No we don't as that goal shouldn't have been scored in the first place because the offside hadn't been enforced as per the RULES. It would have been an injustice against the Habs if the goal had been allowed.

Earlier this year, we lost a game because one of our goals was refused at the end of the game due to the puck being touched over shoulder's height. Had this goal been allowed, our opponent would have then suffered an injustice (as per the RULES).

Rules apply to everyone ... sometimes it sucks when it doesn't go our way but that's what fairness is all about.
- Garfield512

Except to rich, white men, of course.

MAGA!!!

Ray Ferraro and other commentators have the same views as Tanner on this, I guess they dont watch hockey either.
- 13sundin13

Speaking of Ferraro is TSN.ca down today?

Speaking of Ferraro is TSN.ca down today?
- shack67

Dont think so, was working for me.

Dont think so, was working for me.
- 13sundin13

Thanks

I have no way of proving it, but I swear this is not a team specific thing for me. The NHL wants to get calls right, but thirty seconds later is just dumb. We're at the point where teams employ people to check and tell the coach if he should challange. That kind of takes away the chance they might be wrong (i,e the punishment of a timeout) and we are slowing down the game without adding anything positive.

If the Coyotes score there, we all see a better game. Everyone wins.

But in 100% of the cases, no matter who it goes for or against, I am against video replay especially for micro reviews.
- James_Tanner

Btw, if the Habs challenged the offside and got it wrong yesterday, it would have resulted in a penalty. Not the loss of a timeout.

And if the Coyotes score there, when they shouldn't have because there was an offside on the play (and this isn't football, the play doesnt't stop every 10 sec...), everyone that gets fleeced by the bad call doesn't win. That doesn't make it a better game, that makes it a crap game ruined by a missed call.

Ask the Saints what they think about it right now.

I actually like it the way it is now ... it opens up and makes the game a lot faster.

Defensemen now have to be very good skaters so they can keep up with the opposing forwards.
- Garfield512

I was joking on this.

Except to rich, white men, of course.

MAGA!!!
- Atomic Wedgie

With six more years w/ him as Pres....we will be well on our way to making this country GREAT again!!!!

OR

we can become Venezuala.

depends on who you/we believe in


....now that's good "click bait"

Living in Phoenix, I follow the Coyotes regularly and was extremely disappointed that this goal was overturned. But I disagree with your take; they got the call right. The original entry into the zone was fine but in the course of passing back to the point, the puck snuck out of the zone. That’s an offside, and that’s the rule. If the refs caught it in real time, there would’ve been a face off. But they missed it and it sucks that the goal didn’t count but it was the right call. YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE PUCK IN ZONE when you’re trying to score. Just like a baseball needs to be in the strike zone to be a strike, and a football needs to cross the line of gain for a first down. You don’t just give it to them if they get close enough. Unfortunate in this case? Sure. But I disagree with you, and I think it’s perfectly legitimate, not to mention that if Montreal was wrong on their challenge, it would’ve been a two minute penalty. Can’t see how you can be so critical of this most basic rule. The puck came out, it was an offside.

I really can't stand when people appeal to the authority of technology and the date to make their point.

I'm not some old idiot who blindly takes technology, but whenever someone criticizes technology, it's OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUD.

That's arguably a worse generalization that I would be if I was in fact disparaging all technology, which I'm not.

I like technology.

I just happen to think that sports are fun and enforcing rules microscopically takes away that fun. Everyone wins and loses sometimes on bad calls. I can live with that. I just don't think the cost of always being right is worth absolutely killing the fun and momentum of a great 2-1 game in the third period.

By the way, we all need to do better than assuming the motives and biases of the people we argue with. There is not inherently something wrong with anyone who disagrees without. i.e being anti-video review doesn't make me a Ludite.
- James_Tanner

- tomburton99

Living in Phoenix, I follow the Coyotes regularly and was extremely disappointed that this goal was overturned. But I disagree with your take; they got the call right. The original entry into the zone was fine but in the course of passing back to the point, the puck snuck out of the zone. That’s an offside, and that’s the rule. If the refs caught it in real time, there would’ve been a face off. But they missed it and it sucks that the goal didn’t count but it was the right call. YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE PUCK IN ZONE when you’re trying to score. Just like a baseball needs to be in the strike zone to be a strike, and a football needs to cross the line of gain for a first down. You don’t just give it to them if they get close enough. Unfortunate in this case? Sure. But I disagree with you, and I think it’s perfectly legitimate, not to mention that if Montreal was wrong on their challenge, it would’ve been a two minute penalty. Can’t see how you can be so critical of this most basic rule. The puck came out, it was an offside.
- Islesfan22

For the call on the ice to be overturned, it has to be conclusive that that puck left the zone. There is no clear evidence that the puck left the zone. All the camera angles that I've seen demonstrate that the puck is indeed on-side.

