GDT: #01 – Senators at Sabres – Thu Oct 8, 7:00PM ET – MSG-B, Bell TV

[Stylizer1]

Again not getting it.

A team can enter the zone and there are NO whistles, NO Zone clears. They keep the puck in the offensive zone for 30secs or more then score. Can that be reviewed? Whats the cutoff?

The challenge is ONLY to get a goal disallowed (a missed offside is one criteria for getting the goal disallowed). Coaches don't get to randomly challenge any offside call they think was missed.

Here is the rule

You know what I mean when I say "I assume" right?

 

[joshjull]

You know what I mean when I say "I assume" right?

Then wy do you keep quoting me to discuss a topic you have no clue about?

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I've read that some teams only pay attention to the endurance tests at the combine and disregard everything else because they're useless when evaluating 18 year olds in the long run. I think Guhle could potentially have the same type of ability as Pysyk.

Yeah, Guhle and Pysyk are obvious for us, Keith is that on steroids, and Hampus Lindholm's superhuman VO2 max was thought of as a reach at 7, and now was probably picked a few spots too low.

 

[Stylizer1]

Then wy do you keep quoting me to discuss a topic you have no clue about?

Since it is not defined your guess is as good as mine , no?

I'm trying to use some logic to have a discussion on the topic and you are not.

Why would any team challenge an offside if the results was not a goal? If you can only review it because of a goal there is not much to think about.

Apparently if a team holds the puck for 15 minutes and scores it can be called back because of an offside.

 

[Moskau]

Yeah, Guhle and Pysyk are obvious for us, Keith is that on steroids, and Hampus Lindholm's superhuman VO2 max was thought of as a reach at 7, and now was probably picked a few spots too low.

Didn't they test Keith and find that he has the extra lung capacity and recovery that most Olympic Swimmers and World Champion Cyclists have? That's how we need to draft. Smart dudes with big lungs.

 

[joshjull]

Since it is not defined your guess is as good as mine , no?

I'm trying to use some logic to have a discussion on the topic and you are not.

Why would any team challenge an offside if the results was not a goal? If you can only review it because of a goal there is not much to think about.

Apparently if a team holds the puck for 15 minutes and scores it can be called back because of an offside.

I'm not asking for guesses. I'm asking does anyone know if they've defined it. As in, hey does anyone know what the cutoff is? Your answer is no you don't know. The rule itself is very vague and has no defined time limit I can see.

Your not using logic. You obviously don't know and are guessing.

EDIT: Btw I'm making the safe assumption that a whistle or zone clear would kill the clock on it. I'm talking about, and have said it a few times now, if a team gains the zone and holds it. How long till a play is no longer reviewable?

 

[kirby11]

Heal up soon Lehner! And welcome to the starting job, Chad Johnson.

Also, agreed w/ JJ and Zip, the offsides rule desperately needs to be clarified. Like, if a pass sprung a guy for an odd man rush or breakaway goal and someone might have been offsides, meaning the play lead directly to the score? Okay, I can deal with that being challenged. If a player is offsides by some indiscernible amount on a dump-in and the puck is kept in the zone for 20+ seconds before the goal? Nope.

Add in the dumb "you can't challenge without a timeout" caveat (along with the fact that the review in itself will slow down the game and give teams extended breaks) and I see one terrible situation for the NHL coming up.

 

[Baccus]

I'm not asking for guesses. I'm asking does anyone know if they've defined it. As in, hey does anyone know what the cutoff is? Your answer is no you don't know. The rule itself is very vague and has no defined time limit I can see.

Your not using logic. You obviously don't know and are guessing.

I would say it's pretty logical that they can go from the "goal" back to the last zone entry, which is obvious.

The amount of time between the zone entry to the goal is irrelevant since it gets put back on the clock anyway.

Clearly people will be pissy about it if a team is in the zone for 45 seconds before they score, but people are just as pissy when they get scored on after the other team enters on an offsides. It will be interesting to see how many of these get reviewed on quick entry & "goal" vs spending any real amount of time in zone.

It went against the Sabres this time, but I personally don't have much of an issue with the rule, getting it "right" as long as it doesn't take 5 minutes is fine with me.

They need to clean up the amount of time it takes to review it.

 

[Clock]

That arena was LOUD for both goals. Exciting to see it amped up to that degree.

 

[joshjull]

Found more info

Plays Potentially Involving An "Off-Side" Infraction

1. The standard for overturning the call in the event of a "GOAL" call on the ice is that the Linesman, after reviewing any and all available replays and consulting with the Toronto Video Room, determines that one or more Players on the attacking team preceded the puck into the attacking zone prior to the goal being scored and that, as a result, the play should have been stopped for an "Off-Side" infraction; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed.

2. Goals will only be reviewed for a potential "Off-Side" infraction if: (a) the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again; or (b) all members of the attacking team do not clear the attacking zone again, between the time of the "Off-Side" play and the time the goal is scored.

3. In the event a goal is reversed due to the Linesman determining that the play was "Off-Side" prior to the goal being scored, the clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) will be re-set to the time at which the play should have been stopped for the "Off-Side" infraction.

So basically there is no time cut off as long as the attacking team keeps the puck in the zone.

 

[joshjull]

I would say it's pretty logical that they can go from the "goal" back to the last zone entry, which is obvious.

The amount of time between the zone entry to the goal is irrelevant since it gets put back on the clock anyway.

Clearly people will be pissy about it if a team is in the zone for 45 seconds before they score, but people are just as pissy when they get scored on after the other team enters on an offsides. It will be interesting to see how many of these get reviewed on quick entry & "goal" vs spending any real amount of time in zone.

