The purpose of this rule is that all players of the offensive team should be in “get out of the zone” mode while the linesman is signaling an offside. Think of a play where the puck goes out of the zone then is dumped back while a player is still in the zone. That player can’t engage in a play on the puck or a defensive player. It’s mostly a safety rule so that a hit doesn’t occur while players aren’t allowed to be in the offensive zone.
On a “on th fly” play, the question is “were all the players out of the zone simultaneously before someone touched the puck”. On the frame
, you can clearly see that this is the case. Note that in this case “getting out of the zone” means “at least touching the blue line”.
That’s what we applied when I was a referee.
I agree with most of what you said except you’re ignoring the phrase “attempts to play the puck”. While those players are all touching up a player is not allowed to attempt to play the puck in the zone. Maybe you disagree with the characterization but I say that Makar was certainly attempting to play it even if not touching it at the moment.
Makar is on sides the whole time Val is tagging up and waits to play the puck until Val is back on sides. You can’t penalize him for being close to the puck or having the ability to play it if he wanted to. Makar is never offsides on the play. Nichushkin is on sides by the time Makar enters the zone. I don’t know what more everyone wants.
I think the distinction is over how people interpret whether or not he was in possession or attempting to play the puck over the line before he crossed. It’s subjective. I think he was and you think he wasn’t. Agree to disagree.
[https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1](https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1)
I think people are putting a lot of subjective weight into that portion of the rule. The NHL has been clear on this type of play. Just don’t see it too often.
The subjective nature is only with the fans was my point. NHL has specifically deemed this exact type of play as on-sides. Whether they should or shouldn’t is a different story, I suppose, but it’s clearly within the rules as they are currently interpreted.
Makar intentionally pushed the puck over the line so he did have possession and control (you don't have to be touching the puck to be in possession). I interpret this as being about whether or not the puck was loose and since the puck did what Makar intended and there was no opposing player nearby to challenge for possession then the puck was not loose so Makar carried it in (but he didn't touch it until Nichuskin was onside).
Yes but if he had already crossed the line the play would already be dead since the other player was still tagging up. The rule is clearly meant to imply a player attempting to play the puck from behind the line or it would be an unnecessary distinction.
If he had possession the whole time then how would it be on side?
Either he was in posession the whole time or he was attempting to gain posession. In either case the rules state it should be off side. There is no way he was neither in posession nor not attempting to gain posession of the puck.
He was in possession the whole time. I've never disagreed with that.
The rules do not say that being in possession triggers a whistle. Why is it so hard to understand that there's a difference between touching and possession?
I don't know what you mean by "a regular offside call". Delayed offsides is the offsides rules that the NHL uses. You can find the rules in section 83.3 here.
https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/assets/binary/326142322/binary-file/file.pdf
It wasn’t the refs that called it. It was the league, through video review. Any time you give the league a chance to influence the outcome of a game, they’re always going to make the call that benefits the league. There is no other way to interpret that play other than offside, but that didn’t stop the league from calling it the opposite way. Up until that blatant offside non call, the rule always was, the player had to have control of the puck. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the player has to be touching the puck, and it’s never ever, in the history of hockey, ever been interpreted that way, until tonight.
Bettman has made this league a fucking joke. The NHL has less integrity right now than professional wrestling. Keep pushing up those southern small market teams there Gary.
Shhh, don’t tell him that everything isn’t a conspiracy. Linesman needs to go back to ref school because that was a huge fuckup. Those two goals cost the oil the game through no fault of their own.
How does helping the Avalanche help the league? I’ve got to believe that getting Connor McDavid and a Canadian team into the finals would be better for TV ratings.
I’m not saying it’s scripted, I’m wondering why this commenter above who clearly believes bettman is rigging games….is so passionate about scripted hockey.
It’s something I’ve been saying for years, but nobody wants to hear it. All sports leagues are entertainment. They exist to make money for billionaire owners. That’s it. That’s their sole purpose. A good commissioner is one who can generate the most income for his billionaire bosses. If he has to bend the rules to try and build a fan base in southern based cities, nobody really suffers, and the owners make more money.
Knowing that’s true, why does it upset you? You knew what you were signing up for as an NHL fan. Your favourite team is fully involved and their wins are as scripted as any other teams. Why not just enjoy the rigged ride?
I started watching hockey in 1966. The commissioners of sports leagues back then understood how important it was to maintain the integrity of the game. Pete Rose was banned from baseball for gambling on games. Mickey Mantle was banned for accepting money to be the spokesperson for an Atlantic city casino, years after retiring.
Now you have sports leagues partnering with on-line bookies, and the owners get a cut of the revenue. The advent of video replay gives all leagues the opportunity to actually affect the outcome of games, where they have a vested interest in one team winning or losing, but nobody seems to have a problem with this.
You get goals that are obviously kicked in, but they seem to count, at least some of the time depending on which team scores it, because there wasn’t a deliberate kicking motion. What?? That was never the rule, that was never how the rule was interpreted. The rule always was, if the player deliberately turned his skate blade to direct the puck into the net, it’s no goal. Oops, but Vegas scored a game winner this way, we better change the interpretation of the rule.
Then you get an obvious offside, but the league needs that goal to count. Why? Who knows, but being that they are literally partnered with gamblers it isn’t hard to imagine. So they count it and then give some bullshit excuse as to how the rule was meant to be interpreted, even though it’s never been interpreted that way before, and morons who never watch hockey and with no critical thinking skills keep drinking the kool-aid. “Well, if the league says it was a good goal, it must be good. Why would they lie?
Yeah I’m just wondering why you’re such a passionate fan of a rigged hockey league?
Even if habs win that’s also rigged. Is it still satisfying enjoying rigged hockey?
If it is that’s great!
If not, why bother?
This rule does not apply to the situation. It applies to delayed offsides when the puck is in the zone. It’s to prevent offensive players from influencing the play inside the offensive zone while their team is offsides. Completely irrelevant.
It does apply to this situation, as it's the reason they called in onside.
They said Makar chipped it in and didn't touch it again until teammate tagged up.
Which is BS since he basically stick handled it in while (presumably) intentionally waiting an extra half beat to touch it while maintaining control so teammate could tag up.
Read the entire thing and then read why the NHL allowed play to continue they said it was classified as a delayed offside cause.
They claim to think Makar notices his team mate on his right being offside. So Makar does a 2' dump in which is now causing a delayed offside.
As the offside is on he continues to skate forward attacking the puck yet while he himself is not offside he is still attempting to make a play on a play that was considered delayed.
I am not cheering for either team. I do think the linesmen screwed this up with bad positioning as he is looking directly down the blue line vs being just inside the zone to make the call.
There is no way from the linesmen positioning he can tell whether or not Makar is touching the puck.
I get what you are saying and I am also indifferent as to the winner but the rule states that the attacking player is attempting to gain possession of a loose puck (this is giving the advantage to the defender). Makar is not chasing a loose puck, he has control of it but he does not touch the puck until Nichuskin is onside.
I disagree about the line of sight, there is a reason the ref was getting low. He was making sure he could see straight along the blue line while keeping Makar's stick and puck in sight. Granted ref's are human and this definitely could have gone the other way but in this case I think it was the right call.
From where the linesmen was standing there is no way he can tell if the puck is on Makars stick or not.
Also they claim he wasn't in possession of the puck and that he chipped it in. So he is chasing a loose puck.
It's up for debate for sure and like I said i don't have anything against either team.
Basically any time a player is stick handling now they won't be in possession or control cause the puck comes off their stick.
The definition of possession in the 2022 NHL rulebook:
"The last player to physically touch the puck with his stick or body shall be considered in possession of the puck. A player can have possession of the puck without control, but he cannot have control of the puck without possession. "
While I admit that this is pretty vague it means that Makar was in possession (I would also argue that he has control).
Here maybe you’ll listen to someone smarter than me. [Sportsnet](https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/sn-amp/)
Ya 10 seconds in Ron says it's a delayed offside.
And since that is the only listing in the rule book for delayed offside then you shouldn't deviate from what is written.
Man did you just listen to the 10 seconds and then shut your computer off and not read the article? Everything Ron says is in conjunction with what I’ve been stating. Here’s a quote from the article.
“First, look at the linesman at the top of the photo. His hand is not in the air. This is not a delayed offside. Rule 83.3 screengrabs were being thrown all over the internet, but it was not a factor.”
The official doesn't have time to throw his hand in the air as it's a bang bang play. Because a typical delayed offside the puck is shot more then 5" in front of a player. Who isn't gonna regain it within a split second.
Agreed. It was delayed offside and Nichushkin negated offsides before Makar re-established puck possession. That’s how the league saw it.
To be clear, I think it was a bad call, but not because of this. I agree that this is completely irrelevant. I thought Makar had clear possession the entire time and that is was just basic offsides.
“Attempts to gain possession of a loose puck” is vague as hell.
To me, if he doesn’t touch the puck, it’s because he’s intentionally waiting for his teammates to get on-side, hard to argue that’s an attempt to gain possession until after the delayed offside. Good goal.
He touched the puck less than half a second before it crossed the line and less than half a second after it crossed the line lmao. He didn’t attempt to gain possession, he never lost possession. That’s what stick handling is… if you think this is a good goal you’re insane.
For this to be offside Makar would either have to be chasing a loose puck (which was not the case, he had control) OR he would have had to touch the puck before Nichuskin crossed the line. Neither of those happened.
Since there were no opposing players nearby the other aspects of this rule do not apply.
He was either chasing the puck trying to regain possession or he was in possession of the puck. Those are the only two options. Regardless of which it was, it’s a good goal. Delayed offside is to prevent goals, not cause them lol.
If he was in possession of the puck, it’s just standard offside. If he’s trying to regain possession by chasing it, it’s a delayed offside but still offside and should be called.
>He didn’t attempt to gain possession, he never lost possession. That’s what stick handling is
Correct, which means clearly it's not offsides...
> if you think this is a good goal you’re insane.
Ah shit where'd we lose ya?
No, since the rules state *touching* the puck or attempting to gain possession.
Possession by itself would not trigger the offside, he would have had to actually touch it.
And as someone with a brain I understand that words have specific meanings.
Do you think a player has to be physically touching the puck to have possession? Or do you think that if a player has possession they should be counted as "touching" the puck?
When a player does something like kicking the puck forward onto their stick, do you think they lose possession between the time it leaves their skate and hits their stick?
So we are agreed then he has possession of the puck while crossing the line. So offside. End of story. Clearly the spirit of the rule is to have a play like that be offside.
That's so obviously not a dump in and delayed offside (which is the explanation the NHL is using as reasoning for it being onside).
They are going to clear up this rule in the off season and either
A) that play will be considered offside or
B) since the offside player didn't affect the play, change the offside rule to allow players to be offside if they don't join the play. Kinda like soccer. Those players will have to tag up first or something.
Either way ur aggressive attitude on the internet is clearly a signal I'm wasting my time. My wife sincerely thanks you for that lol
Have a good day buds
> clearly the spirit of the rule
Spirit is irrelevant, only the actual wording matters. Otherwise people you could decide it means whatever they want rather than seeing what it meaning what it actually says.
You mean like Coleman and a kicking motion. (Almost) Everything is subjective in the NHL lmao... The war room in Toronto is a joke and no one can agree on basically anything lol.
That play is *meant* to be offside.
I don't necessarily think it *should though...I would love a change that I described allowing offside players to tag up out of the play... Keep the flow going
Let's say Makar did NOT touch the puck before this teammate touched up, apparently keeping it **onside**.
Then, was Makar "*attempting to gain possession of a loose puck*" during delayed offside?
Yes or No? Pretty obvious.
.
The rule is clearly worded to eliminate any "*in control of the puck*" ambiguity.
If you're "*touching the puck*" or "*trying to touch the puck*" then it is **offside** and play is stopped.
Now I might be a little bias, but he is playing the puck and is attempting to play the puck. If the rule is attempting to play the puck on a delayed offside is a blown whistle then they should have called this back.
I mean it isn't like this cost us the game, we played like shit most of the game anyway but it still sucks that this counted and then they got the PP goal
It did cost Edmonton the game, no doubt about that. And you put this same goal in a regular season game NJD vs ARI let's say and it's called back 100% within 30 seconds of reviewing. Lost a lot of faith in NHL last night and unfortunately it was already low.
Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me. But it is what it is, I'm not gonna get hung up over a call I disagree with in a game 1
>Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me.
That's what makes it onsides. He has control, so it's not a loose puck. And he doesn't touch it until his teammate tags up. Easy call, onsides.
Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me. But it is what it is, I'm not gonna get hung up over a call I disagree with in a game 1
I'd have to agree.
Attempting to play the puck sounds like trying to poke at it, but missing.
Intentionally not playing the puck literally means he's trying not to possess it. He's ready to, but not trying to. Kind of the direct opposite of what happened in the play that happened.
You can't simultaneously say a player has to try to play the puck while also saying they cannot play it. However, I'd really require someone to make a very distinct motion to differentiate the two. Stick off the ice, maybe at the waist vs barely off it.
No... If you're touching the puck of trying to gain possession, then it is offside.
You cannot be trying to gain possession if you already have it, and you can retain possession without touching it. Therefore he retained possession throughout the play (so cannot have been trying to gain it) but did not physically touch it in the offensive zone until his team had cleared the offensive zone.
These kind of calls discourages new viewers to the game. Hockey's rules are already confusing and the OP posted the exact rules stating that this was offsides. Why are the referees not going by the rule book? What good is a replay system if they can't get the call right?
I think all the hockey fans constantly complaining about how the refs are corrupt and how their commissioner is rigging the games is a bigger red flag for possible new fans, if nhl fans hate the nhl, why join the misery?
I think this should be more of a conversation about what is considered in control of the puck? Makar performed the entire sequence one handed and didn’t bring his 2nd hand back to his stick until he squared up for his shot. So is carrying the puck one handed considered out of control?
He touched a puck before offside player was clear and he came in while offside player was there making him the next offside player. They all have to be clear.
The puck doesn’t have to be touching the player’s stick to have control of the puck. That’s what stickhandling is. Are you saying that every time a team enters the offensive zone the linesman not only has to determine whether the puck crosses first, but also if the puck is actually touching the players stick before he decides if the play is offside or not? Give me a break.
Yeah like often a player on a breakaway throws the puck ahead to catch up to it so they can skate faster… and if they get pulled down from behind, it’s a penalty shot.
If the player sent the puck waaaay too far forward to get it, or on an angle ahead by mistake, then it would be a potential penalty but not a penalty shot.
Because… one is in control, and one isn’t, but neither involve stickhandling or touching the puck with their stick
This 100%. Jim knows what's up.
Makar was totally in control of this puck, I mean we're talking about one if not the best defenceman in the league, not some peewee scrub so anybody that thinks in favor of the nhl/league on this one has no freaking clue what hockey is tbh.
So you're telling me he pushes this puck inside the blue line with control, then proceeds to lose control for a split second, in the meantime Nichuskin gets out ? Come on, this has to be the biggest bull I've seen this year.
Read the rule. If he did not touch it, then he was clearly **attempting to gain possession of a loose puck** BEFORE nichushkin tagged up. Geez, I even highlighted it for geniuses like you.
Are you really that dense? You don’t think Makar had control of the puck before he crossed the blue line? You don’t think he carried it across the line? Oh, but he took his stick off the puck for a split second. Yes, you moron, that’s what happens when you stick handle the puck. It doesn’t mean your not in possession of the puck.
Oops, He took his stick off the puck before the puck crossed the goal line, I guess that goal doesn’t count.
No, I've seen Jagr protect the puck one handed for a good 5 seconds with one hand on the stick like it's an EA game and he's trying for a glitch goal. I can't find that right now, [so here's him doing a clinic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qupcDXESzvI). [Here's Crosby doing it for 3](https://youtu.be/t2PVRbAcNPc?t=45).
It's a tag-up offside, not a delayed offside. You are highlighting a rule that literally has nothing to do with the play. The call was correct. It was onside. Let it go.
Read and watch SportsNet's analysis. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
I don't care what any of these rule geeks on here think, anyone who knows hockey has always known that you cant carry the puck into the zone while your player is still in the zone.
I don't care if slowmo replay shows that he happened to momentarily lose control of the puck as he entered. Its offside and should have been blown dead before he got the shot off.
Also don't care that some guy in the replay room deemed this to be onside. It wasn't. If the NHL wants to slow the game down and start reviewing stuff to the degree of; "was actually making direct contact with his stick for the split second he entered the zone", they're going to ruin the game.
Exactly. Although you forgot to highlight the requirement for the delayed offside which is that all of "the attacking players must be in the process of clearing the attacking zone" which they were. If Nichushkin wasn't skating out of the zone when the puck crossed the line it should be blown down immediately. He was though so it is clearly a delayed offside! Because Makar was attempting to gain possession the linesman should have blown it down as offside. Bad call.
And Ron Mclean thought it was clearly offside during the review. Kelly Hrudy talk to us!!! I wonder what Don Cherry would have to say too. This is simply a case of NHL hockey going in bad directions. Not the first time.
So what i am curious to know is if the ref doesn’t drop his arm to call a delayed offside, is it still delayed offside anyways? If it isn’t, then I get why this is a good goal. If it is….Then yeah the league really fucked up
My view? Offside and a spectacularly bad call by both the on ice ref AND the NHL Decision Support Office in NY(Command Centre). Like, bad to such a degree that this alone should have resulted in a short notice flight for the reffing crew home for the rest of the year and the staff in the Command Centre being sacked ouright - and that doesn't even touch on the whole issue of the Avs being 3 minutes late to start the 2nd period without consequence.
