Toggle sidebar

Cale Makar's goal (or no-goal) for offside

Status
Not open for further replies.
Golden_Jet

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,803
11,133
Faterson said:
Sorry, but this time it's obvious you haven't read this entire thread (and I don't blame you!), :wg: since we've covered this repeatedly before.

What you're saying here is just a variation of the "you can't attempt to gain possession of the puck if you already possess it" sophism. It's splitting hairs.

I truly am convinced, as mentioned before, that when they were writing the offside rule, they did not dream that players would discover a loophole in it that would allow a player to pass the puck to himself across the blue line during delayed offside.

I truly am convinced that when they were originally writing the delayed offside rule, they were thinking of the traditional offside scenario: a player passes the puck to another across the blue line, therefore he no longer possesses the puck, and therefore there's no need to mention retained possession in the rule.

But, you know, even if I am mistaken, the very fact that we're discussing this is proof that it's a badly written rule. Clearly written rules don't admit multiple interpretations. I mean, take that English grammar mistake in the rule (superfluous who)! That tells you all about how carefully the rule was composed.

The offside rule should definitely be amended. First, correct the grammar mistake in it, and then, clearly specify that retaining possession of the puck during delayed offside is permitted. Adding one sentence to the rule is no big deal, is it? Just insert a sentence like this in the rule (if that is truly the intent as you argue):



I would find it weird if the rule explicitly included this (because it seems to contradict the spirit of all the other provisions in the delayed offside rule, which favor the defending team), but at least there would be clarity.

It would be black-on-white obvious and irrefutable that what Makar did was a legal play. Whereas now, it's definitely possible, defensible and reasonable to argue that Makar encroached upon the spirit and/or the letter of the delayed offside rule by either possessing the puck the entire time, or by attempting to gain possession of it (doesn't matter which interpretation you prefer).

The "spirit" of a rule should not enter the discussion at all. The letter of a rule alone should be so clear and unambiguous that just by looking at what a rule explicitly says, you would have 100% certainty whether what happened in a play complied with the rules or not. Right now, with the current wording of the offside rule, you don't have that certainty.
Click to expand...
Players didn’t find a loophole,it was designed that way on purpose.
 
Anglesmith

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,478
14,790
Victoria
Faterson said:
What you're saying here is just a variation of the "you can't attempt to gain possession of the puck if you already possess it" sophism. It's splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

Not only are you overly reducing the argument, but to characterize this as a sophism would suggest that you do not know what a sophism is, that you do not understand the argument, or both.

The inclusion of specific wording refines the criteria to only those types of plays that influence the game state, and excludes those that don't. You keep ignoring this point.

I truly am convinced, as mentioned before, that when they were writing the offside rule, they did not dream that players would discover a loophole in it that would allow a player to pass the puck to himself across the blue line during delayed offside.
Click to expand...

That's fine if that is your belief. I honestly agree with you that this type of play, however you want to describe it, did not help to inform the writing of the rule initially.

What is more important, however, is that eventually they were confronted with this play, considered the letter and the spirit of the rule, and realized that there was no reason for it to be considered offside. And they believed this so firmly that they unambiguously included the exact scenario in their video rulebook.

But, you know, even if I am mistaken, the very fact that we're discussing this is proof that it's a badly written rule. Clearly written rules don't admit multiple interpretations. I mean, take that English grammar mistake in the rule (superfluous who)! That tells you all about how carefully the rule was composed.
Click to expand...

I agree that the rulebook could be re-written in many ways to improve clarity and intent (though I remain unconvinced that the league is actually interested in removing ambiguity in some cases), but you must realize that this is a deeply flawed argument (my belief is justification of itself).

I would find it weird if the rule explicitly included this (because it seems to contradict the spirit of all the other provisions in the delayed offside rule, which favor the defending team), but at least there would be clarity.
Click to expand...

The misconception is that the rule favours one team or the other. The intent of the rule is to remove unfair advantage on zone entries. It is not about punishing a team. If it was, why include delayed offside?
 
cgf

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,373
19,224
w/ Renly's Peach
Muffin said:
We all know Edmonton would've won in 4 if the refs waived off every legal goal the Avs scored.
Click to expand...

its-a-scientific-fact-zac.gif
 
cgf

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,373
19,224
w/ Renly's Peach
AvroArrow said:
Why are we getting dragged into this
Click to expand...

Leafs fan I'm guessing from your location?

If so, some of your...more enthusiastic...fellow fans have been gleeful to respond to Tampa fans complaining about the 5-on-3 in the series thread, by claiming that the only reason Tampa beat you was because of a BS 5-on-3.
 
Oil Gauge

Oil Gauge

5+14+6+1=97
Apr 9, 2009
5,650
244
PAZ said:
Honestly, i'm impressed the players know the rule.
Click to expand...

I've grown up playing with the rule like this. If you are entering the zone but your teammate isn't out yet you always delay, whether that's lifting your stick and not touching the puck if its already in the zone or actually delaying entering the zone. Id say its pretty standard knowledge amongst hockey players. What makes this situation somewhat different and more controversial is that Makar seems to have no idea that he needed to delay touching the puck and stayed on side by pure dumb luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey and Faterson
Bender

Bender

Registered User
Sep 25, 2002
17,320
8,574
Chinaski89 said:
Two goal swing. Without that BS ‘rule definition’ they’d have won the game which could have had a huge momentum swing stealing home ice.
Click to expand...
Yeah... for sure an obvious sweep by the oilers after they get that call... everyone can see that.

In fact, I don't see how the Avs would even score another goal after that happened. I think they would have just decided to withdraw from the series altogether and have the BLose play from that point on.

Then the question becomes, how are you going to get past them with the shutout streak that Binnington is FOR SURE going to go on??
 
  • Like
Reactions: TatteredTornNFrayed
Turbonium

Turbonium

Registered User
Aug 21, 2020
988
1,808
Spain
Just made some calls around the league and this is in fact still a good goal. It was also stated that Kadri's OT goal is a good goal and will not be coming off the official box score.

This should allow for several silly threads regarding the above issues to be closed. You're welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom