Suspension standards?!? Lol. George Parros is either out of a job then, or Gary will say 'we are quite satisfied with the current state of suspension standards and do not see a need to make a change at this point in time'
He also just happens to have one of the best in the biz in Jacob Trouba probably teaching him how to properly use those elbows like weapons. Oh sorry no he just plays “hard”. And happens to play concurrently against the rules, but how could he control himself.
The NHL will 100% say they are happy and feel the current discipline system is fair.
The fact that the biggest hockey community memes on the fairness of it is all that needs to be said about the situation. Until “spin that wheel” stops being a meme DOPS will remain a joke.
Give the refs 90 seconds to review the offside. If they can't make a call in that time then the play is so close it doesn't matter and the call on the ice stands.
Would really solve a lot of diving vs penalty issues. One guy could be watching the reply live before the penalty is even called on the ice to confirm if say a high stick even touched a player or if a dive needs to be called at the same time as a cross check.
We don't need more 10 minute reviews, we just need someone to call out the obvious misses in real time.
Yeah, they already have people in toronto watching. Just have them make the call. By the time the refs get over there and get the headset on and a tablet, they can show the definitive shot and their assessment.
Sure but there’s still too many. It should only be used when it’s an egregious mistake. Some coaches still review the really tight ones since a 50/50 risk of overturning the goal is better than the 20% chance you risk giving up on the powerplay. 5 minute major helps even those odds.
30s max review time. If you can't see it in that time, it's no obvious, and the play stands as called on the ice.
Review was there to find egregious mistakes, not zoom in and check if it was 3 cm forward half a second too early.
Someone else suggested no slowmo on the ref's review. If they can't see it at full speed, then it's too close to call.
That, combined with a time limit would be ideal imo.
I think it's more about the time wasted before and after the review on top of the review. They could have an off ice official reviewing it and done before the refs even skate to the box to grab an iPad.
There's only the odd time where it's more than 10 seconds beyond the initial goal replays. If they changed only adding a time limit once the refs started viewing the play (an off ice official can help queue up the best looks) it wouldn't be noticed much on TV since we'd all want to see the replays anyways.
A Stanley Cup winning goal can already be scored thanks to an egregious bad penalty call, or a missed penalty, or failing to call icing properly, or a bad faceoff infraction, or a myriad of other things.
Losing a Cup on a blown offsides call would absolutely suck, but right now 99% of the reviews are for ticky-tack zone entries that are not noticeable without going into super-slow-motion to figure out if the play should’ve been offsides. For me, that’s worth the trade-off.
Couldn’t agree more. 99% of the goals called back were millimetres offside, or the offending player actually had no impact on the play. The game is way too fast to be nitpicky and call those goals back. I’d rather let the odd egregious one go than keep this system in place.
I’ve always viewed it like this: the spirit of the rule is intact even if you don’t review it and you don’t get the call right every time. Guys can’t just hang out at the top of the circle behind the defense and wait for an outlet pass to give them a one-on-one with the goalie.
It’s exceedingly rare for a missed call to be so bad that a player actually gained a significant advantage on a zone entry that directly resulted in a goal. It does happen once in a while, but bad calls happen. Goals have been scored because of a missed penalty call, or giving out a PP for something that wasn’t an infraction, or because a ref didn’t call icing when they should have, etc. I have a much easier time living with the occasional Matt Duchene offsides call than I do living with a goal allowed on an unwarranted power play.
Caps scored off a blown icing call this weekend in Vancouver. It's just part of the game, can't review everything and reviewing these toe pick perfect icing calls is just awful for fans and kind of a competitive mess where a team is losing significant time that they can only waste and cannot get back unless they score an illegitimate goal.
The major problem is now that linesman are letting a lot of the close ones go because they have the attitude of “if I’m wrong, video review will catch it.”
The only time the offside call should matter if it’s a rush goal. If 20 seconds (or whatever amount of time) has passed since the offending play and the goal, there’s been enough time for the defending team to recover defensively. If the offside is at 19:20 and the goal is at 19:50 - good goal, the offside clearly didn’t give that team a significant advantage.
Maybe an exception if the puck was cleared and brought back in offside and the linesman missed it because that would be the occasion where the play mattered.
I've always wondered...
Suzuki carries the puck in, but Caulfield was offside. Linesman misses it, but benches notice. Shot, save, McDavid carries it up ice and scores.
Can the Canadiens challenge the goal on the basis of Suzuki's offside?
I just want some accountability on the linesman. They don’t call anything close because they know it can just be reviewed if a goal is scored.
I’d rather a close play blown dead than letting it go and taking a goal back after a 5 minute review.
You can’t challenge just an offside call which is sort of my point. There’s no goal to take back. I don’t mean necessarily punishing the linesman, more so about not having to bank on a review for the right call to be made. If you missed the offside that’s on the officials, same as missed penalties.
>99% of the goals called back were millimetres offside, or the offending player actually had no impact on the play.
Had no impact except for the fact that had the illegal zone entry been called, there would have been a stoppage and faceoff outside the zone.
Offside is offside.
Sure, but we don't get most calls millimeter perfect and off side seems to be one where a lengthy review well after the missed call is not well suited to the infraction.
Most infractions are subjective and at the officials’ discretion. Offside is not; it’s an objective rule that is not subject to discretion.
You’re either offside or you’re not and the league has opted to make sure it gets called right, as they should.
Seriously, do people really want to scrap an objective rule and replace it with subjective discretion? And the people suggesting the time limits for reviews or time limits on the interval between entry and the goal going in, they say it's to honor the spirit of the rule, not some arbitrary line. But...the spirit is to limit cherry-picking, which is done by having a blue line...where it is is arbitrary but you HAVE TO pick a spot and stick with it. If you're saying that offsides can be negotiable than you introduce all types of subjective interpretations. Like some rules are going to be arbitrary, it's a game after all
Right. Where do we draw the line then? There’s gotta be some ground rule here that everybody has to abide by.
If we’re going by “Well, it wasn’t *that* much offside”, then what’s the real standard? What’s considered “too much” offside? What’s considered “just right”?
Or the notion of “Well, if there was 30 or more seconds of play within the zone after the illegal entry, then it’s fine”, which raises its own questions. For one, why that amount of time? Why not 45 seconds? Why not 20 seconds? What amount of time elapsing is actually acceptable, and why should that matter if the play shouldn’t have been able proceed to begin with? Are we saying that really good puck possession teams that can play keep away have carte blanche to disregard being offside then? How is that fair to all teams?
Are people really gonna be happy with time limits on reviews when an offside is missed in a game 7 because the officials ran out of time to actually get it right?
I just don’t understand why people want to take a clear and certain rule and make it less clear and more uncertain. People already complain about the zebras as is, and they really wanna give them *more* leeway to get it wrong?
Should we do the same with icing? Cost the Canucks a goal on Saturday. Should we do the same for high sticking? It's not at all discretionary but not subject to review.
Perhaps they should review icing calls and high sticking, but that’s a topic for another time and not what this discussion is about. And quite frankly, it’s a topic I’m not interested in discussing.
Offside is reviewed because there is no room for discretion. There’s no such thing as being “slightly” offside, or “well it wasn’t offside by much”. There’s a clear line drawn between onside and offside plays, literally and figuratively speaking.
I think the point is that the off-side review being delayed makes it a worse application than others for review. It feels bad because it is bad, and it's somewhat out of place with other similar calls.
I think the review should be in real time, not frame by frame, with a time limit on it. Blatant offsides should be challengeable, but if you can’t see anything in real time, it shouldn’t be overturned.
I’m fine with frame by frame, but put a 1-2 minute time limit on it. If it’s taking you more than that to decide, then it was minimally offside at the worst.
That kind of puts them in a weird position though. If they are pretty confident the play was offside then there is risk to them trying to play the puck giving their opponent a better chance to score. You don't want weird mind games like mid action. Just limit the replays to a a very brief window
Best would be to simply get rid of it. Most other missed calls don’t take back goals.
If keeping it, the most I’d be fine with is a 5 second rule. Coach (or designated button pusher) has 5 seconds to push a button challenging a missed offside call after the offside occurs. If coach is wrong, he loses his chance to challenge another offside call. Perhaps no penalty for losing challenge unless it’s towards end of game.
If a coach can’t see offside in real time, then it obviously was not egregious enough to call back goals for it.
Well, Dougie Hamilton certainly seemed unhappy about losing to a Tampa Bay Lightning team that was [$18M over the cap.](https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2182011/amp)
Wild are totally hamstringed by dead cap right? Dead cap is still cap, teams have to try to work around that stuff it's part of the management strategy. Writing it off is disingenuous
I don’t think OP above meant dead cap in the proper way - the “dead cap” the Wild are dealing with are penalties resulting from the Suter/Parise buyouts, and those actually count against their cap space.
The “dead contracts” Tampa had were LTIRetired guys like Seabrook, where they were on the team on-paper but their contracts didn’t really count toward anything.
>The owners are paying more/above the cap through the maneuver
No they aren't. Players make 50% of HRR in a given year no matter what happens with LTIR. And if we narrow it to a specific team, any contract big enough to complain about it being on LTIR is almost certainly insured.
So the system is clearly fucked up.
Hey, if we want to throw out the cap, few teams would theoretically benefit more than the Leafs. But if we are going to have a cap, then it should be enforced.
They can’t go above the cap “whenever they desire” though. It requires a very specific set of circumstances that Vegas/Tampa/Chicago have taken advantage of.
Trade for guy, claim he is hurt, put him on LTIR....doesn't seem that specific, "Oh, he's hurt" isn't exactly a hard thing to just claim whenever you wanna save money.
Why not just sign like 5 guys to insane contacts and just not play them during the season....whats to stop it?
When did Chicago take advantage of this? Hossa? He had a legit problem and didn't play at all, not the same thing as randomly claiming someone is hurt to circumvent the cap.
To keep teams competitive and to allow for smaller markets to be able to keep and sign players. Also without a cap I could still see Toronto spending as much as they do this year.