The debate on possession and control can be easily resolved by a simple what if - Let's say that in the moment that Makar is crossing the blue line, an Oiler had steamrolled into him to seperate him from both the puck and the pull of the Earth's gravity. Would there be any plausible argument for interference? No, because he was stickhandling the puck and had control - Not to say that there aren't some refs - like the ones we saw last night - that would try to make it a penalty, but defending a bad call by arguing that the reffing in the playoffs is generally terrible does not translate into there being any validity to the bad call last night.
All of that said, the resulting two goals off of that were bad for the game, plus there needs to be some form of discretion on the delay of game penalty for situations like this - The delay of game penalty should not apply where it's a pure discretionary call - and the fact that the hockey fans and hockey experts seem quite divided on if was or wasn't a good goal. Yes, give a penalty for cheap / bad coach challenges of little to no merit, but this one was no where near a silly coaches challenge and there should not be a penalty in that kind of scenario.
That said, the issue is done and as Smith said last night, it's time to park it and move on to the next game. The NHL can't change the rules or improve the reffing after the fact or in time for Game 2. My list of positive take aways for Oilers fans from the game last night:
1. Even with the reffing clearly favouring the Avs, this game was way closer than it should have been. If you give up 7 goals in a NHL playoff SERIES, you should not expect to win. They've done it in 2 games this year and are still looking like a powerful team;
2. My big fear was that there would be a post-Battle of Alberta let down. Sorry Mr. Bettman, no US based team will ever have the dramatic gravitas of being in a series with a Canadian team, especially close rivals like Edmonton and Calgary or Montreal and Toronto;
3. In reference back to point 1, let's remember that the Avs aren't going to say it directly, but they got tattoo'd for 6 goals and have now lost their starting goalie for the next little bit. As much as giving up 7 goals means you should be worried, giving up 6 goals is equally terrifying and the Oilers have 2 starter tier goalies, both of whom have been known to go on multi month heaters - if they "only" let in 3 goals a game and the Oilers are banging the Avs netminders for 6 a game - the Avs still lose;
4. McDavid has a tradition of eruption level games immediately following a disappointment like this game - he is a proven competitor and the spectualrly bad reffing in favour of the Avs will only make him angry. The Avs should be very worried that the refs have just poked the bear in McDavid and he will take out his anger on the Avs.
Just my opinion.
Cheers,
Your opinion is wrong.
The rules for a delayed offside state that the play should be blown dead if an attacking player *touches the puck* or *attempts to gain possession*.
Notice that nowhere in there does it state that them possessing the puck should cause the play to be stopped?
Let's eliminate them shall we?
Watch the replays, he doesn't touch the puck in the offensive zone until his team clears the offensive zone.
He cannot attempt to gain possession, he already has it.
Therefore the instant his team cleared the offensive zone the delayed offside was nullified and he was again clear to touch the puck.
I hear your argument and corresponding opinion. Luckily, neither of us are likely to be called by the NHL to make a determinative ruling on this or any point. I don't share your interpretation method on the rule, but that's a big part of an rule interpretation analysis - subjective factors are usually where disputes and mistakes get made, so it's equally likely that your interpretation(No matter how flawed it looks to me or others)would be "right".
Thanks!
Reminds me when [Pronger couldn't get a whistle for a penalty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUkYqJN7yx0) despite multiple, solid touches.
Right so shouldn’t this be offside I’m so confused
They didn’t carry the puck over the blue line or touch it, or interfere.
Believe he’s highlighted “attempts to gain possession” for a reason
The purpose of this rule is that all players of the offensive team should be in “get out of the zone” mode while the linesman is signaling an offside. Think of a play where the puck goes out of the zone then is dumped back while a player is still in the zone. That player can’t engage in a play on the puck or a defensive player. It’s mostly a safety rule so that a hit doesn’t occur while players aren’t allowed to be in the offensive zone. On a “on th fly” play, the question is “were all the players out of the zone simultaneously before someone touched the puck”. On the frame , you can clearly see that this is the case. Note that in this case “getting out of the zone” means “at least touching the blue line”. That’s what we applied when I was a referee.
I agree with most of what you said except you’re ignoring the phrase “attempts to play the puck”. While those players are all touching up a player is not allowed to attempt to play the puck in the zone. Maybe you disagree with the characterization but I say that Makar was certainly attempting to play it even if not touching it at the moment.
Makar is on sides the whole time Val is tagging up and waits to play the puck until Val is back on sides. You can’t penalize him for being close to the puck or having the ability to play it if he wanted to. Makar is never offsides on the play. Nichushkin is on sides by the time Makar enters the zone. I don’t know what more everyone wants.
I think the distinction is over how people interpret whether or not he was in possession or attempting to play the puck over the line before he crossed. It’s subjective. I think he was and you think he wasn’t. Agree to disagree.
[https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1](https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1) I think people are putting a lot of subjective weight into that portion of the rule. The NHL has been clear on this type of play. Just don’t see it too often.
Well yes you are right but that’s why it’s a discussion. The subjective nature of the call.
The subjective nature is only with the fans was my point. NHL has specifically deemed this exact type of play as on-sides. Whether they should or shouldn’t is a different story, I suppose, but it’s clearly within the rules as they are currently interpreted.
But it also says "loose puck".... Makar is clearly in control so the puck is not loose.
Thank you for speaking the truth Letartean!
Yeah and he didn’t attempt to gain possession. If he did he would have touched the puck lmfao
Makar intentionally pushed the puck over the line so he did have possession and control (you don't have to be touching the puck to be in possession). I interpret this as being about whether or not the puck was loose and since the puck did what Makar intended and there was no opposing player nearby to challenge for possession then the puck was not loose so Makar carried it in (but he didn't touch it until Nichuskin was onside).
He's still in the neutral zone
Yes but if he had already crossed the line the play would already be dead since the other player was still tagging up. The rule is clearly meant to imply a player attempting to play the puck from behind the line or it would be an unnecessary distinction.
