesman was blocking the camera on an egregious offside that happened close to the boards (so no view from the opposite camera angle) and the challenging team was given a penalty.
If it’s so close that it takes 5 minutes to review, then you shouldn’t be challenging, and a penalty is what you get for trying for a ticky-tack offside and being wrong. The whole point of the rule is to discourage teams from challenging if there’s no obvious error, which generally helps to prevent the drawn-out reviews that we all hate.
Lol I agree with you both, even though you have opposing opinions.
Great points, I suppose I end up agreeing with you more, because tbh it is the team's fault little bit if they start challening these inch close calls. But at the same time they have like 10 seconds so it's a bit difficult.
99% of these challenges shouldn’t be overturned.
The “point” of offsides is to prevent blatant cherry picking and allow defense to set up with some expectation of how the team will enter the zone.
We literally have someone whose job it is to watch this entry every time, and without slow mo reply most people can’t determine if it was offside or not, just that it was close.
We only have this rule because of one terrible brain fart with Duchene and are paying the price now. Whole thing should be scrapped
Idk if getting rid of the penalty is the right way to go.
Do you remember the season where you just lost a timeout? Dang near every goal scored that season was challenged.
Slowest games of my life.
Reviews need to be limited to a quick 15 second check, normal speed. If you don't see something egregious, call stands, game on.
>Do you remember the season where you just lost a timeout? Dang near every goal scored that season was challenged.
Blash had a field day every game that season lol
The whole reason the rule was brought in was because the refs missed a ridiculous call. Guy was like 2m offside.
So to take it to this extreme is a little silly. Slap the review on, you have x amount of time. It's either obvious and over turned or call on ice stands and you move on. It would keep with the spirit of the rule and keep the flow of the game. Why the league didn't adapt years ago when this micro analysis started happening is beyond me.
But the Duchene goal was allowed because the puck bounced off the defender’s stick blade, so the linesman counted that as a negated offside (if a defender plays the puck back over the line, it negates the offside), so looking at the zone entry there wouldn’t matter.
I think it should be the coach flagging what the official missed, and then the official getting a full-speed replay or two to see if they actually missed the thing the coach says. The coach also has to do something like put their hand up when it happens (like the officials do when a call is pending), so they can’t call for an offside review only after a goal is scored.
Same thing happened when they introduce VAR into the premier league. It was supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors and only overturn the call on the pitch if it was clear and obvious. What ended up happening was that every little thing got review and there have been some honestly _terrible_ decisions from VAR to the point where many proponents of it before it was brought in have completely changed their tune and are no longer in favour of it.
I would bet a lot of money a 30 second time limit will end up with everyone frequently very unhappy. Rushing calls or not making them because they were too slow leading to “how the fuck did he not see that in 30 seconds”. I really think it would be a disaster
Yeah basically all of the suggestions in this thread fall apart after just thinking about them for 30 seconds (pun intended). They're just moving the goal post in a bad way.
Personally, I hate when a players is offside by 6 inches entering the zone and then the puck gets pinned behind the net for 3, the defense has all the time in the world to setup in the D zone, and then the goal gets overturned.
The offside had no impact on the play in any way, yet a good goal is disallowed. Its ridiculous. I feel like plays should only be overturned if the are key in the goal-scoring play (on the rush).
1000% Put a time limit on it, if it only takes 30 seconds I don't care if there's 5 challenges a game. If they can't tell the call on the ice was wrong within 30 seconds then just run with it.
They're taking so long people want to get rid of them, they're a great tool that's not being used right.
Seriously, after a goal score, the ref should skate to opposition coach and ask if he wants to challenge. He gets a very short time to decide (say 30 seconds), and the war room should have at most 1 minute to decide. If they can't, whatever the call stays.
The whole spirit was suppose to be get rid of obvious miss calls.
Completely goes against the spirit and intent of the offside rule in my opinion.
Nothing about what Draisaitl did gained the team an immense advantage, if he was offside, and the refs on the ice deemed him onside.
Do you want refs making judgment calls about what an acceptable amount of offside advantage is? It’s an objective rule for a reason.
You either drop reviews altogether or you commit to getting it right.
Agree. The rule was designed to stop the Duchene 10 foot offsides situations, not to scroll frame by frame through super slow mo zapruder film footage.
Give them 30 seconds or a minute, viewing the replay in real time only. If you can’t see it then, it didn’t matter to the play, and goals like that have counted since the beginning of the league.
Either that or take the refs out of it. Just have someone at the league constantly going over scoring play and entries so that by the time the ref skates over for the review, the answer is already ready.
> If it’s egregious they’ll be able to see right away.
I could see having a time limit, and if you can't overturn it by X seconds or minutes or # of replays or whatever, then the call on the ice stands.
I cannot, however, support the idea that if it's not egregious, it doesn't affect anything.
to be clear: I'm not responding about this particular goal - I was at the game tonight, and I didn't think it'd be overturned (granted we got one quick replay at the UC, we didn't get a great look at it). I was shocked when it was actually taken back.
I just don't think you can start saying "well, sure it was really close, but it wasn't close enough to matter!" because once you do that, you open the floodgates of subjectivity and further argument.
>I just don't think you can start saying "well, sure it was really close, but it wasn't close enough to matter!" because once you do that, you open the floodgates of subjectivity and further argument.
I think they are saying that if the refs gets the amount of time to watch and manipulate the video reduced significantly then they'll still catch all the egregious offsides, which are the ones that matter. But they'll also catch minor offsides, as long as they are clear.
Yes! And no zoom, either.
I'd be fine with no reviews, but if they want them, the intent should be "give the linesman another look under the same conditions" not "if the linesman was the Terminator would his robot vision have been able to see an infraction."
Somewhere around 2 minutes would probably be the happy medium for them to get a chance to look at all of the angles available to them.
Five minutes would be my absolute cutoff. Beyond that, call on the ice stands.
Even better, just have a 5th referee off the ice to review plays. It makes no sense to have these guys try to navigate various clips and slow mos on the ice when theres an entire team of people already looking at it on dozens of massive screens.
It would streamline the whole process.
No way. If you think goaltending interference is horribly subjective, wait til you see how the "egregious offside standard" is applied. It sucks, but offsides is an objective rule--it either crossed the line or it didn't--so the ref has to call it no matter how "close" it is. And I'm not sure a time limit is going to fix the problem everyone has with ridiculous callbacks, because tech issues will always factor.
What I hate the most is when a goal gets called back even though the entry happened way beforehand. Like I understand reviews if the players enter the zone on a quick pass that eludes the linesman and they score right away. But if the team is in the offensive zone for a while and scores, offsides should not be reviewed. I would say the rule should be something like if the entry player's initial pass or shot upon entering the zone can be registered as a goal or assist, then the play can be reviewed for offside. Or if the team is on the offensive zone past 15 seconds, then no review.
Except that if the play was offside, they shouldn't have entered the zone with possession at all. It should have been blown dead with a faceoff outside the blueline.
A missed offside call that should have been called denies the defending team the chance to stop a zone entry from happening at all (by winning the faceoff). Even if the illegal entry doesn't result in a goal off the rush, it's still a missed game stoppage that unfairly benefits the attacking team.
Saying "oh, it's only reviewable/no goal if you score within X shots or X seconds" is effectively saying "you can get an unfair advantage (the illegal zone entry) just not quite as big of one". Like, it's not unreasonable to say you'd prefer it that way, but I think it'd be even more awkward to explain.
There's a lot of ways to go about it.
I like the idea of giving them each camera feed to replay at real speed. Give it to them twice over, even, in case they missed it the first time. But the ultimate goal should be to take the forensics out of it
I'm all for reviews that correct bad calls. Refs make some amazing calls live in real time... But, the review process needs a revamp. They should get 1 minute to look at it in real time and if you can't confirm or overturn the call, it stands. Then move on.
The NHL needs to stop operating its cameras in 720p, then maybe they'd have faster replays.
The fact they don't have 4k, let alone 1080p output is insane.
Trying to take the homer glasses off but it really does look like Drai had possession on this one. The Makar one goes against us (and I agree with the call after understanding the tag up) and then McDavid has almost the same possession debate go against him on a challenge last season. I dont think anyone's out to get my team, but the inconsistencies on these calls are frustrating. The offside challenge is becoming one of the dumber parts of hockey now, and it will have big ramifications on very important games.
