I was thinking the same thing, for Drouin to be onside he likely wouldve been half a step behind from where he got the puck after coming to a near stop. In this situation it probably wouldnt have made a difference in the result, as he probably wouldve still got to the puck and the net still been fairly empty but thats asking a lot for a linesman to predict the future impact of a discretionary offside call...
- WhiteLie

I think he has a clear advantage, in the fact, that his front foot is already on the ice. He can make his next stride instantly. If his back foot was on the ice and front lifted, or if both feet were in the neutral zone/blue line (onside), then he would not have had the advantage of being able to immediately stride with his front foot when entering the zone. Maybe, probably, the results are the same, but I think it's clear that Drouin had an advantage.

it makes perfect sense, and if you played ice hockey, you would understand how even a quarter of a step advantage is all it takes to blow by a defender. It also has to do with momentum, and most importantly, which foot he is able to stride with first when entering the zone. If he entered the zone with his back foot in the ice, he needs more time to make the next stride with his front foot. If he entered the zone with his front foot, illegally, he is able to not waste any time on his next stride.
- Blackstrom2

Let's not extend the whole "you don't play ice hockey" therefore you're not an athlete and don't understand the mechanics of speed, acceleration, body position, etc. I do. So let's move past that.

As for the rest, I get your point, but I still don't see a reason the blue line can't be extended up into space as opposed to just sitting on the ground.

What constitutes "the majority of his body"? Where do you draw the line? You are making it a ref's discretion vs making a black and white rule. What might be considered the majority of the body to one ref will certainly not be the exact same to another. So you're just asking for inconsistent calls, which is worse than having a rule you disagree with being called consistently throughout the league.
- mw630

Not saying it's easy, or that I have the answers. And offside is a discretionary call, and they get it wrong a lot. It's only black and white under review. And I only said it didn't make sense to me he was offside when most of his body was clearly not in the offensive zone, not that the "majority" of a player's body would be used to determine anything.

If the puck can cross the goal line in the air and it be a goal then a players foot in the air straddling a line should count as well. Correct call according to the rule, and if/when the NHL changes the rule, as usual it will only be in a reactionary sense after game situations show the rule to be dumb to begin with

Let's not extend the whole "you don't play ice hockey" therefore you're not an athlete and don't understand the mechanics of speed, acceleration, body position, etc. I do. So let's move past that.

As for the rest, I get your point, but I still don't see a reason the blue line can't be extended up into space as opposed to just sitting on the ground.
- wolfhounds

The NFL has trouble with this all the time, breaking the plane reviews take ages. Linesman in the NHL have the simple task of looking down the line, some even go down on one knee to get a better vantage point. With so many bodies flying by at high speeds, its easy to just look at the line itself. If you were to then have to start checking the vertical axis, I am sure there would be many more reviews and blown calls than there are today

If the puck can cross the goal line in the air and it be a goal then a players foot in the air straddling a line should count as well. Correct call according to the rule, and if/when the NHL changes the rule, as usual it will only be in a reactionary sense after game situations show the rule to be dumb to begin with
- uf1910

Just practicing staying onside...

I think he has a clear advantage, in the fact, that his front foot is already on the ice. He can make his next stride instantly. If his back foot was on the ice and front lifted, or if both feet were in the neutral zone/blue line (onside), then he would not have had the advantage of being able to immediately stride with his front foot when entering the zone. Maybe, probably, the results are the same, but I think it's clear that Drouin had an advantage.
- Blackstrom2

I don't know that Drouin had an advantage, but will agree that a player could have an advantage if they timed their entry right and didn't have to drag their rear leg to prevent them from the crossing the line prior to the puck. But that would take some skill. And this is a speed game, which is one of the reasons it's so awesome. And players are already allowed to breakaway as many times and as fast as they are able, so I'm not sure how a small tweak to onside would really change things. Could make it harder on the linesman, no doubt.

I think he has a clear advantage, in the fact, that his front foot is already on the ice. He can make his next stride instantly. If his back foot was on the ice and front lifted, or if both feet were in the neutral zone/blue line (onside), then he would not have had the advantage of being able to immediately stride with his front foot when entering the zone. Maybe, probably, the results are the same, but I think it's clear that Drouin had an advantage.
- Blackstrom2

Had his back foot been on the ground he would be in the exact same position on the ice thereby negating this perceived "advantage" you are referring to. Offsides is a rule in place to keep players from entering the zone before the puck. Well a foot off of the ice surface is not the same "advantage" that would be there if he were a step inside the line. In this case his body positioning entering the zone would be identical with foot up or foot down

Heard someone on the broadcast saying the replays/challenges increase 'excitement.'

