You're comparing murder to being 1mph over the speed limit?
- eichiefs9

Fairly comparable, no?

First, cheering for Tampa to win this series. Second, the play was offside. It's a black and white rule that has been enforced with video review all year, every team has both benefitted and been hurt by it, complaining about it is ridiculous. You can debate whether it's worth keeping the challenge or not, but as it is right now, its black and white.

You're comparing murder to being 1mph over the speed limit?
- eichiefs9

Offside, murder, and being 1mph over the speed limit are all basically the same thing

Offside, murder, and being 1mph over the speed limit are all basically the same thing
- mattmoulson

I'm making an argument for why black-and-white rules exist. Because there has to be a clear distinction between one thing and another. There is a clear cut barrier that can be crossed and, when it is, a rule can be applied. It is the definition of progress when these sorts of rules can be applied equally, without bias and consistently. That is what the NHL is attempting to do.

Seriously? Did you read the rule? I understand your thinking and do not disagree with it but the NHL put out the rule, not me. He was not offside and he was not onside based on the exact language in the rule book. He was offside by any hockey fan standard and by any normal thinking that he was not onside so he had to be offside but just read it, he was not offside....technically.
- Kucherovski

HE WAS OFFSIDE.

You can only be one or the other.

If you are not onside, you are offside.


He was not onside at the time the puck entered the zone.

He had one skate in the attacking zone.

His point of contact with the ice...the only one...was in the attacking zone.

OFFSIDE.

Fairly comparable, no?
- HB77

If murder and being 1mph over the speed limit are comparable then I'm pretty sure I'm a serial killer based solely on my drive to work this morning.

I wouldn't go that far. The technicality is whether or not a foot not in contact with the ice can be judged relative to the blue line. The powers that be have decided that no, it cannot, and this jives with every other major hockey league in the world.
- cheater2

I would go that far. NHL definition of "off-side"

"A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play." End of sentence end of paragraph. Without reading more was Drouin "off-side" by the technical definition?

I will say it again, I agree with the call last night, I've never ever referred to offside as onside but since the NHL rule book is messed up I can use it for ammo so I will continue to be a pain using the horrible wording in the rule book since that is all I have!!

I would go that far. NHL definition of "off-side"

"A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play." End of sentence end of paragraph. Without reading more was Drouin "off-side" by the technical definition?

I will say it again, I agree with the call last night, I've never ever referred to offside as onside but since the NHL rule book is messed up I can use it for ammo so I will continue to be a pain using the horrible wording in the rule book since that is all I have!!

- Kucherovski

You're an idiot, because the rule is clarified in the next paragraph:

"A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or
on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses
the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick."

If you are not on-side, you are off-side. Drouin was not on-side; therefore, he must be off-side. This is not rocket science. You cannot stop reading halfway into a rule and claim that because the rule is incomplete at the point you stopped reading, it is messed up.

I would go that far. NHL definition of "off-side"

"A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play." End of sentence end of paragraph. Without reading more was Drouin "off-side" by the technical definition?

I will say it again, I agree with the call last night, I've never ever referred to offside as onside but since the NHL rule book is messed up I can use it for ammo so I will continue to be a pain using the horrible wording in the rule book since that is all I have!!

- Kucherovski

That is not "all you have." It is all you choose to recognize to be, as you said, a pain.

What side of the force are you on for interference penalties?
- mattmoulson

There is so much interference that doesn't get called anymore...I have no idea what to say about that.

Penalties in general...the ones that get called versus the ones they...um...miss...you hope all that poop balances out. It usually does.

HE WAS OFFSIDE.

You can only be one or the other.

If you are not onside, you are offside.


He was not onside at the time the puck entered the zone.

He had one skate in the attacking zone.

His point of contact with the ice...the only one...was in the attacking zone.

OFFSIDE.
- icedog97

Do you really not understand or are you just trying to prove some point? Don't think logically at all, don't use your brain. Read the exact rule ONLY. If you flip a coin and it lands flat but not heads we know that it's tails. We know if you're NOT onside then you have to be offside. The NHL wrote the rule wrong, I totally understand and am using that as my point. My point is dumb because the NHL rule is dumb!

I'm making an argument for why black-and-white rules exist. Because there has to be a clear distinction between one thing and another. There is a clear cut barrier that can be crossed and, when it is, a rule can be applied. It is the definition of progress when these sorts of rules can be applied equally, without bias and consistently. That is what the NHL is attempting to do.
- cheater2

And in my opinion I disagree that are much larger fish to fry that have been ignored to make a rule that no one was really clamoring for.

So I guess we leave it at that

And in my opinion I disagree that are much larger fish to fry that have been ignored to make a rule that no one was really clamoring for.

So I guess we leave it at that
- mattmoulson

Whether or not there are larger fish to fry is BESIDES THE POINT!

We are not talking about larger fish - we are talking about this specific fish. If you can't stay on topic to make your point then you have no point to make!

You're an idiot, because the rule is clarified in the next paragraph:

"A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or
on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses
the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick."

