No absolutely not. But a call on the very play where the goal was scored, that could and should be reviewed.
- MBFlyerfan

How far back in "the play" do you go?

Imho, that microscopic offsides last night was well outside what I'd consider a reasonable amount of reviewable time.

Review the goal - did it go all the way over the line? was it kicked in? Leave everything else alone.

If we are talking about scoring plays, wouldn't that be different though? A touchdown reviewing if the receiver is out of bounds would be more like reviewing a high stick deflect or a kick in or w/e. You're reviewing the scoring play there. An offsides is not reviewing a goal...it is reviewing a play that indirectly led to a goal. Like a hold in football or offsides in football that didn't get called. An offsides in hockey is a mid play thing, not a completionary play like out of bounds.
- Mononoke

... and like last night it could be completely irrelevant to the scoring play.

This is the biggest question I think. Is it making the game better?

I don't think it is.
- mayorofangrytown

Agreed.
In fact, I think it's making it worse.

How far back in "the play" do you go?

Imho, that microscopic offsides last night was well outside what I'd consider a reasonable amount of reviewable time.

Review the goal - did it go all the way over the line? was it kicked in? Leave everything else alone.
- Scoob

No.

I'm confused why people keep putting words in my mouth. I'm not stating that missed penalties from 45 seconds back should negate a goal. In fact, I felt I stated my position clearly.
- steelydan

I didn't say you did. I'm merely asking a question.

Hockey continues to review aspects pertaining to the goal. Each goal should be reviewed on the following criteria: Off-sides, Kicking a puck, and goalie interference (forgot that one). How hard would it be for a "War Room" to review that aspect of every goal in a given game? Would the wait outweigh the unfairness that a team/coach/fan might feel towards a bad call?

It takes one second to let a bad call affect an entire game. It'll probably take one minute to have a bad call rectified and restore a level playing field.

I disagree on the offsides being reviewable.

Agreed.
In fact, I think it's making it worse.
- Scoob

Not to mention the fact that it's running counter to everything the league has tried to do in the last 12 years which is to increase scoring.

I think it was a good idea gone astray. They need to alter it.

I don't agree. just like football, that would be like saying your foot is touching out of bounds, but because your other foot is in the air in bounds you should be considered in bounds.
- MBFlyerfan

Bad analogy IMO. I don't equate going out of bounds to an offsides. I'd compare an offsides more so to a TD. The football only has to break the plane; doesn't matter if the player is airborne or not.

I didn't say you did. I'm merely asking a question.



I disagree on the offsides being reviewable.
- Scoob

That's fine. Because, in many cases; the off-sides would not affect the outcome of the goal. But what about the offsides that do affect it? It's not commonplace, but there is the occasional off-sides that is very clear to the fans at home that the refs plain miss. Now we're stating that the play cannot be challenged. Furthermore, how do you determine whether the off-sides had a result on the goal? Does the offending player need to touch the puck? The defensemen and goalies are accounting for him; so he's already played a pivotal role in the goal while breaking a rule.

It's essentially just going to force players to not cheat as much. The amount of goals getting overruled by offsides will dwindle and it'll be a non-issue that comes up once every 50 goals.

I personally feel that NAK is going to really surprise people...I think he will be what we hoped Read would become
- juiced

i think he is going to also. i think another year with the phantoms and he'll be good to go, maybe a call up middle of the year. watching him play, even tho he's definitely a smaller guy, with his speed and offensive awareness i think can really have an impact. imagine NAK and Konecny flanking coots. talk about a scary potential line (if the potential of the first 2 mention pan out).

Bad analogy IMO. I don't equate going out of bounds to an offsides. I'd compare an offsides more so to a TD. The football only has to break the plane; doesn't matter if the player is airborne or not.
- JFlyers00

There's no need to compare hockey to football in terms of breaking a play down. Overall, football makes an effort to to review all scoring plays on any aspect that is challengeable. Hockey should do the same.

If you want to remove offsides from a coach's arsenal of challenge-able plays, it's a separate conversation. I think it should remain in there; but it's my opinion. Either way, the league should want to get all scoring plays correct.

That's fine. Because, in many cases; the off-sides would not affect the outcome of the goal. But what about the offsides that do affect it? It's not commonplace, but there is the occasional off-sides that is very clear to the fans at home that the refs plain miss. Now we're stating that the play cannot be challenged. Furthermore, how do you determine whether the off-sides had a result on the goal? Does the offending player need to touch the puck? The defensemen and goalies are accounting for him; so he's already played a pivotal role in the goal while breaking a rule.

It's essentially just going to force players to not cheat as much. The amount of goals getting overruled by offsides will dwindle and it'll be a non-issue that comes up once every 50 goals.
- steelydan

My general opinion is "oh well, stuff happens" when it comes to that. I believe that the refs and linesmen give their best, impartial effort every game. Conspiracy theorists will disagree.

Humans make mistakes. That's life. I'm more than willing to deal with the rare missed "egregious" offsides call to not have to deal with the molecular science circus we had last night.

This is the biggest question I think. Is it making the game better?