The NFL has trouble with this all the time, breaking the plane reviews take ages. Linesman in the NHL have the simple task of looking down the line, some even go down on one knee to get a better vantage point. With so many bodies flying by at high speeds, its easy to just look at the line itself. If you were to then have to start checking the vertical axis, I am sure there would be many more reviews and blown calls than there are today
- WhiteLie

Yup, probably right.

Heard someone on the broadcast saying the replays/challenges increase 'excitement.'
- DeflatedPucks

They said excrement wrong.

The NFL has trouble with this all the time, breaking the plane reviews take ages. Linesman in the NHL have the simple task of looking down the line, some even go down on one knee to get a better vantage point. With so many bodies flying by at high speeds, its easy to just look at the line itself. If you were to then have to start checking the vertical axis, I am sure there would be many more reviews and blown calls than there are today
- WhiteLie

The NHL doesn't seem to have a problem extending the goal line into the air.

The NFL has trouble with this all the time, breaking the plane reviews take ages. Linesman in the NHL have the simple task of looking down the line, some even go down on one knee to get a better vantage point. With so many bodies flying by at high speeds, its easy to just look at the line itself. If you were to then have to start checking the vertical axis, I am sure there would be many more reviews and blown calls than there are today
- WhiteLie

Can you blame them tho? They have to watch out for the Dennis Widemans of the league...

Had his back foot been on the ground he would be in the exact same position on the ice thereby negating this perceived "advantage" you are referring to. Offsides is a rule in place to keep players from entering the zone before the puck. Well a foot off of the ice surface is not the same "advantage" that would be there if he were a step inside the line. In this case his body positioning entering the zone would be identical with foot up or foot down
- uf1910

With his foot off the ice, he was already leaning with momentum going forward. Thats definitely an advantage (in this situation it didnt amount to much, but still an advantage that would be further exploited if the rule were to change)

The NHL doesn't seem to have a problem extending the goal line into the air.
- uf1910

There is a crossbar to account for height, otherwise Hedman's penalty wouldve been a goal...

Can you blame them tho? They have to watch out for the Dennis Widemans of the league...
- DeflatedPucks

too soooon

There is a crossbar to account for height, otherwise Hedman's penalty wouldve been a goal...
- WhiteLie

There is a crossbar to account for height, otherwise Hedman's penalty wouldve been a goal...
- WhiteLie

Great...now do between the cross bar and the ice surface. There is a vertical axis between that the NHL counts towards whether a goal crosses the line or not

Nothing wrong with the offside replay stuff. If you want things right that is.

Delay of game is the rule that needs tweaking imo. I think it should result in the same penalty as icing. Face off in on zone and can't get a line change. Not worthy of 2 mins for me.

Nothing wrong with the offside replay stuff. If you want things right that is.

Delay of game is the rule that needs tweaking imo. I think it should result in the same penalty as icing. Face off in on zone and can't get a line change. Not worthy of 2 mins for me.
- Feds91Stammer

This is fair.

Great...now do between the cross bar and the ice surface. There is a vertical axis between that the NHL counts towards whether a goal crosses the line or not
- uf1910

Let's just put a net across the hole of the net, and if the puck ouches the net, its a goal.

With his foot off the ice, he was already leaning with momentum going forward. Thats definitely an advantage (in this situation it didnt amount to much, but still an advantage that would be further exploited if the rule were to change)
- WhiteLie

Again, offsides is a rule created to stop players from ENTERING the zone before the puck.

From the NHL rulebook here is the first line regarding offsides

83.1
Off-side
- Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck
into the attacking zone.

So please go on about how a players (frank)ing foot in the air is why this rule was put in. I know the rule says the foot on the ice is what determines offsides, again i stated they made the correct call. But it is absolutely asinine to have a stated goal for a rule but place bullpoop factors like feet on the ice to determine if said rule was broken. Again, his foot in the air whether giving any advantage or not is and should be immaterial. Bottom line is his body position would be the exact same and since the rule is in place to keep players from preceding the puck into the zone well I'd say it's a stupid (frank)ing rule

Let's just put a net across the hole of the net, and if the puck ouches the net, its a goal.
- j.boyd919

Nah...since it has to cross completely it will only be when the puck pierces this netting to enter the net

Let's just put a net across the hole of the net, and if the puck ouches the net, its a goal.
- j.boyd919

Do away with nets and goalies. Make it 7 on 7 and you have to carry the puck past the goal line to score.

Do away with nets and goalies. Make it 7 on 7 and you have to carry the puck past the goal line to score.
- Feds91Stammer

Rugby on ice..I like it