GDT: Game #3 | 10/12/17 | Wild vs. Blackhawks | 7:30PM CT / 3:30AM Finland | FS-N

[gphr513]

That one was different because I think in that one Parise was originally offside but then hit the blue line again while the puck never left the zone, so almost like he re-tagged up to use a baseball term.

For this one, Zucker was in before the puck, but Seabrook's skate pushed the puck into the zone afterwards (accidentally, as he was laying on the ice). There is some debate on the rule on whether that should count as the defender bringing the puck into the zone or not.

I can see the counter-point. Theoretically, you could have a player camped out by your attacking net while you're in your defensive zone, get control of the puck, rocket it off the other team's skate so it goes into your attacking zone where your player is waiting all by himself, and he'll be in alone on goal.

But hey, like Dee said, we could use some luck right now, so I'll take it haha.

 

[Wild11MN]

I can see the counter-point. Theoretically, you could have a player camped out by your attacking net while you're in your defensive zone, get control of the puck, rocket it off the other team's skate so it goes into your attacking zone where your player is waiting all by himself, and he'll be in alone on goal.

But hey, like Dee said, we could use some luck right now, so I'll take it haha.

There is actually a rule about your crazy scenario. Well... it's a little unclear if you fire from your own defensive zone.

83.2

83.2 Deflections / Rebounds – When a defending player propels the puck out of his defending zone and the puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman.

 

[ref19]

I am 100% confident, if the shoe was on the other foot we'd be having the same reaction that it didn't constitute possession or the contact between zucker/seabrook should have resulted in offside.

I mean they were hung on terminology from the rule book. They thought Seabrook had to have actual possession of the book for it to count as being brought back in to the zone

 

[BK]

The funny thing about forums is that fans from all teams can read every forum. We learned last night that you don't know how to interpret the rulebook within the context of the game or refuse to do so. We (Hawks fans) are going off how the rule reads and you are going off something else while not applying 83.2 either. Sorry but "If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone" implies possession, this is should be obvious to anyone who has ever played, watched, or heard of hockey. Please tell me how Seabrook carried the puck into the zone or how Zucker did not make contact with him?

83.1 - "If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue."

To be clear, this is not the reason the Hawks lost and I am not claiming that (to the Wild fans).

Sorry to the Wild fans for having this spill here but it is a joke that someone would come try and talk shit after people disagreed with them in one forum.

 

[Uberdachen]

Toews had possession, passed it towards his own zone and it filtered through Seabrook before crossing the line. Remove Seabrook from the equation and it's pretty straight-forward.
Add Seabrook in and he doesn't affect it because he is on Toews' team. It doesn't matter whether he possessed it or not.

 

[BK]

Toews had possession, passed it towards his own zone and it filtered through Seabrook before crossing the line. Remove Seabrook from the equation and it's pretty straight-forward.
Add Seabrook in and he doesn't affect it because he is on Toews' team. It doesn't matter whether he possessed it or not.

Contact with Zucker negates that.

 

[ThatGuy22]

The funny thing about forums is that fans from all teams can read every forum. We learned last night that you don't know how to interpret the rulebook within the context of the game or refuse to do so. We (Hawks fans) are going off how the rule reads and you are going off something else while not applying 83.2 either. Sorry but "If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone" implies possession, this is should be obvious to anyone who has ever played, watched, or heard of hockey. Please tell me how Seabrook carried the puck into the zone or how Zucker did not make contact with him?

83.1 - "If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue."

To be clear, this is not the reason the Hawks lost and I am not claiming that (to the Wild fans).

Sorry to the Wild fans for having this spill here but it is a joke that someone would come try and talk **** after people disagreed with them in one forum.

Contact with Zucker negates that.

As I mentioned before in this thread, I see where you guys are coming from and would likely be arguing the whole is a foot deflection possession or a pass angle in your position.
But 83.2 is irrelevant. It's clearly defined in 83.2 that it is only dealing with situations where the puck is already in a zone, comes out and deflects back into the zone before offsides are cleared. You can't just take the end snippet and ignore the qualifications on what scenerio it is valid for.

83.2 does not apply at all, as the puck started in the hawks attacking zone.

83.2 Deflections / Rebounds – When a defending player propels the puck
out of his defending zone and the puck clearly rebounds off a
defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all
attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by
an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending
player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick
check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be
signaled by the Linesman.

 

[Wabit]

If I the same thing happened against the Wild with the non-offside I'd have wanted a no-goal.

The delay of game penalty (failed challenge) was the real killer. It got into the Hawks heads and they got sloppy and then the coach made some questionable decisions pulling the goalie when they did.

 

[Wabit]

Oh for Pommer and his usage. He gets PP time and was his line was Grigensons/Eichel/Pommer last night.

 

[gphr513]

If I the same thing happened against the Wild with the non-offside I'd have wanted a no-goal.

Oh no doubt, if the roles were reversed, Chicago fans would be justifying it and we'd be screaming bloody murder. Such is the life of a sports fan.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Oh no doubt, if the roles were reversed, Chicago fans would be justifying it and we'd be screaming bloody murder. Such is the life of a sports fan.

I would have been livid in my drunken state last night.

I like to think that in my sober state the next day once I re-read the rules, cooler heads would have prevailed and I would have realized it was probably the correct call given the Wild had nothing to do with the puck crossing the line and 83.2 is not applicable.

But then again, I often give myself to much credit...

 

[W75]

Yeah. I don't know if it makes me a bad person, but actually enjoyed that the goal was somewhat controversial. At least at first.

Sweet well deserved victory though

 

[MehMild]

POminville scored his 3rd tonight. I'll take terrified goals over whatever Ennis is doing.

Don't get me wrong I like Pomers. But our style is an aggressive forecheck using your body to separate opposing players from the puck. I think Ennis will actually help the team more overall playing on the 3/4 line. It does stink to lose his production, but him trying a distant poke check to avoid contact at all costs doesn't seem to be what this style of play demands. I also can totally understand him not wanting to be physical after getting is brains scrambled a few times. Once by an elbow vs the Kings and once getting his head bounced off the boards by Buff? I think if I'm remembering correctly. His physicality seemed to completely drop off after that and there wasn't much to begin with.

 

[Bruce Granville]

Contact with Zucker negates that.

Zucker touches the puck after Toews' assist and Seabrooks kick.
So it cannot be offsides.