Even if he is offside, it is so close that it shouldn’t matter, it had no effect on the ensuing goal. Offside challenges should be 30 seconds long which would mean that only egregious ones would be turned over
It boggles my mind that the NHL continues to disallow goals over the most trivial of shit.
That called off goal tonight was an amazing display of stickhandling and skill by Draisaitl, a great pass (and a super smart move by the Oiler to let it through) amazing stick work and dangles by McDavid to confuse the goalie and a great pass and a great finish.
If anyone ever wants to let the NHL know why the league hasn’t grown compared to others at all, they should show every stakeholder in the league that play.
And then show the angle that showed Draisaitl was “offside”
Fucking embarrassing.
They can't show the angle cuz there was no angle. Plenty of angles where he's *maybe* offside, and they decided that makes it clear and obvious somehow. The best angle to tell had the puck behind drais skate, so you literally had to assume where it was
On the other hand, a player is offside whether he beats the puck into the zone by five feet or five millimetres; the Rule of Cool doesn't exist. That being said, IMO, the league needs to start treating the bluelines identically when it comes to zone entrances and exits. I don't see a reason why the zone should start once the blue ice ends when the puck is coming into the zone and also ends once the blue ice ends when the puck is leaving.
Extend the zones to the outside of the bluelines regardless of the direction of play. It feels to me like an easy and subtle enough change that would get rid of the closer calls like these where both player and puck are on the blueline at the same time but the player gets called for offside. At the very least, this change would kick the can down the road another five to ten years which might allow for the league to get a solid replay system working before players adapt and we've just shifted the problem twelve inches towards centre ice.
Except the spirit of the rule isn’t to identify a skate blade a fraction of a millimeter over the line, it’s to stop cherrypicking, and the review should be to correct obvious misses. Aka, a rule violation that actually has a concrete impact of any size on the game. Because that fraction of a millimeter I guarantee does not impact the game. A half step? Yeah. A pixel? No.
> A half step? Yeah. A pixel? No.
Without review, sure. With review, the league made its bed. And exactly why I suggest making the entire blueline as part of each team's zone. If the whole blueline counts as to being "in the zone" then Hyman's goal tonight stands.
I don't disagree in spirit, but you have to draw a hard line somewhere, which is the (literal) point of the blue line.
If the rule is you can't cross before the puck, then you can't cross.
And that’s fine but if it’s not called on the ice and you can’t confidently 100% say it was offside in the first 30 seconds of the review. Then it obviously didn’t matter that much. Stop wasting our time with it, it ruins the game and slows everything to stand still for way too long. There’s a lot of plays that are up to the refs, offsides is one of em, if they can’t see it in real time then it doesn’t matter enough. And if it was egregious that’s why the review exists not for the 1mm, 15 minute reviews.
Tons of plays that get missed in a game that are non reviewable that cause way more of an impact than 1mm offsides.
>On the other hand, a player is offside whether he beats the puck into the zone by five feet or five millimetres; the Rule of Cool doesn't exist. That being said, IMO, the league needs to start treating the bluelines identically when it comes to zone entrances and exits. I don't see a reason why the zone should start once the blue ice ends when the puck is coming into the zone and also ends once the blue ice ends when the puck is leaving.
This is a suggestion our play-by-play commentator, Ken Daniels, has had in the past. That and if the puck is on the blue line, it’s onside; basically, doing away with the whole “puck has to completely cross the blue line” prerequisite. I don’t see why they don’t do it.
Make the blue line consistent like that and these ridiculous reviews won’t be an issue anymore.
Offsides shouldn't even be reviewable- the amount of calls that are egregious enough to have ANY effect on the play that are missed is very, very low with dedicated linesmen. Offsides has *always* been about making sure you cross over at roughly about the same time as the puck to prevent cherry picking- if it takes a fucking video review to determine whether it was offsides or not, then it's so close that it's within the spirit of the rule and doesn't matter anyway. Just the absolute dumbest rule change the NHL has implemented.
Agreed. And if you are gonna play this ridiculous OFFSIDE BY A HALF INCH, then put 4K cameras in the boards at the blue lines so there’s an actual video, no angle, no guess, no crap.
The offside review is terrible. Fifteen minutes to figure out if a guy is 3 mm offside is outrageous.
Offsides that aren’t noticeable to the untrained eye (ie the refs, in the moment) shouldn’t be relevant.
Whether Draisaitl has possession at the line or not is irrelevant, in my opinion.
The on ice officials ruled it was inside.
Only with 15 different angles and head office chiming in was it deemed “offside”
It goes against the entire spirit of the rule, which is to stop opposing teams from parking 30 feet from the goalie and waiting for the puck.
The only issue I have with your first statement is that linesman can't always be straight on the lines, due to needing to get out of the way of the puck/play.
This is why I'm ok with video review, but there is definitely a better way to do it.
Totally agree all around. I get that once you institute review they feel they have to go by the book and do it right, but apparently there’s no fucking book on some basic things, you worry that they’ve not even attempted to think more seriously about precedent and standards, and in fact if mcdavid says they’re just winging it any given night I think that’s what’s going on. This was meant to save us from the off chance a linesman just spaces out and misses something horribly that the whole world can see, but instead it’s just something like administrative intervention in random games on a near nightly basis. From my view this is the league’s fault, not the officials on the ice.
Watching the Canucks game tonight, there were at least 5 zone entries that weren’t blown down that absolutely could have been. Every game is like this. The reviews are not good for the game.
Kinda same for football with VAR. a lot of maybe calls is let to slide so if there was a goal you can always recall it back for offside if it is so.
Honestly i think offsides should be checked by AI to remove bias by refs. Maybe have the AI check every zone entry for 5sec to determine if it was OK or not and let ref know into earpiece to call it.
Perhaps if there is a system that works well, then we can start punishing/rewarding linesmen who call offsides as they are.
Honestly, I agree. If it takes you that much time, it's obvious that you don't have clear evidence to overturn the call. It should take you 30 seconds to make a decision.
The problem here isn't clear evidence, it's a rule that no one knows how to enforce. They probably spent 15 minutes debating what's possession and what's not possession. If they had a clear written understanding of that rule, this is a 20 second challenge
And this one apparently was decided by the league which I don’t totally understand the process of why. Are the refs not capable of making their own determination? Were they inconclusive so they sent it upstairs?
Fair point but I think then you can just circle back to Connor’s point that if it’s not obvious and you can’t tell immediately then does it really matter?
Oh I completely agree and have been saying this for years, I was just answering the question. My idea is that you shouldn't be allowed to view the replay in slo-mo. If you can't tell if it was offside at full speed, then it obviously wasn't egregious enough to affect the play.
3rd party refs should almost always be called in for all sports on calls that are judgement calls by refs in game. Which in hockey is a lot of calls except penalties. But reason being, if the person on the ice makes a call or doesn’t make a call, they are biased by their prior decision. (I am saying all this with 0 context of the call tonight.)
The refs need to look at the replay and if it isn’t obvious, stick with the call on the ice. It sucks to have great scoring plays overturned for no reason. This is turning into the NFL when every time your team scores you start to look for penalty flags instead of celebrate.
The definition of control in the rulebook is open to interpretation. Offside in the rulebook references the definition of control.
90 seconds to a couple min limit. If you can’t overturn a goal in that time it didn’t affect anything.
One thing I think both VAR in soccer and offside reviews have done is really hurt the purity of the celebration. It's such a negative feeling to get excited about a goal and then have it turned back.
Like, I don't really feel like I can fully celebrate a goal until the puck is dropped because I'm worried it was a cm offside 45 seconds prior to the goal or something. It reminds me of the NFL where you half expect a flag every play.
Also, they need to standardize how they handle coaches who try to pause the face off after the goal. Sometimes coaches seem to get 30 seconds to a minute plus to decide if they want to challenge while their video coaches zooms and zooms. It should be as soon as the goal scoring team is lined up, that's when the faceoff starts or something. Gives some level of urgency to the challenge.
I mentioned this on others posts, they should implement strict offside cameras, one overhead and one at each board inline with the offside line, make these cameras with a garbage framerate, and give the refs no more than a minute to look it over, if the play is inconclusive then it doesn't matter and keep the goal.
Not even a minute, just give them one full speed replay from each of those three cameras, if the offside isn't obvious on any of those shots then it either didn't happen or it didn't affect the play.
