I cannot possibly agree with the first part, we are not playing golf where you can call your own penalty. This is the ref's job. And they "might" learn to stay onside if the calls were consistent, but only the tiny fraction in which a goal is scored every get reviewed. So there is no feedback mechanism for players to improve onside/offside precision

I'd love the refs to be better, but they miss countless calls every game. Fixing the Danny Briere game-tying score because he was a full stride offside is one thing, catching something that can only be seen in stop motion or long after the offside is another.

Moreover, will this (or has it) lead to refs overcalling offside? That is, calling it if it seems too close? No review on that is there?

It's a damned stupid rule that could be mostly fixed by
1) putting 10 or 15 second limit (beyond that, the offside will have had little effect) and
2) only invoking the replay if an offside play scored or assisted

More touches than that or more time that that and the offside will have had essentially zero effect on the play.

This isn't perfect, but it prevents the unintended bias and still prevents the offside off the rush that results in a goal.
- TartanBill

But at least you get the time you paid for

But they call micro fraction offsides every single game. You see players arguing their case ALL the time. Offside is offside, regardless if you're an inch offside or 20 feet offside, there is no varying degree of offside, and there shouldn't be. You're either onside or you're offside, that is it. There is no grey area, it's pretty black and white.
- j.boyd919

Agree, offside is offside, why have a rule if we don't want to follow it?

There is a varying degree. Before replay, the ref wouldn't have called half the goals that don't count now. It's only bc coaches have nothing to lose, so they try a review and damn, if you slow it down by 100000 x you can see he sort of is like maybe a half micro-millimetre offside.

Get rid of all video review and bring back the goal judge.
- James_Tanner

Goal judge is going to call offsides now?

The replay is because of so many offside goals was it not?

There is a varying degree. Before replay, the ref wouldn't have called half the goals that don't count now. It's only bc coaches have nothing to lose, so they try a review and damn, if you slow it down by 100000 x you can see he sort of is like maybe a half micro-millimetre offside.

Get rid of all video review and bring back the goal judge.
- James_Tanner

James, you're lacking in critical thinking skills here, trust me I've taught critical thinking at a high level, I even called my old University professor and he confirmed that I'm correct.

You are so wrong here it's really quite spectacular. Offside is a rule to prevent cherry-picking. Calling micro infractions is not in the spirit of the rule. It is absolutely not a black and white issue and slavish devotion to rules outside their intended use is not helpful or necessary.
- James_Tanner

The two line pass was the rule to prevent cherry picking, not offside. Every player knows how to stay on side and on the particular play, Drouin could have easily dragged his back foot across the line like every other player does. Its really not that complicated and not as big a problem as you make it seem.

There is a varying degree. Before replay, the ref wouldn't have called half the goals that don't count now. It's only bc coaches have nothing to lose, so they try a review and damn, if you slow it down by 100000 x you can see he sort of is like maybe a half micro-millimetre offside.

Get rid of all video review and bring back the goal judge.
- James_Tanner

Why have offside if you don't want to enforce it? There are PLENTY of times they call offsides that are JUST as close. He missed it, they looked at it, and got the call RIGHT. If he HAD called offside on the play, this discussion wouldn't even be happening, BUT the NHL gives the teams the ability to make sure the call on the ice is right, and they did. Personally, I think there should be more video review. There should be someone in the building looking at every goal, just like they look at every TD. BUT it shouldn't be the refs on the ice, someone upstairs watching monitors. Put earpieces in the refs ears, and the decisions would be much quicker.

The two line pass was the rule to prevent cherry picking, not offside. Every player knows how to stay on side and on the particular play, Drouin could have easily dragged his back foot across the line like every other player does. Its really not that complicated and not as big a problem as you make it seem.
- lemieux_66

late

I cannot possibly agree with the first part, we are not playing golf where you can call your own penalty. This is the ref's job. And they "might" learn to stay onside if the calls were consistent, but only the tiny fraction in which a goal is scored every get reviewed. So there is no feedback mechanism for players to improve onside/offside precision

I'd love the refs to be better, but they miss countless calls every game. Fixing the Danny Briere game-tying score because he was a full stride offside is one thing, catching something that can only be seen in stop motion or long after the offside is another.

Moreover, will this (or has it) lead to refs overcalling offside? That is, calling it if it seems too close? No review on that is there?

It's a damned stupid rule that could be mostly fixed by
1) putting 10 or 15 second limit (beyond that, the offside will have had little effect) and
2) only invoking the replay if an offside play scored or assisted

More touches than that or more time that that and the offside will have had essentially zero effect on the play.

This isn't perfect, but it prevents the unintended bias and still prevents the offside off the rush that results in a goal.
- TartanBill

What are you talking about with calling their own penalties? Just watch the play, if Drouin would have kept his foot on the ice then he would be onside. As a player he needs to know to be onside otherwise you risk getting calls like this.

Your suggestion about the 10-15 second time isn't bad however I don't agree with number 2. Just because a player doesn't score or assist on a play doesn't mean he didn't have an effect on it. The player is offside could easily have impacted how the defense reacted to a play causing someone else to score.

late
- Garnie

Now I saw it, too busy making dinner.

