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




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
- uf1910

Wrong. The rule is fine.

Wrong. The rule is fine.
- Feds91Stammer

Agree to disagree.

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

If his back foot was on the ice or not, he was offside, because his front foot was. I'm saying the advantage is the seemingly fraction of a second jump he has by not having to waste any time for his next stride. If he was a few inches back in the same position, he would be onside, but a few inches back. He would still have the advantage of not delaying on his next stride. But more than likely, a player would have his front foot lifted if they are straddling the blue line, and thus would be onside but lose the advantage of having his next stride immediate. it's the combination of having this stride advantage with being..well, offside.

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




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
- uf1910

The whole point of the rule, to stop players from entering the zone before the puck, is to not allow a team to have an advantage on the rush. Come on now.

So again, I ask, are you arguing for ref's discretion?

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




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
- uf1910

Whats the difference of standing on one foot in the offensive zone with your other foot in the air on the other side, and standing on two feet with your hand on the other side? You're arguing to complicate things with gray areas and discretion, which would lead for more reviews and bad calls

The whole point of the rule, to stop players from entering the zone before the puck, is to not allow a team to have an advantage on the rush. Come on now.

So again, I ask, are you arguing for ref's discretion?
- Blackstrom2

But if your weight is 80/20 front/rear but you happen to scratch that trailing skate across the ice, aren't you really already in the zone and isn't momentum on your side and propelling you forward?

But if your weight is 80/20 front/rear but you happen to scratch that trailing skate across the ice, aren't you really already in the zone and isn't momentum on your side and propelling you forward?
- wolfhounds

Dragging your skate actually slows you down (as opposed to propelling) because in order to be onside you need steel on the ice, not boot, so you have to turn the foot sideways (depending on how far you were stretching obviously)

Dragging your skate actually slows you down (as opposed to propelling) because in order to be onside you need steel on the ice, not boot, so you have to turn the foot sideways (depending on how far you were stretching obviously)
- WhiteLie

Right, it will cause some friction, which is why you want as little weight as possible on that rear leg (most on the front, moving you forward) when touching it to the ice. Definitely a timing play.

Anyone else see the Kerry Fraser article on TSN about the call? He said right call but according to some rules Tampa should have been awarded a power play because Murray threw his stick trying to stop Drouin from scoring. Interesting.....GO!

Ty, it is not the worst undisputed rule in hockey just because,you say so. Listening to the NHL Sirius XM channel today it was about 50/50 on the analysts being for or against. Just because you are butt hurt about it does not make it the "undisputed" worst rule in hockey. You don't have to over sensationalize things to convey your opinion.

Anyone else see the Kerry Fraser article on TSN about the call? He said right call but according to some rules Tampa should have been awarded a power play because Murray threw his stick trying to stop Drouin from scoring. Interesting.....GO!
- Kucherovski

I thought about that, but if the play was offside, nothing that followed counted, including Murray throwing his stick. Right?

Ty, it is not the worst undisputed rule in hockey just because,you say so. Listening to the NHL Sirius XM channel today it was about 50/50 on the analysts being for or against. Just because you are butt hurt about it does not make it the "undisputed" worst rule in hockey. You don't have to over sensationalize things to convey your opinion.
- PittsPens

Well...what he did worked...13 pages of comments

I thought about that, but if the play was offside, nothing that followed counted, including Murray throwing his stick. Right?
- wolfhounds

No I guess the rules say if one or more penalties is assessed between the time of the offside play and the video review...the offending teams player will be required to serve the penalty.

No I guess the rules say if one or more penalties is assessed between the time of the offside play and the video review...the offending teams player will be required to serve the penalty.
- Kucherovski

I thought it was only major penalties, but I could be wrong.

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




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
- uf1910

I will say it's rough when a player is so blatantly behind the blue line like Druin was last night. I still think the rule needs to be in place because if the play is much closer, you don't want the ref using his judgement to determine if part of player's skate that is in the air is still over part of the blue line. It's black and white if only skates touching the ice are factored into if a player is onside or not. I want nothing to do with refs making judgement calls on where a player's skate is off the ice in relation to crossing the blue line. It's the same thing with the puck over the net from your defensive zone. Pens took 3 in just over 2 minutes, all the right call. Wouldn't want the refs making a judgement call if the Pens did that intentionally or not, because knowing how refs are, they wouldn't have called all three because they would justify it as saying no team would intentionally do that 3 times.

If his back foot was on the ice or not, he was offside, because his front foot was. I'm saying the advantage is the seemingly fraction of a second jump he has by not having to waste any time for his next stride. If he was a few inches back in the same position, he would be onside, but a few inches back. He would still have the advantage of not delaying on his next stride. But more than likely, a player would have his front foot lifted if they are straddling the blue line, and thus would be onside but lose the advantage of having his next stride immediate. it's the combination of having this stride advantage with being..well, offside.
- Blackstrom2

Just ridiculous


There was absolutely no advantage to drouin that had any effect on him scoring that goal.