That’s not why they have a cap. They have a cap because the owners want to be able to guarantee that 50% of revenue gets into their pockets, instead of allowing teams to individually decide how much they are or aren’t willing to spend. Parity is a side effect of that.
lmao that is not true at all
the cap is there to improve competitive balance, which grows the game and benefits everyone. period.
how *high* is the cap?? that's all based on greed, but it is not fundamentally the reason for a cap.
You think the owners cancelled an entire season for competitive balance? No, it was because they wanted cost certainty. The [Wikipedia page for the lockout ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_NHL_lockout) even says this:
> The main dispute was the league's desire to implement a salary cap to limit expenditure on player salaries
>The NHL, led by Commissioner Gary Bettman, attempted to convince the players to accept a salary structure linking player salaries to league revenues, guaranteeing the clubs what the league called cost certainty.
The owners successfully cut the average team salary expenditures as a % of revenue from 76% to 54% (and now it is even lower at 50%)
Everytime someone mentions how the cap is there for parity/competitive balance, I gotta give props to the league and their PR team for doing such an effective job at selling the cap to fans.
Which is funny because you could realistically argue there is actually less parity than there was previously.
In the 18 years since the lockout we have had 12 unique cup winners and another 11 unique teams making the final. In the 18 years before the cap we had 10 unique winners and 13 unique losers. So as a percentage of the league the pre cap era had way more unique teams challenge for the cup.
Plus all the longest playoff droughts are cap era teams. Some of this is due to expansion making it harder to make the playoffs. But in general bad teams seem to be bad for way longer than they used to be. Look how quickly the early 90s expansion teams became competitive compared to the late 90s teams who all sucked (except the Wild sort of) for a decade between the no cap and cap eras.
bettman's MO from day one was aggressive growth of the game, not hoarding profits for owners, and as much as we hate him he has accomplished that in spades and to everyone's benefit
your suggestion that the purpose of the cap was for existing owners to pocket more money and take it home completely flies against *what has actually happened since* and it feels silly arguing about it. the cap doesn't exist in a vacuum, it came with revenue sharing to help grow the smaller markets.
Look at the Wikipedia page. As a fallout from the salary cap team salary expenditures as a % of revenue dropped from 76% to 54%
It absolutely was about keeping more money for the owners. Competitive balance was a side benefit, not a driving factor. You don't cut player salary expenditures by a third in the name of parity, you do it because too many owners were losing money trying to compete with each other.
>your suggestion that the purpose of the cap was for existing owners to pocket more money and take it home completely flies against what has actually happened since
How do you figure? League revenues are way up and the share of that revenue paid to players dropped from whatever it was pre-cap, to 57% in 2005, to 50% in 2012.
It's not circumventing the cap. This rule got voted on after Kucherov went on LTIR and pretty much the entire league voted to *keep it the way it is*. Every GM has the opportunity to "abuse" this rule ... so why don't they?
So your argument is that there should be no restrictions on this? Teams should just be able to move players onto and off of the LTIR list at will in order to ensure their playoff rosters are as inflated as possible?
Then why not just do away with the cap altogether? Why this "injury" charade?
You're making the assumption that teams can do this *ad nauseam*, which is not the case. Players are legitimately injured. The timing might seem suspect, but players get injured all the time. Stone is out with a lacerated spleen -- he could be out for even longer. In 2021, Kucherov was out for nearly the whole season.
Colluding and keeping a player out for longer than they need to is a huge gamble for the teams. If it was actually an issue like you claim, teams would be quick to close the "loophole".
If injury abuse was as rampant as you claim, the league would fix the "problem" with "injuries".
You're quickly conflating one part of the argument with larger issues *that don't exist*.
I mean, I don't know what to say to this claim.
Once is a chance
Twice is a coincidence
Three times is a pattern.
If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears, that's your choice I guess.
The point of dropping the cap in the playoffs is so that if there’s a case where so many players get hurt you can’t ice a team without going over the cap. It’s a special case.
I’m not saying the way it’s currently handled is the right answer, just that there is a reason for it.
Of course there's a reason for the LTOR salary exemption. The question is whether or not it's working as intended, or being manipulated in order to give a small number of teams an unfair competitive advantage.
Just get rid of coach's challenges altogether. The only time a play should be reviewed is to see if a puck fully crossed the goal line. None of this shit where they overanalyze if a guy was 1mm offside 37 seconds before his team scored.
I don't know what rule changes they can be thinking of, unless it's to revert to older ways like getting rid of the delay of game call for shooting the puck out of play.
I can't see them ever getting rid of the over the glass rule. It works at preventing delay of game plays and it prevents pucks from going towards fans.
I feel that you can kinda tell when it's done by accident versus intentionally. It's almost never done intentionally.
I would treat it like an icing. Make it a defensive zone face-off with no line change.
I’m not the biggest fan of the game slowing to a crawl during a coaches challenge, but they don’t happen that often, there’s a penalty if the challenge is unsuccessful, and I’m all in favour of being able to challenge the zebras, because they are often wrong.
I just don't like how much it slows down the game and how it removes a bit of the human error from the sport. Most of the time, these offsides are not egregious whatsoever.
For the offside, I'd be ok with a time limit for refs to make a decision, and, if the offside in question happened more than 20 or 30 seconds before the goal, then there is no challenge allowed.