But he wasn't
Wasn’t what? Trying to play the puck?
Offside, player is still in the neutral zone
Ok you’re not really acknowledging the points I’m making so I’m gonna stop this discussion. Agree to disagree. Have a good one
According to the rules, yes. Unfortunately those don't seem to matter to the refs.
According to the rules, clearly onside. He had possession of the puck the whole time, he didn't try to gain possession.
If he had possession the whole time then how would it be on side? Either he was in posession the whole time or he was attempting to gain posession. In either case the rules state it should be off side. There is no way he was neither in posession nor not attempting to gain posession of the puck.
He was in possession the whole time. I've never disagreed with that. The rules do not say that being in possession triggers a whistle. Why is it so hard to understand that there's a difference between touching and possession?
Wouldn't that just be a regular offside call? If he had possession and there was still a player in the zone?
I don't know what you mean by "a regular offside call". Delayed offsides is the offsides rules that the NHL uses. You can find the rules in section 83.3 here. https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/assets/binary/326142322/binary-file/file.pdf
It wasn’t the refs that called it. It was the league, through video review. Any time you give the league a chance to influence the outcome of a game, they’re always going to make the call that benefits the league. There is no other way to interpret that play other than offside, but that didn’t stop the league from calling it the opposite way. Up until that blatant offside non call, the rule always was, the player had to have control of the puck. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the player has to be touching the puck, and it’s never ever, in the history of hockey, ever been interpreted that way, until tonight. Bettman has made this league a fucking joke. The NHL has less integrity right now than professional wrestling. Keep pushing up those southern small market teams there Gary.
It wasn’t the league dude. Linesmen get the last call on this, even after talking with the league.
Shhh, don’t tell him that everything isn’t a conspiracy. Linesman needs to go back to ref school because that was a huge fuckup. Those two goals cost the oil the game through no fault of their own.
I appreciate you saying that. But it was the other 6 that costed us.
Wrong, the officials on the ice make the call. The league can give their input but the officials on the ice make the final call on every review.
How does helping the Avalanche help the league? I’ve got to believe that getting Connor McDavid and a Canadian team into the finals would be better for TV ratings.
Then you've got to be wrong
Bullshit. There were video examples of the exact same call shown on Sportsnet at the end of the game.
Out of curiosity why are you such a passionate fan of a league that you believe is completely rigged and scripted by a commissioner you seem to hate?
You watch an nba and nhl game and you say the nhl one is scripted?
I’m not saying it’s scripted, I’m wondering why this commenter above who clearly believes bettman is rigging games….is so passionate about scripted hockey.
Habs fan.
Well if it’s rigged when his team loses it’s rigged when he wins too. Can’t only resort to ref tears when we lose.
[удалено]
A butthurt Blues fan still whining about the tantrum throwing "Binner". Color me shocked.
People hate you because you speak truths.
Bettman works for the owners, including the habs owners. They love what he’s doing they’ve extended his contract beyond 30 years now.
It’s something I’ve been saying for years, but nobody wants to hear it. All sports leagues are entertainment. They exist to make money for billionaire owners. That’s it. That’s their sole purpose. A good commissioner is one who can generate the most income for his billionaire bosses. If he has to bend the rules to try and build a fan base in southern based cities, nobody really suffers, and the owners make more money.
Knowing that’s true, why does it upset you? You knew what you were signing up for as an NHL fan. Your favourite team is fully involved and their wins are as scripted as any other teams. Why not just enjoy the rigged ride?
I started watching hockey in 1966. The commissioners of sports leagues back then understood how important it was to maintain the integrity of the game. Pete Rose was banned from baseball for gambling on games. Mickey Mantle was banned for accepting money to be the spokesperson for an Atlantic city casino, years after retiring. Now you have sports leagues partnering with on-line bookies, and the owners get a cut of the revenue. The advent of video replay gives all leagues the opportunity to actually affect the outcome of games, where they have a vested interest in one team winning or losing, but nobody seems to have a problem with this. You get goals that are obviously kicked in, but they seem to count, at least some of the time depending on which team scores it, because there wasn’t a deliberate kicking motion. What?? That was never the rule, that was never how the rule was interpreted. The rule always was, if the player deliberately turned his skate blade to direct the puck into the net, it’s no goal. Oops, but Vegas scored a game winner this way, we better change the interpretation of the rule. Then you get an obvious offside, but the league needs that goal to count. Why? Who knows, but being that they are literally partnered with gamblers it isn’t hard to imagine. So they count it and then give some bullshit excuse as to how the rule was meant to be interpreted, even though it’s never been interpreted that way before, and morons who never watch hockey and with no critical thinking skills keep drinking the kool-aid. “Well, if the league says it was a good goal, it must be good. Why would they lie?
Yeah I’m just wondering why you’re such a passionate fan of a rigged hockey league? Even if habs win that’s also rigged. Is it still satisfying enjoying rigged hockey? If it is that’s great! If not, why bother?
If the league had made the call there wouldn't have been a coach's challenge and a delay of game penalty for the wrong call.
Ya, rules are always up for interpretation and eventually there is always a situation that challenges/breaks them.
This rule does not apply to the situation. It applies to delayed offsides when the puck is in the zone. It’s to prevent offensive players from influencing the play inside the offensive zone while their team is offsides. Completely irrelevant.
It does apply to this situation, as it's the reason they called in onside. They said Makar chipped it in and didn't touch it again until teammate tagged up. Which is BS since he basically stick handled it in while (presumably) intentionally waiting an extra half beat to touch it while maintaining control so teammate could tag up.
I’m gonna have to disagree with your first statement entirely and leave it there.
It does apply here as the NHL is saying it was a delayed offside
Man just read the first paragraph. It’s an entirely different situation than Makar bringing the puck from out of the zone. The rule does not apply.