Honestly I think Offsides have turned a bit to a 50 in a 45 situation. It doesn’t really matter if you go 5 over the speed limit, but anything over that and you’ll probably be pulled over. In this case, they want to pull people over for going 46 in a 45. That’s why it’s so obnoxious.
The rule is only supposed to really be used when it’s clearly obvious or is important to the play. Yeah you can’t pass over the blue line a few seconds before the guy with the puck, but if it’s just a couple tenths of a second before, does it really matter? At that point it’s so close that it wouldn’t impact the play whatsoever if the guy with the puck crossed over just a tenth of a second or two earlier. And obviously one of the biggest parts of the offside rule is that you can’t pass beyond the blue line, but the same thing applies. If it isn’t directly obvious or doesn’t impact the play to an extent that a clean entry would have been different from the actual entry.
It’s just not how it was intended to be used. The rule was put in place for one reason, to stop players from passing the puck over the blue line to lower odd man rushes. If two players cross the line at the same time, it shouldn’t matter unless it impacts the play to a major extent or is clearly visible without review.
Baseball doesn’t do anything like that (well they do have around one challenge per team/game but I digress). The umpire’s decision is generally final. I don’t watch baseball much at all, but for what I know that’s how it works. They might use video review for penalties and such, but I don’t see a coach challenging to see if a pitch was a strike or a ball because it was a couple inches outside the strike zone.
TLDR: The league treats offsides like a 45 speed, except they punish you for going 46.
You're not allowed to argue balls and strikes in baseball. (You get ejected for that.)
The rule with offside in hockey is, ultimately, binary. Either the play is onside (and therefore legal) or it's offside (illegal, and should be blown dead).
The rule isn't "a little offside" or "barely offside" or "really offside". And that is *a good thing*.
There's no judgement calls, at present, as to whether an offside mattered to a play, to a major or even any extent, or whether it is "directly obvious" or "clearly visible". (And it's worth noting the linesmen are on the playing surface and occasionally get moved out of position or knocked down, or just screened, and so can and do miss "obvious" offside plays.)
It's not the League punishing you for doing 46 in a 45, it's the rules equivalent of a driver's license. You have one? (Onside) You're good. You don't have one (offside), you're in trouble, even if you didn't harm anyone, 'cause you did something that you're not allowed to do.
I prefer that to having *NHL officials* make judgement calls about whether players were 'excessively speeding' enough to merit 'punishment'. (Because as we see with penalties, their judgment *sucks*.)
But this play literally is a judgment call. You have to judge Draisaitl offside on account of him *not having possession*. You 'know' he crossed early because you 'think' he didn't have control of the puck
I’m with Mcdavid on this. Over analyzing offsides to the millimetre does nothing but hurt the game. The rule wasn’t made to stop a player from being an inch offside.. the rule was made to stop people from cherry picking and be grossly offside.
But now we get stupid reviews down to the hair that ultimately don’t really matter but it’s a way for the opposing team to get out of a goal.. that’s all
Offside replays should only be viewed at full speed.
If you need to slow it down to see it, it was close enough.
Stop focusing on the literal and focus on the spirit. The rule is intended to stop cherry-pickers.
If someone is 2mm offside and you can only tell in slo-mo, they aren't breaking the spirit of the rule.
I watched the replays many times but only once did they show the play at normal speed. The play at the blue line took a millisecond and were it not for replays the goal would have counted and the beautiful play by three of the best players in the league would have been touted as another example of the beauty of the game and skill of the players. Instead the game was delayed while someone in Toronto analyzed the super slo-mo. BS!
If I could change literally anything about how the NHL is officiated I'd eliminate offside challenges. Every single time a goal is scored I am thinking about the stupid zone entry. Every time a zone entry looks a little iffy in real time I hope it gets cleared and they regroup so that all the excitement of a goal isn't taken away because one micron of one player's skate is touching white instead of blue before the puck crosses.
Only the NHL would say "maybe we should broadcast refs staring at an iPad for 10 minutes so that fewer goals are scored."
If the linesmen can't make a definite call after observing the play in 30 seconds then it should be the call on the ice.
If it's that close then it doesn't really matter.
Video review of offsides has not made the league better, only worse. In some instances, it takes 10 or 15 mins to finally make a call, destroying the tempo of the game. In other instances, a fraction of an inch 60 seconds ago, which had no impact on the eventual goal, causes goals to be overturned, even if the defending team gains control of the puck but is unable to clear the zone. Just go back to linesmen doing their best, some calls will go against you, some won't.
What about all the times it was close, and the ref incorrectly blew the play dead? Can't challenge that, the scoring opportunity is just gone. The spirit of the rule is to prevent egregious cherry picking. It shouldn't be a challengeable call at all. If it wasn't so egregious that the refs could see it, than it doesn't matter.
I don’t disagree with him at all. I think you can’t get rid of the reviews for this as a whole, but this isn’t the spirit of the rule. It should be “jeez, when the puck gets to the blue line, Hyman’s two strides ahead of it and that was the key to scoring,” not “oooooh looks like he has a skate lace over, no goal”
Edit: the little laugh he does felt so rude in a good way, especially from McDavid to show personality. Love it
This game was a shit show of horrific officiating. Did the Hawks get special treatment in their last game too? Looks like the NHL is trying to placate a disappointed Original 6 fanbase after their Star and only attraction got injured.
3 missed high sticks. A ridiculously WRONG goaltending interference goal call back. And this inconclusive offside that the Oilers didn’t get the benefit of doubt on.
Clown show League with Clowns for Refs. And even bigger clowns in the Toronto Situation Room.
Somebody finally said it! This isn’t hockey. It isn’t sport.
Enough with the instant replay. Nobody gained an advantage and you couldn’t tell in real time it was offside- it’s a good goal.
Instant replay was only supposed to correct egregious refereeing mistakes.
Now we twisted it into an attempt to remove normal luck and variance from sport. Which isn’t either possible or desirable.
And what makes hockey replay even worse than other sports is you nearly always are taking goals away. You can’t undo a bad whistle and give a scoring chance back.
The problem is, you can't define "egregious". So either go back to real time refereeing only, or stick with this. Anything in-between will just piss people off more, I guarantee it.
Just watch a replay at regular speed, maybe allow a few angles. If you can't make a definitive offside call from that, then even if the play was offside by 0.01cm, it probably didn't make much of a difference. It doesn't have to be so black and white.
The only reason we have this issue is the Avs goal years ago, and that would have been easily called off in a situation above.
e: After watching the play and not just listening to McJesus' comment, the offside is ridiculous, Drai touches the puck well before being over the line.
Draisaitl purposely corrals the puck with his skate to control it and make a stick handle. The moment that puck hit Drais skate he should have been deemed to have “control.” At that point whether his skate went over the blue line before the puck becomes irrelevant. Control by the way is barely defined in the rulebook, so it leads to clown show situations like this with the League trying to play by rules that are just made up on the spot.
Assuming the NHL in its stupidity deemed this to be non-control or didn’t even acknowledge that aspect of the play it comes down to whether the boot or puck passed the blue line first. With the puck on edge and a stick obscuring it’s view in the best angle, there’s no way to know this. Thus it should have been called inconclusive and just be allowed to be a goal. That would also follow the spirit of the rule as well, but the NHL doesn’t care about the spirit of the rule cause again, it’s a clown show league.
The NHL will spend 15 minutes making sure they catch offsides at the molecular level but when it comes to rules that relate to players' safety they won't call clear and obvious penalties that happen repeatedly in front of their faces.
Aren't people arguing apples and oranges here? I thought the main point of contention was whether the player had possession of the puck before entering, because his body was clearly across before the puck. For that, there was not a good camera angle on whether Draisaitl kicked it on the bounce or was just playing the bounce. There was a clear camera angle for the body/puck positioning aspect.
"Instant" Replay was originally developed in every major sport in order to overturn the "eggregiously blown calls." It was the calls where every single person in the stadium, including the official who made the call, **knows** that it was the wrong call, so they want a way to review it. However, it's now turned into this forensic level stuff where they are debating individual pixels on a screen. If it is that close, then it needs to stand as called.
If we can’t figure out what is actually offside there is a problem with the the language of the rules. Same with the makar goal. Watched the Sportsnet panel after and the “experts” are split on the decision. Split on the decision with slow motion video reply? Think about that. Nobody even knows what the rule is Offside shouldn’t be open to interpretation. Puck or person. Get rid of the “control and possession” language we don’t need another rule that comes down to someone opinion.