Why have offside if you don't want to enforce it? There are PLENTY of times they call offsides that are JUST as close. He missed it, they looked at it, and got the call RIGHT. If he HAD called offside on the play, this discussion wouldn't even be happening, BUT the NHL gives the teams the ability to make sure the call on the ice is right, and they did. Personally, I think there should be more video review. There should be someone in the building looking at every goal, just like they look at every TD. BUT it shouldn't be the refs on the ice, someone upstairs watching monitors. Put earpieces in the refs ears, and the decisions would be much quicker.
- j.boyd919

That's what I had suggested in the other thread. If fans and the commentary can see all of these missed calls, why not have refs watching monitors to tell the on ice officials when a call is missed because a ref is looking the wrong way.

That's what I had suggested in the other thread. If fans and the commentary can see all of these missed calls, why not have refs watching monitors to tell the on ice officials when a call is missed because a ref is looking the wrong way.
- lemieux_66

blow it dead, even if they entered and went back out and entered again..if it was offside (talking about outside official watching a cam )...stop the play...quick reset for the clock and GO.

So what you're saying is that there is an acceptable number where it's OK for some guys to suffer terrible brain damage? I mean, just off the top of my head Kordic, Probert, Belak, Bougard, Avery. How many non-fighters do we hear about with brain damage and post career problems likely related to such? Can't think of one. They are literally all enforcers.
- James_Tanner

Avery? Sean Avery wasn't an enforcer just a pest.

Avery? Sean Avery wasn't an enforcer just a pest.
- Leafsandbolts

A joke that when I went to explain, I realized was in pretty poor taste.

Jeez JT, I suppose next you're going to propose all players be groomed accordingly and no foul language as true gentlemen should be!

How about we just remove ALL physical aspects of the game, then they won't even have to wear pads or helmets and then all the players can exchange gifts and pleasantries in between periods.

Great blog Jim. Agree on the fighting, our game should not have anything in common with the UFC. Back in the day Americans would not have showed up for games without the chance of a brawl happening. But I think they understand and love the game for the right reasons now. To increase scoring a goal scored on a delayed penalty should not nullify the penalty, my apologies if this was already mentioned. Cheers

Great blog Jim. Agree on the fighting, our game should not have anything in common with the UFC. Back in the day Americans would not have showed up for games without the chance of a brawl happening. But I think they understand and love the game for the right reasons now. To increase scoring a goal scored on a delayed penalty should not nullify the penalty, my apologies if this was already mentioned. Cheers
- shack67

That isn't a bad idea - sort of splits the difference between keeping the penalty the full two minutes even if someone scores and changing nothing. Though, I wonder how often a goal is actually scored on a delayed penalty - probably not too often.

Great blog Jim. Agree on the fighting, our game should not have anything in common with the UFC. Back in the day Americans would not have showed up for games without the chance of a brawl happening. But I think they understand and love the game for the right reasons now. To increase scoring a goal scored on a delayed penalty should not nullify the penalty, my apologies if this was already mentioned. Cheers
- shack67

Holy poop are you kidding? Typical north of the border blather from an ignorant and arrogant punk. Pretty sure there was fighting in the game long before the "Americans" got involved!

And what pray/tell are the "right" reasons oh all knowing hockey wizard?! Please enlighten us dirty heathenous Americans!

Holy poop are you kidding? Typical north of the border blather from an ignorant and arrogant punk. Pretty sure there was fighting in the game long before the "Americans" got involved!

And what pray/tell are the "right" reasons oh all knowing hockey wizard?! Please enlighten us dirty heathenous Americans!
- MnGump

When they went from six to twelve teams most of the fans of those teams had never seen a hockey team before. And when any of them were interviewed they would admit that they only come for the fights.
Aren't you the guy who was on here a while back bible thumping and spewing hatred? If so I'm sorry about your life.

When they went from six to twelve teams most of the fans of those teams had never seen a hockey team before. And when any of them were interviewed they would admit that they only come for the fights.
Aren't you the guy who was on here a while back bible thumping and spewing hatred? If so I'm sorry about your life.
- shack67

I love how you make a prejudicial blanket reference to US fans and then have the audacity to accuse me of spewing hatred?! That's rich. And btw, simply stating ones faith in God is far from bible thumping. Pretty pathetic that apparently it's cool now days to bash Christianity to the point where folks are somehow supposed to feel ashamed of it?! You are right about one thing for sure.... You are sorry

I love how you make a prejudicial blanket reference to US fans and then have the audacity to accuse me of spewing hatred?! That's rich. And btw, simply stating ones faith in God is far from bible thumping. Pretty pathetic that apparently it's cool now days to bash Christianity to the point where folks are somehow supposed to feel ashamed of it?! You are right about one thing for sure.... You are sorry
- MnGump

But when you said typical north of the border blather you weren't making a blanket statement about all Canadians? Moron.

But when you said typical north of the border blather you weren't making a blanket statement about all Canadians? Moron.
- shack67

Ya think?! You're a lot smarter than you look... Oh my comment was very much intended to match the level of stupidity of your own comment. Guess you're not too quick on the uptake after all.

A joke that when I went to explain, I realized was in pretty poor taste.
- James_Tanner

Ya think?! You're a lot smarter than you look... Oh my comment was very much intended to match the level of stupidity of your own comment. Guess you're not too quick on the uptake after all.
- MnGump

You're an angry Christian. If I thought everlasting life was my future I don't think anything could make me angry. Explain that one oh phoney that you are.

You're an angry Christian. If I thought everlasting life was my future I don't think anything could make me angry. Explain that one oh phoney that you are.
- shack67

Nice try... Keep living the dream buddy.

Nothing about fixing the playoff system? Do you really think it's right the #3 seed had the face the #5 then the #2; while the #11 seed had to face the #8 then the #14?