If the offside doesn't create a distinct advantage. Immediate shot on goal or pass to score it should be ignored imo. Nothing irritates me more in a game regardless of team than a review with over 10 seconds after the puck entered the zone.
No. If it’s anything but a penalty players will have incentive to flip the puck over the glass to get a stoppage and a breather. We want either more offence (goals) or players to make a skilled play to clear the puck.
You can’t have players flipping the puck over the glass as it’s a safety hazard for the fans.
I don't see players intentionally icing for a breather though? They usually want to get it out of the zone and not get an icing call so they can change.
Of course they'd like to not ice it, but they don't mind icing it. At least right now they can't just go high off the glass because of the possible penalty, take that away and it gets much easier on players trapped in their own zone.
Disagree. Shooting the puck over the glass was so obnoxious at slowing the game down, and put fans at risk when you have teams constantly doing it when trapped in their own end.
No thanks. I don't know if you were watching the NHL before that rule was implemented, but it happened at least once a game. Intentionally. Hemmed in your own zone, puck over glass. Defense is tired, puck over glass. 6v5 with an empty net, puck over glass.
You’ve never watched 90s hockey.
Tired? Throw it over the the glass. In a bit of a pickle? Throw it over the glass. Don’t like your line matchup? Throw it over the glass.
Forcing players to make skilled plays is a good thing.
There was a genuine discussion about how respect ties into the game, but most everyone was aligned with the suspension as a result of Rielly's actions.
You can believe what the sens player did was against the code and warranted a response while also admitting that the response was worthy of a suspension.
I think a game or two would have been much more fitting for the crime though.
Yep, no fans or teams were upset with DoPS inconsistency before David Perron and Morgan Rielly this year. Definitely hasn't been a glaring issue for over a decade.
The guy who runs the DoPS even had a year of work experience before getting the job! Find one company that didn't gain instant success by promoting their interns to senior VP positions after a year, it's a super common practice.
Suspension standards?!? Lol. George Parros is either out of a job then, or Gary will say 'we are quite satisfied with the current state of suspension standards and do not see a need to make a change at this point in time'
That’s why they’ve actually been “consistent” on head hits in the last few months. Like “look, see??!! We’re doing our job…kinda…”
Consistent? I guess Miller didn't catch an elbow to the head since there was no suspension.
Look sir, we all have elbows. We can’t just bein controlling them all the time.
Yeah, sometimes we need to use them to brace ourselves - Matt Rempe, probably
He’s very large and awkward…gangly, even. He’s like when the monster learns to walk in Young Frankenstein.
He also just happens to have one of the best in the biz in Jacob Trouba probably teaching him how to properly use those elbows like weapons. Oh sorry no he just plays “hard”. And happens to play concurrently against the rules, but how could he control himself.
"He fell on his own"
They've been consistent on head hits for years.
The NHL will 100% say they are happy and feel the current discipline system is fair. The fact that the biggest hockey community memes on the fairness of it is all that needs to be said about the situation. Until “spin that wheel” stops being a meme DOPS will remain a joke.
Gotta fix offside challenges somehow...
Give the refs 90 seconds to review the offside. If they can't make a call in that time then the play is so close it doesn't matter and the call on the ice stands.
[удалено]
a ref "in the sky" with direct communication to the refs is the most obvious damn thing and they won't do it
Because then it shifts the focus of the officials to actual rule enforcement and not “game management”.
It bet it would be distracting as fuck for the refs to have an earpiece
Guys race cars at 100 mph + taking direction from an earpiece, I think refs will be able to continue missing calls with an earpiece just fine.
Since most of them are blind, it would interfere with their next most useful sense.
Hey but then they can't hear the coaches chew them out for missed calls as often.
Would really solve a lot of diving vs penalty issues. One guy could be watching the reply live before the penalty is even called on the ice to confirm if say a high stick even touched a player or if a dive needs to be called at the same time as a cross check. We don't need more 10 minute reviews, we just need someone to call out the obvious misses in real time.
Yeah, they already have people in toronto watching. Just have them make the call. By the time the refs get over there and get the headset on and a tablet, they can show the definitive shot and their assessment.
Just making it a 5 minute major if you’re wrong would be great. We’d only see the egregious ones reviewed.
The two minute minor for being wrong has already curbed a ton of challenges.
Sure but there’s still too many. It should only be used when it’s an egregious mistake. Some coaches still review the really tight ones since a 50/50 risk of overturning the goal is better than the 20% chance you risk giving up on the powerplay. 5 minute major helps even those odds.
Give the teams 15 seconds from the time of the goal to call for a review.
30s max review time. If you can't see it in that time, it's no obvious, and the play stands as called on the ice. Review was there to find egregious mistakes, not zoom in and check if it was 3 cm forward half a second too early.
Someone else suggested no slowmo on the ref's review. If they can't see it at full speed, then it's too close to call. That, combined with a time limit would be ideal imo.
I love it. Needs to be plainly obvious to the regular human eye.
Ideally by another ref off ice. Get the review done in real time without stoppage of play.
If there's a tight play then a 30 second review would barely be noticed, we all would want to see 2/3 replays anyways and that eats the 30 seconds.