It went against the Sabres this time, but I personally don't have much of an issue with the rule, getting it "right" as long as it doesn't take 5 minutes is fine with me.

They need to clean up the amount of time it takes to review it.

It very much matters to the point I was making. I don't see any reason to lump a blown offsides call with goalie interference for purposes of revenue. Goalie interference directly impacts a goal being scored. It denies the guy tasked with making the save the ability to do so. Gaining the zone offside does no such thing. And the further away in time from the zone entry the goal is scored, the less sense it makes to take the goal away.

Take our goal, which wasn't very long after gaining the zone. The Sens lost two puck battles and Anderson didn't make a save. Any of those three events goes the other way and we probably don't score. To put it another way, simply gaining the zone on a blown offsides helped us score but it doesn't directly lead to a goal or prevent the Sens from stopping us from scoring. Whereas interfering with a goalie without questions impedes the other teams ability to stop a goal from happening.

And please stop with the "its about getting it right". No it isn't. Getting it right would be Toronto reviewing every goal scored's zone entry to make sure it was onside.

To take another thing that has led to goals to make my point. Blown icings have led to goals. Teams have dumped it, officials mistakenly call an icing. On the ensuing face-off the opposition scores right away. Why isn't that reviewable? Teams have lost scoring chances because officials mistakenly blew a play dead as an offsides but it wasn't. Teams have scored goals off set pick plays which are illegal, thats not reviewable either. I think this idea wasn't thought through. The GMs were thinking of the bang bang offside that lead to quick goals. don;t think they had a 30sec cycle in mind when they thought of this rule.

I get the goal interference one and strongly agree with it. Actually that should be reviewed on every single goal by the league.

EDIT: At some point the entertainment value and flow of the game needs to take precedence. A good start would be GM's coming up with ways to increase scoring, not ways to take goals off the board. The league's mentality is ass backwards. I would love to see some research on this but I'm going out on a limb and saying this isn't that big of a problem (goals after a blown offside) as opposed to goalie interference

 

[Jame]

It very much matters to the point I was making. I don't see any reason to lump a blown offsides call with goalie interference for piurspose of revenue. Goalie interference directly impacts a goal being scored. It denies the guy tasked with making the save the ability to do so. Gaining the zone offside does no such thing. And the further away from the zone entry the goal is score the less sense it makes to take the goal away.

Take our goal, which wasn't very long after gaining the zone. The Sens lost two puck battles and Anderson didn't make a save. Any of those three events goes the other way and we probably don't score. To put it another way, simply gaining the zone on a blown offsides helped us score but it doesn't directly lead to a goal.

And please stop with the "its about getting it right". No it isn't. Getting it right would be Toronto reviewing every goal scored's zone entry to make sure its onside after every goal.

That's obviously where this is headed.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

It very much matters to the point I was making. I don't see any reason to lump a blown offsides call with goalie interference for piurspose of revenue. Goalie interference directly impacts a goal being scored. It denies the guy tasked with making the save the ability to do so. Gaining the zone offside does no such thing. And the further away from the zone entry the goal is score the less sense it makes to take the goal away.

Take our goal, which wasn't very long after gaining the zone. The Sens lost two puck battles and Anderson didn't make a save. Any of those three events goes the other way and we probably don't score. To put it another way, simply gaining the zone on a blown offsides helped us score but it doesn't directly lead to a goal.

And please stop with the "its about getting it right". No it isn't. Getting it right would be Toronto reviewing every goal scored's zone entry to make sure its onside after every goal.

its so important to get it right that Toronto doesnt look at it and the refs only get a tiny tablet to review the play, the integrity of the game is so important that rules in the books dont get called and the rules change for the post season, its the schizophrenic NHL doing everything in its power to miss the point

 

[Beerz]

It very much matters to the point I was making. I don't see any reason to lump a blown offsides call with goalie interference for piurspose of revenue. Goalie interference directly impacts a goal being scored. It denies the guy tasked with making the save the ability to do so. Gaining the zone offside does no such thing. And the further away from the zone entry the goal is score the less sense it makes to take the goal away.

Take our goal, which wasn't very long after gaining the zone. The Sens lost two puck battles and Anderson didn't make a save. Any of those three events goes the other way and we probably don't score. To put it another way, simply gaining the zone on a blown offsides helped us score but it doesn't directly lead to a goal.

And please stop with the "its about getting it right". No it isn't. Getting it right would be Toronto reviewing every goal scored's zone entry to make sure its onside after every goal.

"Getting it right" would also entail reviewing goals for holds/picks , interference ...ect ect..

It's not really about getting it right.

NFL doesn't review false starts on touchdowns.

Its just weird. I don't like it.

 

[joshjull]

That's obviously where this is headed.

Obviously? I'm not sure about that and I hope not.

 

[Bondurant]

It still hurts that Arizona lost out on McEichel but I am happy to see him shine in Buffalo. Here's to many more goals from Jack Eichel is a Sabres and USA sweater.

Tough loss but the future is bright in Buffalo.

 

[Zman5778]

Obviously? I'm not sure about that and I hope not.

I feel pretty certain that Jame was being very sarcastic.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[thekenneth]

if you cant review a goal for being offside previous to a re-entry and a goal. then I have no issue really.


Kane scored a half dozen seconds after the offside. the linesman should get in some **** for making a mistake.

I have no complaint other than the long ass time it takes.

 

[Russ Tyler]

Karlsson flow slow-mo: https://streamable.com/ardq