I don't think it is.
- mayorofangrytown

I agree. If I have time to burn one and smoke a cigarette in the time they take to review plays, there's something wrong with that. Slows The game down, coaches just challenge when they get word from 50 guys in their organization that XYZ player had his skate a millimeter above the ice, it's just gatbage.

On top of that how many articles have we seen the past few years about increasing scoring? The challenge literally does the exact opposite of that... Bettman continuously (frank)ing things up.

My general opinion is "oh well, stuff happens" when it comes to that. I believe that the refs and linesmen give their best, impartial effort every game. Conspiracy theorists will disagree.

Humans make mistakes. That's life.
- Scoob

Besides, aren't the same refs reviewing the plays? They looked at that play last night for a full five minutes from 6 different angles. If they had said his skate was still touching the ice would you have been any more surprised than you were when they said he was off sides?

How many times do they go to the review and you end up sitting there going, "What the hell were they looking at?"

It's not any better, it's just more time consuming and emotion draining.

I'm happy they didn't have the coach's challenge in 2012

How far back in "the play" do you go?

Imho, that microscopic offsides last night was well outside what I'd consider a reasonable amount of reviewable time.

Review the goal - did it go all the way over the line? was it kicked in? Leave everything else alone.
- Scoob

It was directly involved with the play. Its not like they got a scoring chance, left the zone, then came back in. Its not even like they got a scoring chance then started cycling, then scored. He was offside and scored the goal on the very play he was offside. It was all one play in my opinion. There was no change of possession, no loss of zone. They scored on the rush he was offside on.

There's no need to compare hockey to football in terms of breaking a play down. Overall, football makes an effort to to review all scoring plays on any aspect that is challengeable. Hockey should do the same.

If you want to remove offsides from a coach's arsenal of challenge-able plays, it's a separate conversation. I think it should remain in there; but it's my opinion. Either way, the league should want to get all scoring plays correct.
- steelydan

That is exactly the premise of my first post on the topic.

It was directly involved with the play. Its not like they got a scoring chance, left the zone, then came back in. Its not even like they got a scoring chance then started cycling, then scored. He was offside and scored the goal on the very play he was offside. It was all one play in my opinion. There was no change of possession, no loss of zone. They scored on the rush he was offside on.
- MBFlyerfan

I disagree.

I disagree.
- Scoob

Ok fair enough.

Ok fair enough.
- MBFlyerfan

:-)

So just to take what we've been discussing here and flipping it to the paid talking heads, I'm listening to Craig Button on Leafs Lunch. On the off sides play he's adamant: "The play was off sides. That's it. If it was off sides there's no discussion and the refs reviewed it and got it right and that's what it's all about isn't it? Getting it right..."

10 minutes later they're still discussing the game and the Malkin retaliatory penalty comes up. So Button's take: "Well, obviously the refs missed the call on Callahan but they caught the retaliation. That happens. You have to deal with it. The refs aren't going to catch everything and if you're going to retaliate, you're going to have to kill that penalty off. You can't expect the refs to catch everything."

Now I like Craig Button but he's talking out of both sides of his head. This is where the discussions start to infuriate me.

Thoughts:

How many times - be honest- have offside calls been so blatantly missed that led to a goal.

Horror stories exist. Stickle and that goal against the Pens. Sure.

But be objective. Was offsides REALLY an issue? No. It wasn't. Hockey was just fine without the ability to challenge a skate being a picometer offside. Which leads me here- was Drouin REALLY offside last night? Was he really?

Offside is implemented to stop players from cherry picking or racing into the zone to get open way in front of his teammate.

This micro offside calls are garbage because being offside changed NOTHING about the play.

Think of the offside play we know. A guy goes in a foot before the puck. Fine. The puck bounces out of the zone. Fine. A guy straddling the line receiving a pass without his back skate off the ice? Not fine. Come on.

I guess my rambling's bottom line is this: if you could have the SAME EXACT PLAY unfold by just nudging your foot down an inch, or hesitating a plancktime longer, it's not "offsides" in regards to the true reason the rule was implemented.

Stop the reviewing, or make it a plane like the NFL end zone

I love scoring plays being challengeable in hockey. But I don't think offsides is a scoring play, even if it leads to a goal. It's indirect. A missed offsides leading to a goal is no different than a missed tripping penalty that allows a team to get the puck back and leads to a goal.

Stacked at forward, but they both had low quality third pairings and decent-at-best goalies.
- Feanor

You are absolutely right. To me, the biggest disappointment of that defense was Ryan Parent. Former first round player. Looked decent his rookie year when he saw time next to Kimmo Timonen. Ryan Parent should have turned out to be a real player and he never did.

Going back to that 2010 playoff team. Claude Giroux, Jake Voracek, Wayne Simmonds and Steve Mason in my opinion are the only players good enough today to be on that roster. This is how strong we were at forward. You put Mason in net and I think we take the Cup easy.

Offside is implemented to stop players from cherry picking or racing into the zone to get open way in front of his teammate.
- Giroux_Is_God

Solution: just eliminate offsides.

Like the two-line pass, nobody will miss it.

Solution: just eliminate offsides.

Like the two-line pass, nobody will miss it.
- Tomahawk

God no. The implications of that would be drastic to game flow, especially for d men. That would alter the game tenfold more than two line passing.