Unless you think the referees are biased or cheating, every team would sometimes benefit and sometimes get screwed by a bad call. But at least it evens out and at least a human is doing it
- James Tanner

Ask Flames fans or Sabres fans(twice, Hull and LeClair) if it "evens out".

The amount of calls will generally even out, but the significance rarely does.

Video review in sports is generally awful. The offside video review in the NHL is among the worst, if not the worst, instances where video review is allowed.
- Scoob

It really doesn't make sense. The human eye can't catch offside when the puck is a mm over the line 40' away, or a guy's skate is a mm off the ice while other players are between the linesman and the "offending" player. They're holding the officials to an impossible standard by using said standard for video replay.

Once more the NHL shows its bias. Montreal is not going to earn their playoff spot, they are going to have it handed to them. Awful call.
- Bolts91

So then you should be happy because the Bolts should thrash an undeserving team.

Also, you want to be rid of these chincy grey area challenges? You lose your timeout, AND you take a bench minor penalty. Then the challenges will be made when it's 100% undeniable.
- Darksyde

Actually, Mtl would have had a 2 minute penalty if the challenge was lost. According to RDS (french broadcast), that's the rule and they floated the idea of the habs getting burnt by the challenge because none of their cameras could find a reason to disallow the goal! Let me give Mr Tanner more context. It would have been 2-2 and the Yotes would have practically finished the game on a power-play! If that would have happened, I don't think he'd be upset. The play was clearly off-side.

Ask Flames fans or Sabres fans(twice, Hull and LeClair) if it "evens out".

The amount of calls will generally even out, but the significance rarely does.
- Wetbandit1

Another great example of why they should get rid of video replay. They can't even get the calls rights. Both Gelinas' goal in '04 and Bennett's goal in '15 went to video replay and still weren't called goals.

Actually, Mtl would have had a 2 minute penalty if the challenge was lost. According to RDS (french broadcast), that's the rule and they floated the idea of the habs getting burnt by the challenge because none of their cameras could find a reason to disallow the goal! Let me give Mr Tanner more context. It would have been 2-2 and the Yotes would have practically finished the game on a power-play! If that would have happened, I don't think he'd be upset. The play was clearly off-side.
- asj197

I think you're missing the point, everyone knows it was clearly offside, it's more about slowing the game down by focusing on something so minuscule that it doesn't affect how the goal was scored. It also takes the intention of the rule to a level that is impossible for a linesman on the ice to enforce.

I dont know the exact history of the offside rule but I assume that it wasn't created because skaters were entering the zone a 1/2 cm before the puck. Or to make sure a foot wasn't slightly lifted off the ice as a rolling puck enters the zone. It was probably created so that players dont just hang out in the opposing zone by the goalie and wait for the puck to be thrown down the ice or something like that. So if the linesmen and refs can keep that idea in place to the best of their ability and as close as humanly possible, what does it matter if lineman misses a puck that barely exits the zone.

I dunno, seems like the responses are pretty split so doesn't look like this will be agreed on anytime soon, just dont see how this challenge makes the game any better.

For the call on the ice to be overturned, it has to be conclusive that that puck left the zone. There is no clear evidence that the puck left the zone. All the camera angles that I've seen demonstrate that the puck is indeed on-side.
- Bolts91

Enjoy (2:45 mark) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL04p9Cg9zM

Try again Sweetie, you might get it right someday.

Enjoy (2:45 mark) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL04p9Cg9zM

Try again Sweetie, you might get it right someday.
- Garfield512

Dude - can't you post the review, instead of the entire recap? That's a lot of work for someone to see the evidence.

For the call on the ice to be overturned, it has to be conclusive that that puck left the zone. There is no clear evidence that the puck left the zone. All the camera angles that I've seen demonstrate that the puck is indeed on-side.
- Bolts91

You obviously missed one of the angles, because there was one, and only one, that showed it clearly. Either that, or they did it on purpose so Montreal would win.

Then again, that isn't the point that we are discussing at this time.

Want some cheese with that whine.