Yes it's the rule, fine. Beyond that, it's just a wasted point.
it's a silly rule, it will be tweaked this offseason, and the spirit of it has been lost and turned into a Hail Mary by the opposing coach hoping for a lucky no goal call.

The worst is those 2 minute cycle possession domination that eventually results in a goal. And then gets called back for the mm infraction way earlier.
Drouins may not have been that egregious, but it wasn't far off in regards to affect it had on the goal scored. Like nonexistent

But again, it's the rule. Fine.
I'm really hoping this happens to the pens so I can watch their fans scream bloody murder

I thought it was only major penalties, but I could be wrong.
- j.boyd919

No it's major or minor penalties. Why can't Cooper challenge that for the sake of getting it right?

No it's major or minor penalties. Why can't Cooper challenge that for the sake of getting it right?
- Kucherovski

Penalties aren't challengeable.

I thought it was only major penalties, but I could be wrong.
- j.boyd919

I thought I read the same thing, but that may have been for when a team scores a goal that is called no goal on the ice and the other team takes a minor before the goal can be reviewed. Not sure if that applies to coach's challenge on offsides or not.

Just ridiculous


There was absolutely no advantage to drouin that had any effect on him scoring that goal.

Yes it's the rule, fine. Beyond that, it's just a wasted point.
it's a silly rule, it will be tweaked this offseason, and the spirit of it has been lost and turned into a Hail Mary by the opposing coach hoping for a lucky no goal call.

The worst is those 2 minute cycle possession domination that eventually results in a goal. And then gets called back for the mm infraction way earlier.
Drouins may not have been that egregious, but it wasn't far off in regards to affect it had on the goal scored. Like nonexistent

But again, it's the rule. Fine.
I'm really hoping this happens to the pens so I can watch their fans scream bloody murder
- HB77

Did you see any Pen's fans scream bloody murder after 3 delay of game penalties in 2 minutes in the final minutes of an elimination game? No. That same play has been called the exact same way and if a Penguin's skate is off the ice and every part of his body but his front skate is on or behind the blueline, it's still offside.

Did you see any Pen's fans scream bloody murder after 3 delay of game penalties in 2 minutes in the final minutes of an elimination game? No. That same play has been called the exact same way and if a Penguin's skate is off the ice and every part of his body but his front skate is on or behind the blueline, it's still offside.
- mw630

Ehhh... I'm pretty sure if the same play happened the other way, about 17,000 dummies at Consol would be booing. But yes, I agree, if it happened the other way, it's offside and I, myself, wouldn't be pissed.

Did you see any Pen's fans scream bloody murder after 3 delay of game penalties in 2 minutes in the final minutes of an elimination game? No. That same play has been called the exact same way and if a Penguin's skate is off the ice and every part of his body but his front skate is on or behind the blueline, it's still offside.
- mw630

I never suggested it was bias or unfair

I suggested it's a ridiculous challenge thst has turned into something else altogether from what was intended.

I believe that it will be tweaked or changed this offseason

I never suggested it was bias or unfair

I suggested it's a ridiculous challenge thst has turned into something else altogether from what was intended.

I believe that it will be tweaked or changed this offseason
- HB77

I don't see how it is all that ridiculous. If the player is offside the goal shouldn't count as the play should have been stopped. There shouldn't be any question regarding to what degree it affected the following play as it would just result in more controversy.

I don't how people can acknowledge that it was offside but then argue that it didn't affect the play. There's too much subjectivity involved if the refs are going to have to determine whether or not it affected the goal that was scored. At least an offside call is black-and-white.

You lift your back skate off the ice in order to start your stride. This could able you to arrive at the net .3 seconds faster. Goals have been scored with less than .3 seconds left on the clock. It's that simple. Do hockey a favor and never write about it again.

Just ridiculous


There was absolutely no advantage to drouin that had any effect on him scoring that goal.

Yes it's the rule, fine. Beyond that, it's just a wasted point.
it's a silly rule, it will be tweaked this offseason, and the spirit of it has been lost and turned into a Hail Mary by the opposing coach hoping for a lucky no goal call.

The worst is those 2 minute cycle possession domination that eventually results in a goal. And then gets called back for the mm infraction way earlier.
Drouins may not have been that egregious, but it wasn't far off in regards to affect it had on the goal scored. Like nonexistent

But again, it's the rule. Fine.
I'm really hoping this happens to the pens so I can watch their fans scream bloody murder
- HB77

Well it sure as poop ain't happening to the Oil fans!

Can't believe you didn't run riot when the Hawks got the similar call against the Blues???