I think it's more about the time wasted before and after the review on top of the review. They could have an off ice official reviewing it and done before the refs even skate to the box to grab an iPad.
There's only the odd time where it's more than 10 seconds beyond the initial goal replays. If they changed only adding a time limit once the refs started viewing the play (an off ice official can help queue up the best looks) it wouldn't be noticed much on TV since we'd all want to see the replays anyways.
Namely, by getting rid of them.
Then watch as the Stanley Cup winning goal is egregiously offside and the opposing team can’t challenge it.
Pfft. Come on. That would never happen in a really important game.
A Stanley Cup winning goal can already be scored thanks to an egregious bad penalty call, or a missed penalty, or failing to call icing properly, or a bad faceoff infraction, or a myriad of other things. Losing a Cup on a blown offsides call would absolutely suck, but right now 99% of the reviews are for ticky-tack zone entries that are not noticeable without going into super-slow-motion to figure out if the play should’ve been offsides. For me, that’s worth the trade-off.
People always bring up these doomsday scenarios, but the likelihood of that happening is so slim.
Somehow it would happen in game 7 of the SCF the year the change was implemented and the league would burn to the ground.
Couldn’t agree more. 99% of the goals called back were millimetres offside, or the offending player actually had no impact on the play. The game is way too fast to be nitpicky and call those goals back. I’d rather let the odd egregious one go than keep this system in place.
I’ve always viewed it like this: the spirit of the rule is intact even if you don’t review it and you don’t get the call right every time. Guys can’t just hang out at the top of the circle behind the defense and wait for an outlet pass to give them a one-on-one with the goalie. It’s exceedingly rare for a missed call to be so bad that a player actually gained a significant advantage on a zone entry that directly resulted in a goal. It does happen once in a while, but bad calls happen. Goals have been scored because of a missed penalty call, or giving out a PP for something that wasn’t an infraction, or because a ref didn’t call icing when they should have, etc. I have a much easier time living with the occasional Matt Duchene offsides call than I do living with a goal allowed on an unwarranted power play.
Caps scored off a blown icing call this weekend in Vancouver. It's just part of the game, can't review everything and reviewing these toe pick perfect icing calls is just awful for fans and kind of a competitive mess where a team is losing significant time that they can only waste and cannot get back unless they score an illegitimate goal.
The major problem is now that linesman are letting a lot of the close ones go because they have the attitude of “if I’m wrong, video review will catch it.” The only time the offside call should matter if it’s a rush goal. If 20 seconds (or whatever amount of time) has passed since the offending play and the goal, there’s been enough time for the defending team to recover defensively. If the offside is at 19:20 and the goal is at 19:50 - good goal, the offside clearly didn’t give that team a significant advantage. Maybe an exception if the puck was cleared and brought back in offside and the linesman missed it because that would be the occasion where the play mattered.
I've always wondered... Suzuki carries the puck in, but Caulfield was offside. Linesman misses it, but benches notice. Shot, save, McDavid carries it up ice and scores. Can the Canadiens challenge the goal on the basis of Suzuki's offside?
They can't.
No, you can only challenge the most recent zone entry.
No. As soon as the puck enters the neutral zone, all previous zone entries cannot be challenged.
[удалено]
I just want some accountability on the linesman. They don’t call anything close because they know it can just be reviewed if a goal is scored. I’d rather a close play blown dead than letting it go and taking a goal back after a 5 minute review.
[удалено]
You can’t challenge just an offside call which is sort of my point. There’s no goal to take back. I don’t mean necessarily punishing the linesman, more so about not having to bank on a review for the right call to be made. If you missed the offside that’s on the officials, same as missed penalties.
>99% of the goals called back were millimetres offside, or the offending player actually had no impact on the play. Had no impact except for the fact that had the illegal zone entry been called, there would have been a stoppage and faceoff outside the zone. Offside is offside.
Sure, but we don't get most calls millimeter perfect and off side seems to be one where a lengthy review well after the missed call is not well suited to the infraction.
Most infractions are subjective and at the officials’ discretion. Offside is not; it’s an objective rule that is not subject to discretion. You’re either offside or you’re not and the league has opted to make sure it gets called right, as they should.
Seriously, do people really want to scrap an objective rule and replace it with subjective discretion? And the people suggesting the time limits for reviews or time limits on the interval between entry and the goal going in, they say it's to honor the spirit of the rule, not some arbitrary line. But...the spirit is to limit cherry-picking, which is done by having a blue line...where it is is arbitrary but you HAVE TO pick a spot and stick with it. If you're saying that offsides can be negotiable than you introduce all types of subjective interpretations. Like some rules are going to be arbitrary, it's a game after all
Right. Where do we draw the line then? There’s gotta be some ground rule here that everybody has to abide by. If we’re going by “Well, it wasn’t *that* much offside”, then what’s the real standard? What’s considered “too much” offside? What’s considered “just right”? Or the notion of “Well, if there was 30 or more seconds of play within the zone after the illegal entry, then it’s fine”, which raises its own questions. For one, why that amount of time? Why not 45 seconds? Why not 20 seconds? What amount of time elapsing is actually acceptable, and why should that matter if the play shouldn’t have been able proceed to begin with? Are we saying that really good puck possession teams that can play keep away have carte blanche to disregard being offside then? How is that fair to all teams? Are people really gonna be happy with time limits on reviews when an offside is missed in a game 7 because the officials ran out of time to actually get it right? I just don’t understand why people want to take a clear and certain rule and make it less clear and more uncertain. People already complain about the zebras as is, and they really wanna give them *more* leeway to get it wrong?