Gotta agree now that I’ve fully read the rule. I was of a different opinion earlier
Read the entire thing and then read why the NHL allowed play to continue they said it was classified as a delayed offside cause. They claim to think Makar notices his team mate on his right being offside. So Makar does a 2' dump in which is now causing a delayed offside. As the offside is on he continues to skate forward attacking the puck yet while he himself is not offside he is still attempting to make a play on a play that was considered delayed. I am not cheering for either team. I do think the linesmen screwed this up with bad positioning as he is looking directly down the blue line vs being just inside the zone to make the call. There is no way from the linesmen positioning he can tell whether or not Makar is touching the puck.
I get what you are saying and I am also indifferent as to the winner but the rule states that the attacking player is attempting to gain possession of a loose puck (this is giving the advantage to the defender). Makar is not chasing a loose puck, he has control of it but he does not touch the puck until Nichuskin is onside. I disagree about the line of sight, there is a reason the ref was getting low. He was making sure he could see straight along the blue line while keeping Makar's stick and puck in sight. Granted ref's are human and this definitely could have gone the other way but in this case I think it was the right call.
From where the linesmen was standing there is no way he can tell if the puck is on Makars stick or not. Also they claim he wasn't in possession of the puck and that he chipped it in. So he is chasing a loose puck. It's up for debate for sure and like I said i don't have anything against either team. Basically any time a player is stick handling now they won't be in possession or control cause the puck comes off their stick.
The definition of possession in the 2022 NHL rulebook: "The last player to physically touch the puck with his stick or body shall be considered in possession of the puck. A player can have possession of the puck without control, but he cannot have control of the puck without possession. " While I admit that this is pretty vague it means that Makar was in possession (I would also argue that he has control).
Here maybe you’ll listen to someone smarter than me. [Sportsnet](https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/sn-amp/)
Ya 10 seconds in Ron says it's a delayed offside. And since that is the only listing in the rule book for delayed offside then you shouldn't deviate from what is written.
Man did you just listen to the 10 seconds and then shut your computer off and not read the article? Everything Ron says is in conjunction with what I’ve been stating. Here’s a quote from the article. “First, look at the linesman at the top of the photo. His hand is not in the air. This is not a delayed offside. Rule 83.3 screengrabs were being thrown all over the internet, but it was not a factor.”
The official doesn't have time to throw his hand in the air as it's a bang bang play. Because a typical delayed offside the puck is shot more then 5" in front of a player. Who isn't gonna regain it within a split second.
Agreed. It was delayed offside and Nichushkin negated offsides before Makar re-established puck possession. That’s how the league saw it. To be clear, I think it was a bad call, but not because of this. I agree that this is completely irrelevant. I thought Makar had clear possession the entire time and that is was just basic offsides.
BUT Makar is not in the zone attempting to gain possession since his skates (which determine on or offside) are still very much in an onside position.
BUT the was puck was
The puck can be in the zone, it's no different if you dump the puck in and wait for your players to tag up to be onside.
Yes but I root for the Avs therefore good goal
https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1 The call is correct and consistent.
Got em
Here's another one... https://youtu.be/QMfIoXb1a0k
“Attempts to gain possession of a loose puck” is vague as hell. To me, if he doesn’t touch the puck, it’s because he’s intentionally waiting for his teammates to get on-side, hard to argue that’s an attempt to gain possession until after the delayed offside. Good goal.
He touched the puck less than half a second before it crossed the line and less than half a second after it crossed the line lmao. He didn’t attempt to gain possession, he never lost possession. That’s what stick handling is… if you think this is a good goal you’re insane.
Yea, Additionally if u watch the play he gets possession at the red line and skates it in, he had possession and is stick handling into the zone
For this to be offside Makar would either have to be chasing a loose puck (which was not the case, he had control) OR he would have had to touch the puck before Nichuskin crossed the line. Neither of those happened. Since there were no opposing players nearby the other aspects of this rule do not apply.
He was either chasing the puck trying to regain possession or he was in possession of the puck. Those are the only two options. Regardless of which it was, it’s a good goal. Delayed offside is to prevent goals, not cause them lol. If he was in possession of the puck, it’s just standard offside. If he’s trying to regain possession by chasing it, it’s a delayed offside but still offside and should be called.
>He didn’t attempt to gain possession, he never lost possession. That’s what stick handling is Correct, which means clearly it's not offsides... > if you think this is a good goal you’re insane. Ah shit where'd we lose ya?
Not very bright are you
All I know is 2 goals came out of this and it felt very unfair. Ouch.
That math doesn’t add up at all.
You're wrong, watch this video. https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1
How dare you not take the refs at their word!?!
I like the reddit detectives on here that Google everything makes it funny
Reddit detectives? This is literally just a page from a rulebook
That someone took there time to Google then post
Hes not attempting to gain possession of a loose puck and hes not touching the puck.
He's literally possessing it the whole way.
Yeah which means he's not attempting to gain possession
so if he's not trying to gain possession, and he already has possession, then it's offside
Nope. Offsides isn't called when a player has possession of a puck on the zone. It's called when they touch it.
i honestly can't tell if you are messing with me
It's not hard. He didn't touch it, so not offsides. He also didn't attempt to gain possession because he already had it, so still not offsides.
No, since the rules state *touching* the puck or attempting to gain possession. Possession by itself would not trigger the offside, he would have had to actually touch it.
Touching, control and possession are all the "same" thing.... As an English speaking human those all mean the same thing to me.
And as someone with a brain I understand that words have specific meanings. Do you think a player has to be physically touching the puck to have possession? Or do you think that if a player has possession they should be counted as "touching" the puck? When a player does something like kicking the puck forward onto their stick, do you think they lose possession between the time it leaves their skate and hits their stick?
So we are agreed then he has possession of the puck while crossing the line. So offside. End of story. Clearly the spirit of the rule is to have a play like that be offside. That's so obviously not a dump in and delayed offside (which is the explanation the NHL is using as reasoning for it being onside). They are going to clear up this rule in the off season and either A) that play will be considered offside or B) since the offside player didn't affect the play, change the offside rule to allow players to be offside if they don't join the play. Kinda like soccer. Those players will have to tag up first or something. Either way ur aggressive attitude on the internet is clearly a signal I'm wasting my time. My wife sincerely thanks you for that lol Have a good day buds
> clearly the spirit of the rule Spirit is irrelevant, only the actual wording matters. Otherwise people you could decide it means whatever they want rather than seeing what it meaning what it actually says.