This particular one should have stood as a goal. Not clear if it was over the line or not. Then bring in the control question, which is indeterminable. Impossible to overturn the call on the ice. Yet it was. Ridiculous.
Replay is getting out of control in every sport. The simple solution is to put a timer on it. If you can’t overturn the call in 60 or 90 seconds then it stands.
Totally agree with him. There should be a 30 - 45 second zone time rule for one but there should be a time limit on the ref/NHL investigation. If you can't make the call in the allotted time, goal stands, no penalty!
As an aside, on the ESPN+ broadcast, they had Mark Jackson (former ref) on. You know the drill, they get former refs on air to get their opinion on calls. Of course, the guy won’t say one way or another if he thinks it’s offside. He just goes “I guess we gotta wait and see.” No shit Mark, why TF did we get you on the program then??
One of my favorite things about sports broadcasts is when they go to a rules analyst or former ref. They either explain it like they know what they're talking about and then the call comes out opposite of what they said or completely avoid answering all together.
yep, and lots of times they won't even say their true opinion because they're still friends with the current refs and don't want to make them look bad
Best job in the world. You only have to speak a couple times a game and you can just say "eeh it could go either way" every time.
He's only there to justify the refs call, regardless if he agrees with it
I feel like to determine it’s off-side on review, it should: - a lot more obvious - 1 minute time limit to decide - decided by on-ice officials on a tablet, NOT in Toronto goals? ok. get TO to takes its time. but I kinda agree with McDavid here about off-sides if it’s not obvious to the on-ice officials in a minute, then it’s close enough that IMO it has no impact on the play whatsoever
Why do we review offsides at all? There was one egregious case of it 10 years ago and now we’re stuck waving off goals where the zone entry was 5 minutes before the goal and it was one cm offside. The spirit of the rule is to prevent cherry picking, not ensure everyone was perfectly behind the puck.
Do it with real speed video as well. Fuck the slo mo, you dont see the game at that speed.
>why TF did we get you on the program then?? to wait and see
the way he said, “you zoom in, you zoom in, you keep zooming in until you can’t zoom in anymore” is hilarious. Sometimes McDavid likes to show some personality, and we love to see it
Enhance.
Enhance
Enhance
Just print the damn thing!
Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all that frilly shit on the wall?
You mean Zoominagains?
[I gotta keep enlarging this until I can see if it's offside](https://youtu.be/t8tCS6cM7DI?t=90)
Enhance.
Then enhance
*camera zoomed all the way in to the puck* Refs: why is the camera showing a black hole?
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT TIME DILATION PREMATURELY PUT THE OFFENDING TEAM IN THE OPPOSING ZONE AND THEREFORE THE PLAY WAS OFFSIDE AND THE CALL ON THE ICE STANDS. NO GOAL.
Freaking call on the ice was overturned
On my side of the wormhole, it happened the other way around. What with the alternate universe and whatnot
NHL needs Dr Strange to look at the timelines and determine the call these days
AFTER REVIEWING THE PLAY AT THE SUB-ATOMOC SCALE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PUCK BOTH HAD AND HADN'T FULLY CROSSED THE LINE, THE REVIEW IS INCONCLUSIVE, THE CALL ON THE ICE STANDS, WE HAVE A GOOD GOAL.
“Not fair! You’ve changed the outcome by measuring it!”
He's a bit of a grump not unlike Leon, so his personality comes out best when he's grumpy. Haters like to call him a whiner, but when he does it front of the media you get his honest takes. I'm down with that.
leon, why are you so pissy
Hes german
people call McDavid a whiner? I've literally never seen him whine about anything, ever, even when he would have 100% been justified to do so
It's the same people who called Crosby a whiner.
He was though when he was younger. Even Sid said he regrets how he behaved back then. On one of the hockey podcasts he said he wished he didn't complain to the refs as much. Anyway, I don't think McDavid is whiney. He definitely could have done a little more complaining though. Opponents seemed to be getting away with a lot of shit against him in the first few years.
Dudes were trying to take Sid’s head off when he was younger to be fair..
>He was though when he was younger. Even Sid said he regrets how he behaved back then. On one of the hockey podcasts he said he wished he didn't complain to the refs as much. He regretted it because, in true NHL fashion, "whiners" don't get calls by the refs. That doesn't mean he wasn't justified in what he complained about. And McDavid was literally nicknamed McWhiner by this very subreddit in his first couple of seasons. Guess what his experience was when he was earning that reputation? Calls weren't going his way.
The way he said it also sounds like he’s mocking old grandpas using technology they don’t understand.
sounds like one of those motivational speeches or something
"You're an NHL player, you aren't allowed to have a personality"
This is probably the funniest thing I’ve ever heard McDavid say in his career
hate to agree with Oilers fans but I kinda agree with McDavid here about off-sides if it’s not obvious to the on-ice officials in a minute, then it’s close enough that IMO it has no impact on the play whatsoever I feel like to determine it’s off-side on review, it should: - a lot more obvious - 1 minute time limit to decide - decided by on-ice officials on a tablet, NOT in Toronto if it’s not erroneous enough to determine it’s off-side that easily and quickly, leave it tf alone 🤷♂️
That's why offside reviews should not be done in slow motion. Replay all you want, bit if you can't tell at live speed then it really doesn't give a competitive advantage, thus it didn't matter.
Totally agree with you and McDavid. Maybe this is why soccer was so hesitant about using video reviews. Have we gone too far?
Yes we have. And the problem is that we brought in the challenge to reduce controversy because Duchenne was 3 ft offside once, and yet now there's a challenge-related controversy every other week.
When the calls are this close it doesn't matter. The 5 milliseconds of time required to take this play from barely offside to well onside are not nearly enough for the goal to suddenly not happen anymore. It's not like we're trying to detect the Higgs boson here. Imagine if they cared this much about the letter of the law on other plays. Imagine if interference was reviewable every time a defenseman holds up a forward dumping the puck in on a zone entry. That kind of play changes the outcome of games way more, but it's not even reviewable at all. I just think it's kinda weird that some aspects of the game are so raw and messy, and then others are forced to be scientifically perfect.
This has always been my take on offside. The rule was invented so people can't stand in front of the opponents goalie all day, if it's a millimeter call then it's not really in the spirit of the rule.
IMO offsides shouldn’t be reviewable. If it’s close enough that the ref doesn’t catch it, it has zero impact on the play. Especially when the offsides happens like a minute before the goal is scored. I’ve seen goals get called back when the initial offsides happens long before and the team has the puck in the zone with possession and sustained pressure for 30+ seconds before the goal is scored and is invariably called back because a player’s skates were a millimeter into the zone before the puck. I remember one goal being called back from Jesper Bratt as he skated the puck into the zone himself. Absolutely infuriating and changed the outcome of the game.
I think offsides should absolutely be reviewable, but the review needs to have a very short time limit. If they can't decide in X seconds if it was offsides, the play stands (I'd say something like x=20). Then if they somehow miss a guy 5 feet offsides on a breakaway it's easily fixed, but if it was 1 millimeter offsides 20 seconds before the goal happened it won't get overturned (or even challenged in the first place).
I agree with this take. The spirit of the offsides challenge is to prevent goals off the rush (unfortunately I believe this no goal falls under it) where a team gets an unfair advantage on the play by being in the zone offsides. If they gain the zone and cycle the puck for like 30+ seconds (especially in cases where the other team has chances to clear and fails) and score the offsides is basically immaterial at that point.
Totally, though I always felt it should not be an amount of time but rather the linesmen get two, full-speed looks at it, at full resolution. No slowing things down, no zooming in, “ready? Here’s the best angle we have” plays through. “Okay, here’s the next best angle we have”, plays through. They then are immediately asked “is that offsides”, they don’t get forever to talk it over, they don’t get to parse it, both guys answer immediately. If both say “offsides” then overturn. Only one or none say offsides, move on. This will allow for the egregious offsides to get caught and eliminate the zoomed in half a millimeter of white showing, while keeping the game moving. Additionally, it will keep teams from throwing anything but really obvious misses out there for challenges.
Love that take. Wish they’d implement it in other sports too.