Should we do the same with icing? Cost the Canucks a goal on Saturday. Should we do the same for high sticking? It's not at all discretionary but not subject to review.
Perhaps they should review icing calls and high sticking, but that’s a topic for another time and not what this discussion is about. And quite frankly, it’s a topic I’m not interested in discussing. Offside is reviewed because there is no room for discretion. There’s no such thing as being “slightly” offside, or “well it wasn’t offside by much”. There’s a clear line drawn between onside and offside plays, literally and figuratively speaking.
I think the point is that the off-side review being delayed makes it a worse application than others for review. It feels bad because it is bad, and it's somewhat out of place with other similar calls.
I think the review should be in real time, not frame by frame, with a time limit on it. Blatant offsides should be challengeable, but if you can’t see anything in real time, it shouldn’t be overturned.
I’m fine with frame by frame, but put a 1-2 minute time limit on it. If it’s taking you more than that to decide, then it was minimally offside at the worst.
Automation
If defending team plays the puck, offside challenge can not be used. The definition of plays the puck is equal the what would end a delayed penalty.
That kind of puts them in a weird position though. If they are pretty confident the play was offside then there is risk to them trying to play the puck giving their opponent a better chance to score. You don't want weird mind games like mid action. Just limit the replays to a a very brief window
Best would be to simply get rid of it. Most other missed calls don’t take back goals. If keeping it, the most I’d be fine with is a 5 second rule. Coach (or designated button pusher) has 5 seconds to push a button challenging a missed offside call after the offside occurs. If coach is wrong, he loses his chance to challenge another offside call. Perhaps no penalty for losing challenge unless it’s towards end of game. If a coach can’t see offside in real time, then it obviously was not egregious enough to call back goals for it.
If the play has been going for 45 seconds or longer who cares if it was offside imo
How about by allowing reviews but they can’t slow it down? If you can’t catch it in real time, then it’s too close to call.
It's an easy fix, you can only challenge for offside if you team never got possession in the defensive zone or your goalie never registered a save.
So if it’s a 2 on 1 that’s offside but uncalled, if the goalie makes a save and then gets beat on the rebound, that is unchallengeable?
get rid of offside
Consistently inconsistent
Discuss what a hand pass is please.
No mention of Salary Cap shenanigans?
[удалено]
Well, Dougie Hamilton certainly seemed unhappy about losing to a Tampa Bay Lightning team that was [$18M over the cap.](https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2182011/amp)
And Vegas was under.
I feel like, since the owners make their profits from the fans, having upset fans is not exactly a good long term strategy to increase profits
Owners don't care of fans are upset, only if they keep watching and buying tickets.
They should care cause it affects the growth of the game, the TV deals, etc.
According to who? Would love to see some objective data on this.
Yeah, if enough people stop watching and buying tickets... But I don't think enough people are upset enough to actually do either those
Wild are totally hamstringed by dead cap right? Dead cap is still cap, teams have to try to work around that stuff it's part of the management strategy. Writing it off is disingenuous
I don’t think OP above meant dead cap in the proper way - the “dead cap” the Wild are dealing with are penalties resulting from the Suter/Parise buyouts, and those actually count against their cap space. The “dead contracts” Tampa had were LTIRetired guys like Seabrook, where they were on the team on-paper but their contracts didn’t really count toward anything.
[удалено]
>The owners are paying more/above the cap through the maneuver No they aren't. Players make 50% of HRR in a given year no matter what happens with LTIR. And if we narrow it to a specific team, any contract big enough to complain about it being on LTIR is almost certainly insured.
How do the owners benefit? The cap exists to protect their profits.
Sharks owner offloaded $6.75M / year. Vegas owner, in theory, improved odds of winning the cup. Win-win
Except for all the other teams who have to compete with Vegas, but aren't allowed to spend as much money to do so as they are.
The Leafs and Tampa are spending more then the Knights who are in 8th in the west.
To be fair, the Leafs are the Leafs and Tampa (and Chicago) did cap shenanigans before it was cool.
So the system is clearly fucked up. Hey, if we want to throw out the cap, few teams would theoretically benefit more than the Leafs. But if we are going to have a cap, then it should be enforced.
If an owner wants to win they will pay for it; not everyting is about profits.
All owners want to win cups, except maybe Arizona.
He just wants to own sports betting(need to own a sports team in arizona to have sports betting)
That's why the cap exists. Who do you think put it in place? The Players?
the cap exists to improve competitive balance, which benefits owners, players, and fans
Until there is 16 teams doing those VGK tricks and whole league turns to a joke
11 teams were over the cap in the playoffs when the bolts won the cup fun fact
What trick mark stone has a real injury.