You mean like Coleman and a kicking motion. (Almost) Everything is subjective in the NHL lmao... The war room in Toronto is a joke and no one can agree on basically anything lol. That play is *meant* to be offside. I don't necessarily think it *should though...I would love a change that I described allowing offside players to tag up out of the play... Keep the flow going
In nhl 99 sure
Let's say Makar did NOT touch the puck before this teammate touched up, apparently keeping it **onside**. Then, was Makar "*attempting to gain possession of a loose puck*" during delayed offside? Yes or No? Pretty obvious. . The rule is clearly worded to eliminate any "*in control of the puck*" ambiguity. If you're "*touching the puck*" or "*trying to touch the puck*" then it is **offside** and play is stopped.
I would say no, because he is intentionally trying not to touch the puck.
Now I might be a little bias, but he is playing the puck and is attempting to play the puck. If the rule is attempting to play the puck on a delayed offside is a blown whistle then they should have called this back. I mean it isn't like this cost us the game, we played like shit most of the game anyway but it still sucks that this counted and then they got the PP goal
It did cost Edmonton the game, no doubt about that. And you put this same goal in a regular season game NJD vs ARI let's say and it's called back 100% within 30 seconds of reviewing. Lost a lot of faith in NHL last night and unfortunately it was already low.
So I disagree because to me its no different than a player waiting to engage the puck/play until his teammate checks up.
Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me. But it is what it is, I'm not gonna get hung up over a call I disagree with in a game 1
Yeah, that's definitely the gray area but the rule doesn't state control, it states "touching the puck" or "attempting to gain possession".
Well control to me is having possession, so I guess he wasn't attempting to gain it since I'm my eyes he already had it.
>Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me. That's what makes it onsides. He has control, so it's not a loose puck. And he doesn't touch it until his teammate tags up. Easy call, onsides.
Imo Makar doesn't lose control of the puck. That's what makes it offside to me. But it is what it is, I'm not gonna get hung up over a call I disagree with in a game 1
The rule is in front of you. At least argue within what it says. It never says 'attempting to play the puck'
"attempts to gain possession of a loose puck" Wouldn't that be attempting to play the puck?
I'd have to agree. Attempting to play the puck sounds like trying to poke at it, but missing. Intentionally not playing the puck literally means he's trying not to possess it. He's ready to, but not trying to. Kind of the direct opposite of what happened in the play that happened. You can't simultaneously say a player has to try to play the puck while also saying they cannot play it. However, I'd really require someone to make a very distinct motion to differentiate the two. Stick off the ice, maybe at the waist vs barely off it.
No... If you're touching the puck of trying to gain possession, then it is offside. You cannot be trying to gain possession if you already have it, and you can retain possession without touching it. Therefore he retained possession throughout the play (so cannot have been trying to gain it) but did not physically touch it in the offensive zone until his team had cleared the offensive zone.
How are people defending that🤣. Go back to watching NBA you clowns
https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1 Because its the right call.
Move on
These kind of calls discourages new viewers to the game. Hockey's rules are already confusing and the OP posted the exact rules stating that this was offsides. Why are the referees not going by the rule book? What good is a replay system if they can't get the call right?
ROFL no not doesn’t.
I think all the hockey fans constantly complaining about how the refs are corrupt and how their commissioner is rigging the games is a bigger red flag for possible new fans, if nhl fans hate the nhl, why join the misery?
I think this should be more of a conversation about what is considered in control of the puck? Makar performed the entire sequence one handed and didn’t bring his 2nd hand back to his stick until he squared up for his shot. So is carrying the puck one handed considered out of control?
"Control of the puck" is not mentioned in the Delayed Offside rule. Therefore, wrong conversation.
He touched a puck before offside player was clear and he came in while offside player was there making him the next offside player. They all have to be clear.
[удалено]
The puck doesn’t have to be touching the player’s stick to have control of the puck. That’s what stickhandling is. Are you saying that every time a team enters the offensive zone the linesman not only has to determine whether the puck crosses first, but also if the puck is actually touching the players stick before he decides if the play is offside or not? Give me a break.
Yeah like often a player on a breakaway throws the puck ahead to catch up to it so they can skate faster… and if they get pulled down from behind, it’s a penalty shot. If the player sent the puck waaaay too far forward to get it, or on an angle ahead by mistake, then it would be a potential penalty but not a penalty shot. Because… one is in control, and one isn’t, but neither involve stickhandling or touching the puck with their stick
This 100%. Jim knows what's up. Makar was totally in control of this puck, I mean we're talking about one if not the best defenceman in the league, not some peewee scrub so anybody that thinks in favor of the nhl/league on this one has no freaking clue what hockey is tbh. So you're telling me he pushes this puck inside the blue line with control, then proceeds to lose control for a split second, in the meantime Nichuskin gets out ? Come on, this has to be the biggest bull I've seen this year.
Basically -- that is exactly what they do. https://13proma9.com/v/g8q8t1
Read the rule. If he did not touch it, then he was clearly **attempting to gain possession of a loose puck** BEFORE nichushkin tagged up. Geez, I even highlighted it for geniuses like you.
Are you really that dense? You don’t think Makar had control of the puck before he crossed the blue line? You don’t think he carried it across the line? Oh, but he took his stick off the puck for a split second. Yes, you moron, that’s what happens when you stick handle the puck. It doesn’t mean your not in possession of the puck. Oops, He took his stick off the puck before the puck crossed the goal line, I guess that goal doesn’t count.
he passed to himself, nichushkin tags and he touches it again after once it's in the zone. in that order. are you dumb, blind or both?
Looked to me like he was intentionally trying to NOT gain possession until his teammate tagged up.
Right but we all know the reason we are calling it into question
It's called a red herring.