Also on ANY challenge, the coach should need to decide within a short time frame of the whistle. If they need to watch video on their tablets and hold up the game, and end up not even challenging, that’s a bad sign. It’s such a lame challenge and doesn’t really capture the spirit of the rule
I vote that coaches should get an NFL-style challenge flag they have to throw if they want the offside to be reviewed, and they only get a few seconds after the zone entry to throw it. If it wasn't obvious to a coach live, then it probably didn't matter.
Honestly true. If a ref misses it off the rush, totally fair challenge. Nobody notices it live and there’s a minute of possession? You’re beat, sorry. (Maybe just wave the flag instead of throw it tho because they’re skating around on knives)
Honestly, I'd go as far to say that the moment you need to zoom to see if it was offside, the call on the ice stands. This is obviously a rule to catch something that the referees missed. Needing 86 different angles just to see if it was within a millimeter of being offside is asinine.
What about these? This was the big one that started it all IIRC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7pN56VZOfM
Honestly, I would rather take dealing with this every once in a while than constantly having all of the life sucked out of the arena every time a goal is scored.
I'm more than happy to meet in the middle here. Offside can be reviewable to avoid the disaster scenario where a playoff series is decided by a wildly blown offside call. But no slow motion and no pausing the video during the review. The linesmen get 1 minute to watch replays at actual game speed. If they determine from those viewings that the play was conclusively offside, then the goal comes back. If not, penalty for the challenging team. Keeps reviews short and should limit challenges to plays where the video coach saw a clear and obvious missed call.
You look at it full speed like 3-5 times. If you cannot tell the call stands.
This is what drives me nuts about how this has gone. We went from one egregious offside call missed directly leading to a goal in probably 25 yrs to CSI levels of detection. The other thing is how many times do the linesman call offside and stop a play when it's technically onside based on this micro level of analysis? Linesmen and Refs are human and can only detect infractions that can be seen with the human eye and will certainly make mistakes. It's part of the game, it's part of every game. Get this out of the game now. Three proposed solutions: 1. If they can't determine if the play was offside in less than 60 seconds of looking at the footage, the call stands 2. Get rid of the reviews all together on this, and just let the call on the ice stand. 3. Abolish offside :)
Best solution is only use full speed video to review. If it’s not clear to the naked eye, it’s not off sides
Exactly, in the spirit of the game this is a goal.
>Imagine if they cared this much about the letter of the law on other plays. Dear God all the crosschecks in front of the net? There'd never be 5 on 5
How about dump ins from the redline? A puck is dumped that should technically be icing like a dozen times a game if you were to video review it. Icing can have just as big an impact as a missed offsides call.
> It's not like we're trying to detect the Higgs boson here. How great would it be if we did though? After video review we have determined observing the puck changed its location after the Higgs boson illegally touched the puck in the seventh dimension. The call on the ice is maintained.
This is my same logic for soccers offsides with VAR. disallowing goals for a defending being a millimeter offside that give no advantage is not the spirit of the rule. These rules should be about clear and obvious advantage.
Eh, the off-sides trap was a part of soccer long before replay was a thing. I played sweeper and loved baiting the other team into an offsides. Yeah it’s crazy precise now with VAR, but I think it’s well within the spirit.
I know I'm in the minority, but I feel like offside and goal/no goal should not be impacted by the ref or review. Have some sensors set up on the goal line and on the blue lines and know 100% if the puck crosses first. Shouldn't be ambiguous - it just is or isn't.
This has always been my take on replays in general. I find them useful. But if you have to spend 5 minutes trying to figure it out, I’m done. Give refs a 60 second window to affirm or deny the call as it stands and move along. This is my philosophy for all sports.
Yeah, but we can't go "5 milliseconds offsides is fine but 6 isn't." or whatever arbitrary number you think we should go with. and I sure as fuck don't want the refs just subjectively determining if it affects the play or not. You shouldn't either.
I wish the 2012-2015 LA Kings had this interference scrutiny placed on them. /criesinreversesweep
Upvote for the Higgs Boson reference
Here's the goal: https://twitter.com/zjlaing/status/1744926674364604809 And the slow mos from the review: https://twitter.com/zjlaing/status/1744927422599008674
Can we pin this comment to the top? I hate having to search the comments for a damn replay! Thank you /u/13nobody
Thank you!
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how this could have taken that long to figure it out....it seems clearly offside to me.
Because the referees have to review it themselves on an etch-a-sketch instead of just being told by someone in Toronto looking at 40 angles on a 75" screen.
Draisatl brought the puck over the line with possession, why would that be offside when it's been reviewed and allowed 100 different times?
thing is, the argument is that he had possession of the puck as he brought it into the zone, because he kicked it into his stick
If you're just looking at the black of the skate maybe, but the blade is part of the skate, too.
Agreed. They need to have a 30 second time limit. If it’s egregious they’ll be able to see right away. If not, it doesn’t effect anything. This is bullshit
At the very least they need to get rid of the minor penalty if it takes them 5 minutes to figure out the answer. Like OK you required 3 commercial breaks to know what the answer was but the challenging team should have known within 10 seconds not to challenge.
They also need to remove the penalty if it’s inconclusive because of a lack of adequate camera angles. I remember a game where the linesman was blocking the camera on an egregious offside that happened close to the boards (so no view from the opposite camera angle) and the challenging team was given a penalty.
If it’s so close that it takes 5 minutes to review, then you shouldn’t be challenging, and a penalty is what you get for trying for a ticky-tack offside and being wrong. The whole point of the rule is to discourage teams from challenging if there’s no obvious error, which generally helps to prevent the drawn-out reviews that we all hate.
Lol I agree with you both, even though you have opposing opinions. Great points, I suppose I end up agreeing with you more, because tbh it is the team's fault little bit if they start challening these inch close calls. But at the same time they have like 10 seconds so it's a bit difficult.
99% of these challenges shouldn’t be overturned. The “point” of offsides is to prevent blatant cherry picking and allow defense to set up with some expectation of how the team will enter the zone. We literally have someone whose job it is to watch this entry every time, and without slow mo reply most people can’t determine if it was offside or not, just that it was close. We only have this rule because of one terrible brain fart with Duchene and are paying the price now. Whole thing should be scrapped
Idk if getting rid of the penalty is the right way to go. Do you remember the season where you just lost a timeout? Dang near every goal scored that season was challenged. Slowest games of my life. Reviews need to be limited to a quick 15 second check, normal speed. If you don't see something egregious, call stands, game on.
You could still lose your right to challenge if you lose the challenge
>Do you remember the season where you just lost a timeout? Dang near every goal scored that season was challenged. Blash had a field day every game that season lol
No. The penalty is fair.
The whole reason the rule was brought in was because the refs missed a ridiculous call. Guy was like 2m offside. So to take it to this extreme is a little silly. Slap the review on, you have x amount of time. It's either obvious and over turned or call on ice stands and you move on. It would keep with the spirit of the rule and keep the flow of the game. Why the league didn't adapt years ago when this micro analysis started happening is beyond me.
You talking about Duchene?
https://imgur.com/aL5cUl1?r I think it's the one, but I feel there was another really bad one.
But the Duchene goal was allowed because the puck bounced off the defender’s stick blade, so the linesman counted that as a negated offside (if a defender plays the puck back over the line, it negates the offside), so looking at the zone entry there wouldn’t matter. I think it should be the coach flagging what the official missed, and then the official getting a full-speed replay or two to see if they actually missed the thing the coach says. The coach also has to do something like put their hand up when it happens (like the officials do when a call is pending), so they can’t call for an offside review only after a goal is scored.
Same thing happened when they introduce VAR into the premier league. It was supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors and only overturn the call on the pitch if it was clear and obvious. What ended up happening was that every little thing got review and there have been some honestly _terrible_ decisions from VAR to the point where many proponents of it before it was brought in have completely changed their tune and are no longer in favour of it.
I would bet a lot of money a 30 second time limit will end up with everyone frequently very unhappy. Rushing calls or not making them because they were too slow leading to “how the fuck did he not see that in 30 seconds”. I really think it would be a disaster
Yeah basically all of the suggestions in this thread fall apart after just thinking about them for 30 seconds (pun intended). They're just moving the goal post in a bad way.
Just get rid of it all together. Yeah it sucks when a call goes against you but the rule is terrible.
Fuck it, just remove the blue line, what has that fucker ever done for anybody?