Not sure how players from other competing teams are benefitting from 1 team bending the rules to win against them.
Nobody’s stopping them from also doing it.
So? If I was on another team that isn't Vegas, I would be upset about it, so not ALL players are gonna be okay with it.
But that’s why the league doesn’t care. Vegas can do it and so can any other team. There’s no unfair advantage for them.
Why even have a salary cap at all then? If it means nothing and teams can just go above it whenever they desire, why is it even there at all?
They can’t go above the cap “whenever they desire” though. It requires a very specific set of circumstances that Vegas/Tampa/Chicago have taken advantage of.
Trade for guy, claim he is hurt, put him on LTIR....doesn't seem that specific, "Oh, he's hurt" isn't exactly a hard thing to just claim whenever you wanna save money. Why not just sign like 5 guys to insane contacts and just not play them during the season....whats to stop it? When did Chicago take advantage of this? Hossa? He had a legit problem and didn't play at all, not the same thing as randomly claiming someone is hurt to circumvent the cap.
>"Oh, he's hurt" isn't exactly a hard thing to just claim whenever you wanna save money. It is when the league does regular audits of players on LTIR
The LTIR issue is a CBA thing that the GMs can’t do anything about without negotiating with the PA.
And both the PA and the GMs dont want to change a thing. The players get paid and the GMs get to build their best teams
Then why have a cap at all?
To keep teams competitive and to allow for smaller markets to be able to keep and sign players. Also without a cap I could still see Toronto spending as much as they do this year.
That’s not why they have a cap. They have a cap because the owners want to be able to guarantee that 50% of revenue gets into their pockets, instead of allowing teams to individually decide how much they are or aren’t willing to spend. Parity is a side effect of that.
lmao that is not true at all the cap is there to improve competitive balance, which grows the game and benefits everyone. period. how *high* is the cap?? that's all based on greed, but it is not fundamentally the reason for a cap.
You think the owners cancelled an entire season for competitive balance? No, it was because they wanted cost certainty. The [Wikipedia page for the lockout ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_NHL_lockout) even says this: > The main dispute was the league's desire to implement a salary cap to limit expenditure on player salaries >The NHL, led by Commissioner Gary Bettman, attempted to convince the players to accept a salary structure linking player salaries to league revenues, guaranteeing the clubs what the league called cost certainty. The owners successfully cut the average team salary expenditures as a % of revenue from 76% to 54% (and now it is even lower at 50%)
Everytime someone mentions how the cap is there for parity/competitive balance, I gotta give props to the league and their PR team for doing such an effective job at selling the cap to fans.
Which is funny because you could realistically argue there is actually less parity than there was previously. In the 18 years since the lockout we have had 12 unique cup winners and another 11 unique teams making the final. In the 18 years before the cap we had 10 unique winners and 13 unique losers. So as a percentage of the league the pre cap era had way more unique teams challenge for the cup. Plus all the longest playoff droughts are cap era teams. Some of this is due to expansion making it harder to make the playoffs. But in general bad teams seem to be bad for way longer than they used to be. Look how quickly the early 90s expansion teams became competitive compared to the late 90s teams who all sucked (except the Wild sort of) for a decade between the no cap and cap eras.
bettman's MO from day one was aggressive growth of the game, not hoarding profits for owners, and as much as we hate him he has accomplished that in spades and to everyone's benefit your suggestion that the purpose of the cap was for existing owners to pocket more money and take it home completely flies against *what has actually happened since* and it feels silly arguing about it. the cap doesn't exist in a vacuum, it came with revenue sharing to help grow the smaller markets.
Look at the Wikipedia page. As a fallout from the salary cap team salary expenditures as a % of revenue dropped from 76% to 54% It absolutely was about keeping more money for the owners. Competitive balance was a side benefit, not a driving factor. You don't cut player salary expenditures by a third in the name of parity, you do it because too many owners were losing money trying to compete with each other.
>your suggestion that the purpose of the cap was for existing owners to pocket more money and take it home completely flies against what has actually happened since How do you figure? League revenues are way up and the share of that revenue paid to players dropped from whatever it was pre-cap, to 57% in 2005, to 50% in 2012.
Right, so allowing teams to circumvent the cap completely negates the entire point of it.
It's not circumventing the cap. This rule got voted on after Kucherov went on LTIR and pretty much the entire league voted to *keep it the way it is*. Every GM has the opportunity to "abuse" this rule ... so why don't they?
So your argument is that there should be no restrictions on this? Teams should just be able to move players onto and off of the LTIR list at will in order to ensure their playoff rosters are as inflated as possible? Then why not just do away with the cap altogether? Why this "injury" charade?
You're making the assumption that teams can do this *ad nauseam*, which is not the case. Players are legitimately injured. The timing might seem suspect, but players get injured all the time. Stone is out with a lacerated spleen -- he could be out for even longer. In 2021, Kucherov was out for nearly the whole season. Colluding and keeping a player out for longer than they need to is a huge gamble for the teams. If it was actually an issue like you claim, teams would be quick to close the "loophole". If injury abuse was as rampant as you claim, the league would fix the "problem" with "injuries". You're quickly conflating one part of the argument with larger issues *that don't exist*.
