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

[GoldenBearHockey]

I wouldn't mind that, but current rules are different.



It's a potential solution. The Hockey Guy discusses it in the video I posted above. I don't think it's necessary, though.



I do. For example, the following could be inserted in the offside rule:



That would effectively close the current loophole. Players would no longer be allowed to pass the puck to themselves across the blue line during delayed offside, the way Makar and McAvoy (and others) did it.

You want to carry the puck across the blue line – then do it during regular play, not during delayed offside, when the defending team is supposed to be enjoying an advantage, given the infraction of the rule by the attacking team.

The question of possession would be resolved with 100% clarity that way, too. Until the puck is touched by a different player (on the attacking or defending team), possession continues, and so the original player cannot touch it again. That would be 100% in line with how puck possession is defined in NHL rules.

Wow.........I have no words at how BAD that is.....it's like you've never ever played the game and just think, hey, because I don't understand it, let's change the game completely.....so it makes more sense to me....

Shit....why don't we add a ceiling in there to they can bounce pucks off the top........kinda fits that argument...

 

[Mattb124]

Here's how I interpret it.

83.1 tells us when a play is offside. If the criteria defined in 83.1 occurs the play is whistled down, unless the criteria of 83.3 is satisfied, in which case it becomes a delayed offside.

So was 83.3 satisfied?

"83.3 Delayed Off-side – A situation where an attacking player (or players)
has preceded the puck across the attacking blue line, but the
defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its
defending zone without any delay or contact with an attacking player,
or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking
zone."

It was a situation where an attacking player preceded the puck across the line, and the attacking player is in the process of clearing the attacking zone. Therefore it meets the criteria for a delayed offside. On which case the following situations will trigger an offside call.

'If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the
attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a
loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own
zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending
puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation."

He did not touch the puck, attempt to gain possession as he already had possession, force a defending puck carrier back, or make contact with a defending puck carrier. So the play is allowed to continue until the delayed offside is nullified, or until one of the above criteria occurs.

That's about as straight forward as I can explain it. So if Nichuskin was skating into the zone and not making his way out of the zone you could whistle this play down as offside under 83.1. but since he was in the process of clearing the zone it becomes a delayed offside.

My personal perspective is you are missing a step in the decisioning although reaching the correct result. In your paragraph starting “He did not…”, note that in your preceding paragraph it says “if…any member of the attacking team touches the puck…” the play will be blown dead. Not “he”, but “they”. What I think you are missing is the paragraph in rule 83.3 that precedes the one you qouted which says the delayed off-side will be nullified if the defending team passes the puck into the neutral zone, which they did and which is how Makar gained possession. That is what allowed Makar, a member of the attacking team, to touch the puck without the play being blown dead.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

My personal perspective is you are missing a step in the decisioning although reaching the correct result. In your paragraph starting “He did not…”, note that in your preceding paragraph it says “if…any member of the attacking team touches the puck…” the play will be blown dead. Not “he”, but “they”. What I think you are missing is the paragraph in rule 83.3 that precedes the one you qouted which says the delayed off-side will be nullified if the defending team passes the puck into the neutral zone, which they did and which is how Makar gained possession. That is what allowed Makar, a member of the attacking team, to touch the puck without the play being blown dead.

Matt, no you are dead wrong....here is why,

It's not offsides when the puck is in the zone as well as Nichsuskin....EDM does pass it out....to the neutral zone, still not off-sides........Makar takes the puck in the neutral zone....still not off-sides......he pushes the puck over the blue line while Nichshsukin is in the zone, THAT is where the delayed off-side is.....and if Makar had touched it, it would have been blown dead......

You are confusing it with the defensive team, passing or shooting the puck from the neutral zone, into the their defensive zone, that would nullify any offside.....

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

Precisely! The only way it can make sense is for puck possession to be forbidden also, during delayed offside.

If the lesser action (trying to gain possession) is forbidden, logic commands that the bigger action (actual possession) must be forbidden also.

The rule is written from the defending team's point of view, listing all the things (4 various things in total) that the attacking team (offending the offside rule) is not allowed to do, such as obstructing the defenders, etc.

They simply forgot to explicitly list the 5th, greatest & most obvious obstacle the attacking/offending team can possibly create for the defending team: continuous possession of the puck during delayed offside.

When McAvoy, Hathaway and Nieto with his linemates did it in the example videos, they explained it away as a technicality, saying, "Well, at least they didn't touch the puck during delayed offside!"

Now when the same play results in a crucial goal in a play-off game, it can no longer be explained away quite as easily, because loopholes in rules shouldn't be deciding the outcomes of playoff games.

It's simply a badly written rule. No one had foreseen, when they were writing the rule, that a situation like this could ever come up.

Time for everyone concerned to sit down together and completely rewrite the offside rule, clearly specifying whether continuous possession of the puck during delayed offside is permitted or not.

Logic and tradition command that it should not be permitted. If they decide to permit it in the rule anyway, that would be weird, but OK. Right now, though, the offside rule says nothing about this explicitly because no one had foreseen that this could one day become an issue.