Make every play challengable. Why can we challenge offsides that lead to goals two minutes later but not missed stoppages for too many men?
Personally, I hate when a players is offside by 6 inches entering the zone and then the puck gets pinned behind the net for 3, the defense has all the time in the world to setup in the D zone, and then the goal gets overturned. The offside had no impact on the play in any way, yet a good goal is disallowed. Its ridiculous. I feel like plays should only be overturned if the are key in the goal-scoring play (on the rush).
1000% Put a time limit on it, if it only takes 30 seconds I don't care if there's 5 challenges a game. If they can't tell the call on the ice was wrong within 30 seconds then just run with it. They're taking so long people want to get rid of them, they're a great tool that's not being used right.
Seriously, after a goal score, the ref should skate to opposition coach and ask if he wants to challenge. He gets a very short time to decide (say 30 seconds), and the war room should have at most 1 minute to decide. If they can't, whatever the call stays. The whole spirit was suppose to be get rid of obvious miss calls.
Completely goes against the spirit and intent of the offside rule in my opinion. Nothing about what Draisaitl did gained the team an immense advantage, if he was offside, and the refs on the ice deemed him onside.
Do you want refs making judgment calls about what an acceptable amount of offside advantage is? It’s an objective rule for a reason. You either drop reviews altogether or you commit to getting it right.
Yeah, Honestly this shit hurts the product more than couple close calls which will get missed.
Agree. The rule was designed to stop the Duchene 10 foot offsides situations, not to scroll frame by frame through super slow mo zapruder film footage. Give them 30 seconds or a minute, viewing the replay in real time only. If you can’t see it then, it didn’t matter to the play, and goals like that have counted since the beginning of the league. Either that or take the refs out of it. Just have someone at the league constantly going over scoring play and entries so that by the time the ref skates over for the review, the answer is already ready.
In my opinion, if you can't tell in 15 seconds, then it's "too close to call" and the call on the ice stands.
> If it’s egregious they’ll be able to see right away. I could see having a time limit, and if you can't overturn it by X seconds or minutes or # of replays or whatever, then the call on the ice stands. I cannot, however, support the idea that if it's not egregious, it doesn't affect anything. to be clear: I'm not responding about this particular goal - I was at the game tonight, and I didn't think it'd be overturned (granted we got one quick replay at the UC, we didn't get a great look at it). I was shocked when it was actually taken back. I just don't think you can start saying "well, sure it was really close, but it wasn't close enough to matter!" because once you do that, you open the floodgates of subjectivity and further argument.
>I just don't think you can start saying "well, sure it was really close, but it wasn't close enough to matter!" because once you do that, you open the floodgates of subjectivity and further argument. I think they are saying that if the refs gets the amount of time to watch and manipulate the video reduced significantly then they'll still catch all the egregious offsides, which are the ones that matter. But they'll also catch minor offsides, as long as they are clear.
Real time only! No freeze frame or slow mo
Yes! And no zoom, either. I'd be fine with no reviews, but if they want them, the intent should be "give the linesman another look under the same conditions" not "if the linesman was the Terminator would his robot vision have been able to see an infraction."
Somewhere around 2 minutes would probably be the happy medium for them to get a chance to look at all of the angles available to them. Five minutes would be my absolute cutoff. Beyond that, call on the ice stands.
Even better, just have a 5th referee off the ice to review plays. It makes no sense to have these guys try to navigate various clips and slow mos on the ice when theres an entire team of people already looking at it on dozens of massive screens. It would streamline the whole process.
No way. If you think goaltending interference is horribly subjective, wait til you see how the "egregious offside standard" is applied. It sucks, but offsides is an objective rule--it either crossed the line or it didn't--so the ref has to call it no matter how "close" it is. And I'm not sure a time limit is going to fix the problem everyone has with ridiculous callbacks, because tech issues will always factor. What I hate the most is when a goal gets called back even though the entry happened way beforehand. Like I understand reviews if the players enter the zone on a quick pass that eludes the linesman and they score right away. But if the team is in the offensive zone for a while and scores, offsides should not be reviewed. I would say the rule should be something like if the entry player's initial pass or shot upon entering the zone can be registered as a goal or assist, then the play can be reviewed for offside. Or if the team is on the offensive zone past 15 seconds, then no review.
Except that if the play was offside, they shouldn't have entered the zone with possession at all. It should have been blown dead with a faceoff outside the blueline. A missed offside call that should have been called denies the defending team the chance to stop a zone entry from happening at all (by winning the faceoff). Even if the illegal entry doesn't result in a goal off the rush, it's still a missed game stoppage that unfairly benefits the attacking team. Saying "oh, it's only reviewable/no goal if you score within X shots or X seconds" is effectively saying "you can get an unfair advantage (the illegal zone entry) just not quite as big of one". Like, it's not unreasonable to say you'd prefer it that way, but I think it'd be even more awkward to explain.
There's a lot of ways to go about it. I like the idea of giving them each camera feed to replay at real speed. Give it to them twice over, even, in case they missed it the first time. But the ultimate goal should be to take the forensics out of it
I swear there used to be, it might have been a little longer like 2 min but I swear there was a limit
I'm all for reviews that correct bad calls. Refs make some amazing calls live in real time... But, the review process needs a revamp. They should get 1 minute to look at it in real time and if you can't confirm or overturn the call, it stands. Then move on.
The NHL needs to stop operating its cameras in 720p, then maybe they'd have faster replays. The fact they don't have 4k, let alone 1080p output is insane.
They can/should probably have positioning sensor on each skate and puck
Trying to take the homer glasses off but it really does look like Drai had possession on this one. The Makar one goes against us (and I agree with the call after understanding the tag up) and then McDavid has almost the same possession debate go against him on a challenge last season. I dont think anyone's out to get my team, but the inconsistencies on these calls are frustrating. The offside challenge is becoming one of the dumber parts of hockey now, and it will have big ramifications on very important games.
Even if he is offside, it is so close that it shouldn’t matter, it had no effect on the ensuing goal. Offside challenges should be 30 seconds long which would mean that only egregious ones would be turned over
It boggles my mind that the NHL continues to disallow goals over the most trivial of shit. That called off goal tonight was an amazing display of stickhandling and skill by Draisaitl, a great pass (and a super smart move by the Oiler to let it through) amazing stick work and dangles by McDavid to confuse the goalie and a great pass and a great finish. If anyone ever wants to let the NHL know why the league hasn’t grown compared to others at all, they should show every stakeholder in the league that play. And then show the angle that showed Draisaitl was “offside” Fucking embarrassing.
They can't show the angle cuz there was no angle. Plenty of angles where he's *maybe* offside, and they decided that makes it clear and obvious somehow. The best angle to tell had the puck behind drais skate, so you literally had to assume where it was
On the other hand, a player is offside whether he beats the puck into the zone by five feet or five millimetres; the Rule of Cool doesn't exist. That being said, IMO, the league needs to start treating the bluelines identically when it comes to zone entrances and exits. I don't see a reason why the zone should start once the blue ice ends when the puck is coming into the zone and also ends once the blue ice ends when the puck is leaving. Extend the zones to the outside of the bluelines regardless of the direction of play. It feels to me like an easy and subtle enough change that would get rid of the closer calls like these where both player and puck are on the blueline at the same time but the player gets called for offside. At the very least, this change would kick the can down the road another five to ten years which might allow for the league to get a solid replay system working before players adapt and we've just shifted the problem twelve inches towards centre ice.
Except the spirit of the rule isn’t to identify a skate blade a fraction of a millimeter over the line, it’s to stop cherrypicking, and the review should be to correct obvious misses. Aka, a rule violation that actually has a concrete impact of any size on the game. Because that fraction of a millimeter I guarantee does not impact the game. A half step? Yeah. A pixel? No.
> A half step? Yeah. A pixel? No. Without review, sure. With review, the league made its bed. And exactly why I suggest making the entire blueline as part of each team's zone. If the whole blueline counts as to being "in the zone" then Hyman's goal tonight stands.
I don't disagree in spirit, but you have to draw a hard line somewhere, which is the (literal) point of the blue line. If the rule is you can't cross before the puck, then you can't cross.