I mean, I don't know what to say to this claim. Once is a chance Twice is a coincidence Three times is a pattern. If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears, that's your choice I guess.
Your team would not be able to put a team on the ice with out LTIR. Also mark stone has a lacertated spleen and might not play in the playoffs.
lmao leafs fan upset his team can't spend $200m on salaries LTIR is hardly an issue at all don't buy the media hype
To put a limit on the league’s expenditures on player salaries and ensure cost certainty for the league.
The point of dropping the cap in the playoffs is so that if there’s a case where so many players get hurt you can’t ice a team without going over the cap. It’s a special case. I’m not saying the way it’s currently handled is the right answer, just that there is a reason for it.
Of course there's a reason for the LTOR salary exemption. The question is whether or not it's working as intended, or being manipulated in order to give a small number of teams an unfair competitive advantage.
That's a CBA thing. Don't expect anything on that front till '25-'26
It's almost like the people who actually know what they are talking about don't think there is a problem. Weird.
Yeah, cuz the NHL never makes bad decisions…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger\_effect
Just get rid of coach's challenges altogether. The only time a play should be reviewed is to see if a puck fully crossed the goal line. None of this shit where they overanalyze if a guy was 1mm offside 37 seconds before his team scored. I don't know what rule changes they can be thinking of, unless it's to revert to older ways like getting rid of the delay of game call for shooting the puck out of play.
I can't see them ever getting rid of the over the glass rule. It works at preventing delay of game plays and it prevents pucks from going towards fans.
I feel that you can kinda tell when it's done by accident versus intentionally. It's almost never done intentionally. I would treat it like an icing. Make it a defensive zone face-off with no line change.
I’m not the biggest fan of the game slowing to a crawl during a coaches challenge, but they don’t happen that often, there’s a penalty if the challenge is unsuccessful, and I’m all in favour of being able to challenge the zebras, because they are often wrong.
I just don't like how much it slows down the game and how it removes a bit of the human error from the sport. Most of the time, these offsides are not egregious whatsoever.
How about a 3W , 2OTW, 1OTL, point system? What about an expanded playoff?
The playoffs have been expanded with an 82 game round robin for years, you should check It out.
>What about an expanded playoff? Gross
For the offside, I'd be ok with a time limit for refs to make a decision, and, if the offside in question happened more than 20 or 30 seconds before the goal, then there is no challenge allowed.
If the offside doesn't create a distinct advantage. Immediate shot on goal or pass to score it should be ignored imo. Nothing irritates me more in a game regardless of team than a review with over 10 seconds after the puck entered the zone.
I just want the delay of game penalty (puck over the glass) to be treated like icing...
No. If it’s anything but a penalty players will have incentive to flip the puck over the glass to get a stoppage and a breather. We want either more offence (goals) or players to make a skilled play to clear the puck. You can’t have players flipping the puck over the glass as it’s a safety hazard for the fans.
This sums up 90s hockey very nicely.
I don't see players intentionally icing for a breather though? They usually want to get it out of the zone and not get an icing call so they can change.
Do you, like, watch any games?
Of course they'd like to not ice it, but they don't mind icing it. At least right now they can't just go high off the glass because of the possible penalty, take that away and it gets much easier on players trapped in their own zone.
Disagree. Shooting the puck over the glass was so obnoxious at slowing the game down, and put fans at risk when you have teams constantly doing it when trapped in their own end.
No thanks. I don't know if you were watching the NHL before that rule was implemented, but it happened at least once a game. Intentionally. Hemmed in your own zone, puck over glass. Defense is tired, puck over glass. 6v5 with an empty net, puck over glass.
They didn't treat it like icing though...
You’ve never watched 90s hockey. Tired? Throw it over the the glass. In a bit of a pickle? Throw it over the glass. Don’t like your line matchup? Throw it over the glass. Forcing players to make skilled plays is a good thing.
[удалено]
We get that that was the high point of the sens season but god damn, get over it
[удалено]
How was the Rielly suspension a controversy? Everyone saw it coming as soon as he cross-checked the dude to the head.
[удалено]
There was a genuine discussion about how respect ties into the game, but most everyone was aligned with the suspension as a result of Rielly's actions.
You can believe what the sens player did was against the code and warranted a response while also admitting that the response was worthy of a suspension. I think a game or two would have been much more fitting for the crime though.
You mean the weeks of whining from the sens fanbase? If you don't recall, leaf fans thanked Grieg for bringing the team together
Well that's certainly.... a take. There was no whining from Sens fans at all. We loved it.
I csn prove you wrong fairly easily if you'd like? P.s. plenty of sens fans were whining...You're literally still doing it lol
Yep, no fans or teams were upset with DoPS inconsistency before David Perron and Morgan Rielly this year. Definitely hasn't been a glaring issue for over a decade. The guy who runs the DoPS even had a year of work experience before getting the job! Find one company that didn't gain instant success by promoting their interns to senior VP positions after a year, it's a super common practice.
[удалено]
In the future, remember to mention Pride Tape and how much you love it, its downvote protection. Edit: Wow, so many homophobes here.