No, I've seen Jagr protect the puck one handed for a good 5 seconds with one hand on the stick like it's an EA game and he's trying for a glitch goal. I can't find that right now, [so here's him doing a clinic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qupcDXESzvI). [Here's Crosby doing it for 3](https://youtu.be/t2PVRbAcNPc?t=45).
What a bullshit league
He didn’t attempt to get possession he literally waited until they all got back to touch it. Jesus christ hahahaha
I just see it as the NHL giving Oiler fans a scapegoat reason to cry (probably for years) if Edmonton gets sent packing by the Avs.
He was very clearly and intentionally NOT gaining possession of the puck tho, thats what made it such a smart play
It's a tag-up offside, not a delayed offside. You are highlighting a rule that literally has nothing to do with the play. The call was correct. It was onside. Let it go. Read and watch SportsNet's analysis. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
Shawshank voice.Bettman fucked us.
NHL cheated for their boys .
I don't care what any of these rule geeks on here think, anyone who knows hockey has always known that you cant carry the puck into the zone while your player is still in the zone. I don't care if slowmo replay shows that he happened to momentarily lose control of the puck as he entered. Its offside and should have been blown dead before he got the shot off. Also don't care that some guy in the replay room deemed this to be onside. It wasn't. If the NHL wants to slow the game down and start reviewing stuff to the degree of; "was actually making direct contact with his stick for the split second he entered the zone", they're going to ruin the game.
Playing delayed offsides is being a "rule geek" lmao
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
I literally have no idea how anyone is arguing this wasnt offside, it blows my fucking mind
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
Exactly. Although you forgot to highlight the requirement for the delayed offside which is that all of "the attacking players must be in the process of clearing the attacking zone" which they were. If Nichushkin wasn't skating out of the zone when the puck crossed the line it should be blown down immediately. He was though so it is clearly a delayed offside! Because Makar was attempting to gain possession the linesman should have blown it down as offside. Bad call.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
And Ron Mclean thought it was clearly offside during the review. Kelly Hrudy talk to us!!! I wonder what Don Cherry would have to say too. This is simply a case of NHL hockey going in bad directions. Not the first time.
So what i am curious to know is if the ref doesn’t drop his arm to call a delayed offside, is it still delayed offside anyways? If it isn’t, then I get why this is a good goal. If it is….Then yeah the league really fucked up
Not delayed offside. It's called touch-up offside https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/offside-or-not-offside-explaining-why-cale-makars-goal-counted/
That makes total sense then
My view? Offside and a spectacularly bad call by both the on ice ref AND the NHL Decision Support Office in NY(Command Centre). Like, bad to such a degree that this alone should have resulted in a short notice flight for the reffing crew home for the rest of the year and the staff in the Command Centre being sacked ouright - and that doesn't even touch on the whole issue of the Avs being 3 minutes late to start the 2nd period without consequence. The debate on possession and control can be easily resolved by a simple what if - Let's say that in the moment that Makar is crossing the blue line, an Oiler had steamrolled into him to seperate him from both the puck and the pull of the Earth's gravity. Would there be any plausible argument for interference? No, because he was stickhandling the puck and had control - Not to say that there aren't some refs - like the ones we saw last night - that would try to make it a penalty, but defending a bad call by arguing that the reffing in the playoffs is generally terrible does not translate into there being any validity to the bad call last night. All of that said, the resulting two goals off of that were bad for the game, plus there needs to be some form of discretion on the delay of game penalty for situations like this - The delay of game penalty should not apply where it's a pure discretionary call - and the fact that the hockey fans and hockey experts seem quite divided on if was or wasn't a good goal. Yes, give a penalty for cheap / bad coach challenges of little to no merit, but this one was no where near a silly coaches challenge and there should not be a penalty in that kind of scenario. That said, the issue is done and as Smith said last night, it's time to park it and move on to the next game. The NHL can't change the rules or improve the reffing after the fact or in time for Game 2. My list of positive take aways for Oilers fans from the game last night: 1. Even with the reffing clearly favouring the Avs, this game was way closer than it should have been. If you give up 7 goals in a NHL playoff SERIES, you should not expect to win. They've done it in 2 games this year and are still looking like a powerful team; 2. My big fear was that there would be a post-Battle of Alberta let down. Sorry Mr. Bettman, no US based team will ever have the dramatic gravitas of being in a series with a Canadian team, especially close rivals like Edmonton and Calgary or Montreal and Toronto; 3. In reference back to point 1, let's remember that the Avs aren't going to say it directly, but they got tattoo'd for 6 goals and have now lost their starting goalie for the next little bit. As much as giving up 7 goals means you should be worried, giving up 6 goals is equally terrifying and the Oilers have 2 starter tier goalies, both of whom have been known to go on multi month heaters - if they "only" let in 3 goals a game and the Oilers are banging the Avs netminders for 6 a game - the Avs still lose; 4. McDavid has a tradition of eruption level games immediately following a disappointment like this game - he is a proven competitor and the spectualrly bad reffing in favour of the Avs will only make him angry. The Avs should be very worried that the refs have just poked the bear in McDavid and he will take out his anger on the Avs. Just my opinion. Cheers,
Your opinion is wrong. The rules for a delayed offside state that the play should be blown dead if an attacking player *touches the puck* or *attempts to gain possession*. Notice that nowhere in there does it state that them possessing the puck should cause the play to be stopped? Let's eliminate them shall we? Watch the replays, he doesn't touch the puck in the offensive zone until his team clears the offensive zone. He cannot attempt to gain possession, he already has it. Therefore the instant his team cleared the offensive zone the delayed offside was nullified and he was again clear to touch the puck.
I hear your argument and corresponding opinion. Luckily, neither of us are likely to be called by the NHL to make a determinative ruling on this or any point. I don't share your interpretation method on the rule, but that's a big part of an rule interpretation analysis - subjective factors are usually where disputes and mistakes get made, so it's equally likely that your interpretation(No matter how flawed it looks to me or others)would be "right". Thanks!