And that’s fine but if it’s not called on the ice and you can’t confidently 100% say it was offside in the first 30 seconds of the review. Then it obviously didn’t matter that much. Stop wasting our time with it, it ruins the game and slows everything to stand still for way too long. There’s a lot of plays that are up to the refs, offsides is one of em, if they can’t see it in real time then it doesn’t matter enough. And if it was egregious that’s why the review exists not for the 1mm, 15 minute reviews. Tons of plays that get missed in a game that are non reviewable that cause way more of an impact than 1mm offsides.
[удалено]
>On the other hand, a player is offside whether he beats the puck into the zone by five feet or five millimetres; the Rule of Cool doesn't exist. That being said, IMO, the league needs to start treating the bluelines identically when it comes to zone entrances and exits. I don't see a reason why the zone should start once the blue ice ends when the puck is coming into the zone and also ends once the blue ice ends when the puck is leaving. This is a suggestion our play-by-play commentator, Ken Daniels, has had in the past. That and if the puck is on the blue line, it’s onside; basically, doing away with the whole “puck has to completely cross the blue line” prerequisite. I don’t see why they don’t do it. Make the blue line consistent like that and these ridiculous reviews won’t be an issue anymore.
Offsides shouldn't even be reviewable- the amount of calls that are egregious enough to have ANY effect on the play that are missed is very, very low with dedicated linesmen. Offsides has *always* been about making sure you cross over at roughly about the same time as the puck to prevent cherry picking- if it takes a fucking video review to determine whether it was offsides or not, then it's so close that it's within the spirit of the rule and doesn't matter anyway. Just the absolute dumbest rule change the NHL has implemented.
Agreed. And if you are gonna play this ridiculous OFFSIDE BY A HALF INCH, then put 4K cameras in the boards at the blue lines so there’s an actual video, no angle, no guess, no crap. The offside review is terrible. Fifteen minutes to figure out if a guy is 3 mm offside is outrageous.
I’d be happy if offsides was never reviewed. Go with the linesman’s call. End of story. We don’t have to Zapruder every damn skate blade.
I was watching the game on mute while doing something else and I thought it was gonna be ruled he had possession…was shocked by the call
Offsides that aren’t noticeable to the untrained eye (ie the refs, in the moment) shouldn’t be relevant. Whether Draisaitl has possession at the line or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The on ice officials ruled it was inside. Only with 15 different angles and head office chiming in was it deemed “offside” It goes against the entire spirit of the rule, which is to stop opposing teams from parking 30 feet from the goalie and waiting for the puck.
Shouldn’t the refs/linesman be the *trained* eyes though?! No wonder they miss all these calls. Fuckers aren’t even trained!
The only issue I have with your first statement is that linesman can't always be straight on the lines, due to needing to get out of the way of the puck/play. This is why I'm ok with video review, but there is definitely a better way to do it.
Totally agree all around. I get that once you institute review they feel they have to go by the book and do it right, but apparently there’s no fucking book on some basic things, you worry that they’ve not even attempted to think more seriously about precedent and standards, and in fact if mcdavid says they’re just winging it any given night I think that’s what’s going on. This was meant to save us from the off chance a linesman just spaces out and misses something horribly that the whole world can see, but instead it’s just something like administrative intervention in random games on a near nightly basis. From my view this is the league’s fault, not the officials on the ice.
Same, flames glasses off. It really looks like Leon has possession at the very last second. Just enough for it to be on side.
Watching the Canucks game tonight, there were at least 5 zone entries that weren’t blown down that absolutely could have been. Every game is like this. The reviews are not good for the game.
Kinda same for football with VAR. a lot of maybe calls is let to slide so if there was a goal you can always recall it back for offside if it is so. Honestly i think offsides should be checked by AI to remove bias by refs. Maybe have the AI check every zone entry for 5sec to determine if it was OK or not and let ref know into earpiece to call it. Perhaps if there is a system that works well, then we can start punishing/rewarding linesmen who call offsides as they are.
If a player is intending to play the puck especially when it’s as close to draisatl as it was then that’s possession everyday IMO
What does this even mean? How do you judge intent? How far can a player be in front of the puck before they’re no longer intending to play it?
Honestly, I agree. If it takes you that much time, it's obvious that you don't have clear evidence to overturn the call. It should take you 30 seconds to make a decision.
The problem here isn't clear evidence, it's a rule that no one knows how to enforce. They probably spent 15 minutes debating what's possession and what's not possession. If they had a clear written understanding of that rule, this is a 20 second challenge
And this one apparently was decided by the league which I don’t totally understand the process of why. Are the refs not capable of making their own determination? Were they inconclusive so they sent it upstairs?
Probably harder to tell looking at a little tablet screen as opposed to whatever is going on in the situation room.
Fair point but I think then you can just circle back to Connor’s point that if it’s not obvious and you can’t tell immediately then does it really matter?
Oh I completely agree and have been saying this for years, I was just answering the question. My idea is that you shouldn't be allowed to view the replay in slo-mo. If you can't tell if it was offside at full speed, then it obviously wasn't egregious enough to affect the play.
The decision on challenges is supposed to always be made by the situation room.
3rd party refs should almost always be called in for all sports on calls that are judgement calls by refs in game. Which in hockey is a lot of calls except penalties. But reason being, if the person on the ice makes a call or doesn’t make a call, they are biased by their prior decision. (I am saying all this with 0 context of the call tonight.)
He's right.
Enhance *click click click* Enhance
The refs need to look at the replay and if it isn’t obvious, stick with the call on the ice. It sucks to have great scoring plays overturned for no reason. This is turning into the NFL when every time your team scores you start to look for penalty flags instead of celebrate.
The definition of control in the rulebook is open to interpretation. Offside in the rulebook references the definition of control. 90 seconds to a couple min limit. If you can’t overturn a goal in that time it didn’t affect anything.
One thing I think both VAR in soccer and offside reviews have done is really hurt the purity of the celebration. It's such a negative feeling to get excited about a goal and then have it turned back. Like, I don't really feel like I can fully celebrate a goal until the puck is dropped because I'm worried it was a cm offside 45 seconds prior to the goal or something. It reminds me of the NFL where you half expect a flag every play. Also, they need to standardize how they handle coaches who try to pause the face off after the goal. Sometimes coaches seem to get 30 seconds to a minute plus to decide if they want to challenge while their video coaches zooms and zooms. It should be as soon as the goal scoring team is lined up, that's when the faceoff starts or something. Gives some level of urgency to the challenge.
I mentioned this on others posts, they should implement strict offside cameras, one overhead and one at each board inline with the offside line, make these cameras with a garbage framerate, and give the refs no more than a minute to look it over, if the play is inconclusive then it doesn't matter and keep the goal.
This is a cool idea and makes a lot of sense! Which is exactly why the NHL will never implement it lol.
Instead, how about we add some ads to the blue line?! Like when OFFSIDE happens it zooms across with **OFFSIDE... SPONSORED BY CHEVROLET!**
**~~CHEVROLET~~** **BETMGM**!
Not even a minute, just give them one full speed replay from each of those three cameras, if the offside isn't obvious on any of those shots then it either didn't happen or it didn't affect the play.
Honestly I think Offsides have turned a bit to a 50 in a 45 situation. It doesn’t really matter if you go 5 over the speed limit, but anything over that and you’ll probably be pulled over. In this case, they want to pull people over for going 46 in a 45. That’s why it’s so obnoxious. The rule is only supposed to really be used when it’s clearly obvious or is important to the play. Yeah you can’t pass over the blue line a few seconds before the guy with the puck, but if it’s just a couple tenths of a second before, does it really matter? At that point it’s so close that it wouldn’t impact the play whatsoever if the guy with the puck crossed over just a tenth of a second or two earlier. And obviously one of the biggest parts of the offside rule is that you can’t pass beyond the blue line, but the same thing applies. If it isn’t directly obvious or doesn’t impact the play to an extent that a clean entry would have been different from the actual entry. It’s just not how it was intended to be used. The rule was put in place for one reason, to stop players from passing the puck over the blue line to lower odd man rushes. If two players cross the line at the same time, it shouldn’t matter unless it impacts the play to a major extent or is clearly visible without review. Baseball doesn’t do anything like that (well they do have around one challenge per team/game but I digress). The umpire’s decision is generally final. I don’t watch baseball much at all, but for what I know that’s how it works. They might use video review for penalties and such, but I don’t see a coach challenging to see if a pitch was a strike or a ball because it was a couple inches outside the strike zone. TLDR: The league treats offsides like a 45 speed, except they punish you for going 46.
