Cale Makar's goal (or no-goal) for offside
- Thread starter Filthy Dangles
- Start date
- Status
I don't see how that doesn't count as possession. That or it's just an incredibly ambiguous rule.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Enough knowledgeable people that don't have skin in the game have said that it was good, so I think it was good.
I Hate Blake Coleman
Bandwagon Burner
Sheppy
Registered User
I’m already preparing myself for my irrational anger to the nerds that will be saying “Offsides” and “Onsides”
accepted a turn over, had possession when entering the zone. Off Side by a country mile. End of storey. For those that say he didn't have possession, I ask you this, If there was a delayed penalty on Colorado, when would the ref blow the whistle. It would be right at the turn over.
Mickey Marner
Registered User
Since when does possession matter? If you chip the puck in while a teammate is in the ozone and enter the zone before they exit, it's a delayed offside. Doesn't matter if it's on your stick or not.
No goal. The guy has clear possession of the puck crossing the line. A blind animal can call that.
Didn't touch the puck from the time it entered the zone and the time Nichushkin was back onside. Good goal.
Frosty415
Registered User
D Wakaluk
Registered User
Like I said in the GDT thread:
In control.
Never in control. The puck is wildly bouncing all over the place.
Learn the difference, NOOBS
In control.
Never in control. The puck is wildly bouncing all over the place.
Learn the difference, NOOBS
I feel like I'm missing something. That was clearly offside?
enthusiast
cybersabre his prophet
- Oct 20, 2009
- 18,667
- 5,988
There doesn't seem to be any language in 83.1 or 83.3 of the rules to clarify what the standard is, which is probably intentional
Inb4 lock. Not in the NHLs interests to expose their only agenda. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mikeshane
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2013
- 6,175
- 3,923
Possession is only for keeping plays onside to keep the game flowing to reduce stoppages(which are boring), it's not something that makes a play offside.
Edit: to clarify I mean possession or control without actually physically touching the puck.
Edit: to clarify I mean possession or control without actually physically touching the puck.
Vikingstad
**** the King
From my understanding they called it a good goal because the argument was Makar didn't have control of the puck.
Now if that's considered not having control of the puck, then a vast majority of hits should be deemed interference. So which one is it?
From my view even though the puck wasn't on his stick, he clearly had control and no player was even close to him to bring that to dispute.
Bad call
Now if that's considered not having control of the puck, then a vast majority of hits should be deemed interference. So which one is it?
From my view even though the puck wasn't on his stick, he clearly had control and no player was even close to him to bring that to dispute.
Bad call
tabness
be a playa
- Apr 4, 2014
- 2,008
- 3,547
Frosty415
Registered User
OilerTyler
Disgruntled
The rule book doesn’t even say Makar needs possession for it to be offside, he only has to be making an attempt to gain possession.
Hard to say that was onside.
Nikki Potnick
Registered User
People who say it was offside are clearly delusional and have no understanding of the rules, even though it's been explained numerous times, and been that way since 2005. It's like arguing with a flat earther, even with the facts laid out, they are still in denial.
Lock it up.
Lock it up.
Last edited:
HockeyFan100
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2012
- 4,417
- 3,300
- Apr 20, 2016
- 5,026
- 5,690
If you watch it in normal speed, he doesn't change his stride or do anything different than he normally would. It was pure fluke that he didn't touch it for the half second, he has full control the entire time.
- Status