If you are not on-side, you are off-side. Drouin was not on-side; therefore, he must be off-side. This is not rocket science. You cannot stop reading halfway into a rule and claim that because the rule is incomplete at the point you stopped reading, it is messed up.
- StealthTomato

Different words have different definitions. The NHL chose to put two words and define them. They specifically put "on-side" as a word and defined being on-side. They also put "off-side" as a whole different word and defined that word. Two words for the same play, again STUPID for the NHL to do that, but we're all using the word "off-side". It's a who's on first skit I am doing here. You say he was NOT onside by the rules so he had to be offside, I say what is the definition of offside, since the NHL defines it for us, and you say both skates can't be over the leading edge and round and round we go. Again right call made last night, Drouin must drag his skate in that instance but he was NOT offside by NHL definition of offside.

Who's on first?!?

Whether or not there are larger fish to fry is BESIDES THE POINT!

We are not talking about larger fish - we are talking about this specific fish. If you can't stay on topic to make your point then you have no point to make!
- cheater2

We talkin Walleye or Crappie? I could go for a fried walleye sammich..

Do you really not understand or are you just trying to prove some point? Don't think logically at all, don't use your brain. Read the exact rule ONLY. If you flip a coin and it lands flat but not heads we know that it's tails. We know if you're NOT onside then you have to be offside. The NHL wrote the rule wrong, I totally understand and am using that as my point. My point is dumb because the NHL rule is dumb!
- Kucherovski

See the bold above...

That's pretty much what I have been asking you to do with how the rule, although not a specific as you would like it to be, is understood by many and has worked just fine for many years.

Players drag their skates because they know it's offside.

Petition the league to make the rule more specific.

They should just change the rule that the puck has the cross before the body, regardless of possession of the puck.

The rule and challenge exists to call back the obvious offside calls that are 3 feet offside and missed.
That being said....take the skates out of it and rule on the puck as stated above.

Challenges are part of every sport these days. Not perfect but a work in progress and better than blown calls that decide games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dXFN2simc

By the way...it's Offside not Offsides

I think everyone should realize theres just one tampa bay fan arguing a black-and-white rule. Its prob just Ty arguing under another account

See the bold above...

That's pretty much what I have been asking you to do with how the rule, although not a specific as you would like it to be, is understood by many and has worked just fine for many years.

Players drag their skates because they know it's offside.

Petition the league to make the rule more specific.
- icedog97

I don't care if they make it more specific, I also have no problem with the call last night, that was the right call. Drouin MUST drag his foot.

I am being annoying because the written rule is stupid. Count that goal and the Lightning still lose that game because they didn't really play for 2 periods.

If murder and being 1mph over the speed limit are comparable then I'm pretty sure I'm a serial killer based solely on my drive to work this morning.
- eichiefs9

U can call me hitler in that scenario

offside is offside.

I think everyone should realize theres just one tampa bay fan arguing a black-and-white rule. Its prob just Ty arguing under another account
- DeflatedPucks

Let me ask, do you really not understand how it is not black and white? If you read it do you really not get it? I'm not arguing anything, the call was right as a hockey call. Hockey fans, players, coaches know that as offside. The NHL rule book is messed up is all I am saying and I am having fun using it. We lost the game, we got smashed and now we have to go to Pittsburg and try to win to move on. Please tell me you can understand the NHL rule book is messed up and Drouin was not offside or onside.

I think the rule is fine ,and It is great they get the call correct .Be ONSIDE you are taught that from day 1 as a hockey player . LA scored two offside goals against the HAWKS in 2014 WCF, and it really did cost the HAWKS the game and maybe a lot more . offside is offside simple ...

Let me ask, do you really not understand how it is not black and white? If you read it do you really not get it? I'm not arguing anything, the call was right as a hockey call. Hockey fans, players, coaches know that as offside. The NHL rule book is messed up is all I am saying and I am having fun using it. We lost the game, we got smashed and now we have to go to Pittsburg and try to win to move on. Please tell me you can understand the NHL rule book is messed up and Drouin was not offside or onside.
- Kucherovski

According to NHL rules he was not offside but he was also not onside
….
That is the rule directly from the NHL. Reading that Drouin was not offside because he did not have both skates over the leading edge. The NHL then ends the rule about offside and starts a new paragraph about onside where again Drouin was not onside. So he was not offside but not onside so what was he? NHL needs to just fix the rule by making the rule either being offside or onside, can't have both because it makes no sense.
…
I think, based on the rules, if you're going to make arguments start to ask, was Drouin onside because to answer your exact question, no he was not offside if his skates are the way they were and he shoots and scores.
…
Wrong, using the NHL rules he was not offside.

really?

really?
- DeflatedPucks

That's not arguing that is stating a fact. According to the defined word of "off-side" that the NHL has put on paper he was not offside. According to real life hockey knowledge he was offside. I find it hard to argue something when it is written on paper.

Use only the NHL rule book for me and define the following words (the NHL defines them for you on page 123).

Off-sides
On-sides