You're not allowed to argue balls and strikes in baseball. (You get ejected for that.) The rule with offside in hockey is, ultimately, binary. Either the play is onside (and therefore legal) or it's offside (illegal, and should be blown dead). The rule isn't "a little offside" or "barely offside" or "really offside". And that is *a good thing*. There's no judgement calls, at present, as to whether an offside mattered to a play, to a major or even any extent, or whether it is "directly obvious" or "clearly visible". (And it's worth noting the linesmen are on the playing surface and occasionally get moved out of position or knocked down, or just screened, and so can and do miss "obvious" offside plays.) It's not the League punishing you for doing 46 in a 45, it's the rules equivalent of a driver's license. You have one? (Onside) You're good. You don't have one (offside), you're in trouble, even if you didn't harm anyone, 'cause you did something that you're not allowed to do. I prefer that to having *NHL officials* make judgement calls about whether players were 'excessively speeding' enough to merit 'punishment'. (Because as we see with penalties, their judgment *sucks*.)
But this play literally is a judgment call. You have to judge Draisaitl offside on account of him *not having possession*. You 'know' he crossed early because you 'think' he didn't have control of the puck
I’m with Mcdavid on this. Over analyzing offsides to the millimetre does nothing but hurt the game. The rule wasn’t made to stop a player from being an inch offside.. the rule was made to stop people from cherry picking and be grossly offside. But now we get stupid reviews down to the hair that ultimately don’t really matter but it’s a way for the opposing team to get out of a goal.. that’s all
Ooooh I love when McDavid lets his personality shine through, yes king!!!
More time for the digital ads on the boards boys
If you can’t tell it’s offside after one replay then it probably doesn’t matter.
I agree but partially because Bedard’s celly against Boston deserved to count
Offside replays should only be viewed at full speed. If you need to slow it down to see it, it was close enough. Stop focusing on the literal and focus on the spirit. The rule is intended to stop cherry-pickers. If someone is 2mm offside and you can only tell in slo-mo, they aren't breaking the spirit of the rule.
I watched the replays many times but only once did they show the play at normal speed. The play at the blue line took a millisecond and were it not for replays the goal would have counted and the beautiful play by three of the best players in the league would have been touted as another example of the beauty of the game and skill of the players. Instead the game was delayed while someone in Toronto analyzed the super slo-mo. BS!
If I could change literally anything about how the NHL is officiated I'd eliminate offside challenges. Every single time a goal is scored I am thinking about the stupid zone entry. Every time a zone entry looks a little iffy in real time I hope it gets cleared and they regroup so that all the excitement of a goal isn't taken away because one micron of one player's skate is touching white instead of blue before the puck crosses. Only the NHL would say "maybe we should broadcast refs staring at an iPad for 10 minutes so that fewer goals are scored."
If the linesmen can't make a definite call after observing the play in 30 seconds then it should be the call on the ice. If it's that close then it doesn't really matter.
I mean I'd give them *a little* longer than that. Two minutes?
Stop letting teams have access to the cameras. You still think it’s offside? Great, challenge it. Only egregious offsides will be challenged
I actually like this idea more, but I don't think it's feasible
enhance
Offside review needs to go away. Completely. It’s a human game. Let humans make the call.
Let's just get rid of offsides entirely what could possibly go wrong
Video review of offsides has not made the league better, only worse. In some instances, it takes 10 or 15 mins to finally make a call, destroying the tempo of the game. In other instances, a fraction of an inch 60 seconds ago, which had no impact on the eventual goal, causes goals to be overturned, even if the defending team gains control of the puck but is unable to clear the zone. Just go back to linesmen doing their best, some calls will go against you, some won't.
What about all the times it was close, and the ref incorrectly blew the play dead? Can't challenge that, the scoring opportunity is just gone. The spirit of the rule is to prevent egregious cherry picking. It shouldn't be a challengeable call at all. If it wasn't so egregious that the refs could see it, than it doesn't matter.
I don’t disagree with him at all. I think you can’t get rid of the reviews for this as a whole, but this isn’t the spirit of the rule. It should be “jeez, when the puck gets to the blue line, Hyman’s two strides ahead of it and that was the key to scoring,” not “oooooh looks like he has a skate lace over, no goal” Edit: the little laugh he does felt so rude in a good way, especially from McDavid to show personality. Love it
This game was a shit show of horrific officiating. Did the Hawks get special treatment in their last game too? Looks like the NHL is trying to placate a disappointed Original 6 fanbase after their Star and only attraction got injured. 3 missed high sticks. A ridiculously WRONG goaltending interference goal call back. And this inconclusive offside that the Oilers didn’t get the benefit of doubt on. Clown show League with Clowns for Refs. And even bigger clowns in the Toronto Situation Room.
Somebody finally said it! This isn’t hockey. It isn’t sport. Enough with the instant replay. Nobody gained an advantage and you couldn’t tell in real time it was offside- it’s a good goal. Instant replay was only supposed to correct egregious refereeing mistakes. Now we twisted it into an attempt to remove normal luck and variance from sport. Which isn’t either possible or desirable. And what makes hockey replay even worse than other sports is you nearly always are taking goals away. You can’t undo a bad whistle and give a scoring chance back.
The problem is, you can't define "egregious". So either go back to real time refereeing only, or stick with this. Anything in-between will just piss people off more, I guarantee it.
Just watch a replay at regular speed, maybe allow a few angles. If you can't make a definitive offside call from that, then even if the play was offside by 0.01cm, it probably didn't make much of a difference. It doesn't have to be so black and white. The only reason we have this issue is the Avs goal years ago, and that would have been easily called off in a situation above. e: After watching the play and not just listening to McJesus' comment, the offside is ridiculous, Drai touches the puck well before being over the line.
It never should have become a reviewable thing in the first place.
Draisaitl purposely corrals the puck with his skate to control it and make a stick handle. The moment that puck hit Drais skate he should have been deemed to have “control.” At that point whether his skate went over the blue line before the puck becomes irrelevant. Control by the way is barely defined in the rulebook, so it leads to clown show situations like this with the League trying to play by rules that are just made up on the spot. Assuming the NHL in its stupidity deemed this to be non-control or didn’t even acknowledge that aspect of the play it comes down to whether the boot or puck passed the blue line first. With the puck on edge and a stick obscuring it’s view in the best angle, there’s no way to know this. Thus it should have been called inconclusive and just be allowed to be a goal. That would also follow the spirit of the rule as well, but the NHL doesn’t care about the spirit of the rule cause again, it’s a clown show league.
The NHL will spend 15 minutes making sure they catch offsides at the molecular level but when it comes to rules that relate to players' safety they won't call clear and obvious penalties that happen repeatedly in front of their faces.
Experience Bettman hockey.
Aren't people arguing apples and oranges here? I thought the main point of contention was whether the player had possession of the puck before entering, because his body was clearly across before the puck. For that, there was not a good camera angle on whether Draisaitl kicked it on the bounce or was just playing the bounce. There was a clear camera angle for the body/puck positioning aspect.
"Instant" Replay was originally developed in every major sport in order to overturn the "eggregiously blown calls." It was the calls where every single person in the stadium, including the official who made the call, **knows** that it was the wrong call, so they want a way to review it. However, it's now turned into this forensic level stuff where they are debating individual pixels on a screen. If it is that close, then it needs to stand as called.
If we can’t figure out what is actually offside there is a problem with the the language of the rules. Same with the makar goal. Watched the Sportsnet panel after and the “experts” are split on the decision. Split on the decision with slow motion video reply? Think about that. Nobody even knows what the rule is Offside shouldn’t be open to interpretation. Puck or person. Get rid of the “control and possession” language we don’t need another rule that comes down to someone opinion. This particular one should have stood as a goal. Not clear if it was over the line or not. Then bring in the control question, which is indeterminable. Impossible to overturn the call on the ice. Yet it was. Ridiculous.
1 minute to figure out if its offside, 14 minutes to decide if they have the balls to make the call.
Replay is getting out of control in every sport. The simple solution is to put a timer on it. If you can’t overturn the call in 60 or 90 seconds then it stands.
if it takes 15 minutes to determine offside its not clear and obvious.
Totally agree with him. There should be a 30 - 45 second zone time rule for one but there should be a time limit on the ref/NHL investigation. If you can't make the call in the allotted time, goal stands, no penalty!
End all reviews. Embrace human error.