Well said, you make good points.
I do see your side of the argument, obviously.

However, I stand by that all we can do is take what is written in the rulebook literally and at face value. The NHL made it so whe they implemented offside review. No more subjectivity.

Do you believe this goal should have been called back? If so, I can not agree with that. However, if you're advocating for the rule to have its verbiage and language changed to eliminate these scenarios in the future, then sure. I can agree.
I also don't really care one way or another and am fine with the rule as it is written.

 

[Anglesmith]

Precisely! The only way it can make sense is for puck possession to be forbidden also, during delayed offside.

If the lesser action (trying to gain possession) is forbidden, logic commands that the bigger action (actual possession) must be forbidden also.

The rule is written from the defending team's point of view, listing all the things (4 various things in total) that the attacking team (offending the offside rule) is not allowed to do, such as obstructing the defenders, etc.

They simply forgot to explicitly list the 5th, greatest & most obvious obstacle the attacking/offending team can possibly create for the defending team: continuous possession of the puck during delayed offside.

When McAvoy, Hathaway and Nieto with his linemates did it in the example videos, they explained it away as a technicality, saying, "Well, at least they didn't touch the puck during delayed offside!"

Now when the same play results in a crucial goal in a play-off game, it can no longer be explained away quite as easily, because loopholes in rules shouldn't be deciding the outcomes of playoff games.

It's simply a badly written rule. No one had foreseen, when they were writing the rule, that a situation like this could ever come up.

Time for everyone concerned to sit down together and completely rewrite the offside rule, clearly specifying whether continuous possession of the puck during delayed offside is permitted or not.

Logic and tradition command that it should not be permitted. If they decide to permit it in the rule anyway, that would be weird, but OK. Right now, though, the offside rule says nothing about this explicitly because no one had foreseen that this could one day become an issue.

It's not a matter of forgetting at all. The fact that the NHL specifically highlighted this play in a video explanation of the rule is proof enough that if they wanted to have the rules make it illegal, they would.

This isn't just some boneheaded oversight on the NHL's part. The writing of the rule to specifically allow this is perfectly in keeping with the spirit and intent of the offside rule.

The intent of the offside rule is to prevent the attacking team from gaining advantage by entering the attacking zone ahead of the puck. Obviously, if an attacker precedes the puck into the zone, it changes how the defence can deal with the rush, and the consequences of this are not something desired in the game. And, importantly, the delayed offside aspect of the rule is instituted specifically to avoid whistles when no such advantage is being gained.

On a play such as this, by tagging up at the blueline before anyone enters the zone, there is no way for the attacking team to hold any kind of unfair advantage on the rush. In fact, because there is a small half-second where the puck-carrier is unable to influence the puck, it is actually a slight advantage to the defence.

The four criteria for stopping play are listed because they are examples of the attacking team having a tangible influence on the flow of play or the puck itself. While in an offside position, this obviously cannot be allowed.

But standing near the puck without being allowed to touch it, not influencing the motion of the puck, the defenders, or the flow of play in any way inside of the offensive zone? I'm not sure why you feel like this needs to be blown down. If you freeze frame the play after the tag-up, there is nothing apparent that speaks to any kind of advantage gained on the entry. You have the puck entering the zone, and every Colorado player is behind it.

 

[Faterson]

It's not a matter of forgetting at all.

Some forgetting is definitely taking place here.

When they decided to tolerate the current loophole and justify it via the instruction video, thy "forgot" to update the wording of the offside rule accordingly.

It's utter nonsense to proclaim what Makar did legal and at the same time have the rule prohibit "attempt to gain possession of the puck" by "any member of the attacking team".

You gotta admit you can't have both of these things at the same time.

If they want to tolerate what Makar did (or go even a step further and tolerate "dead offsides" in general, like in soccer), then fine, but please update the wording of the offside rule accordingly. Right now, it makes multiple contradicting interpretations possible, and that's the definition of a badly written rule.

As long as the bit about "attempt to gain possession of the puck" is there, people will rightfully argue that what Makar did was exactly that. And no amount of sophisms in the vein of "you can't attempt to gain possession if you already have it" will change that.

 

[Anglesmith]

Some forgetting is definitely taking place here.

When they decided to tolerate the current loophole and justify it via the instruction video, thy "forgot" to update the wording of the offside rule accordingly.

It's utter nonsense to proclaim what Makar did legal and at the same time have the rule prohibit "attempt to gain possession of the puck" by "any member of the attacking team".

At this point of the reply I'm convinced that you did not read most of my post. There is a clear difference between those two actions in terms of the spirit of the rule.

 

[Turbonium]

Just checked the box score again and even after 84 pages of nonsense the goal is still legal.

Whew.

 

[Faterson]

At this point of the reply I'm convinced that you did not read most of my post.

I read your entire post carefully.

There is a clear difference between those two actions in terms of the spirit of the rule.

Yes, in terms of the spirit, but not in terms of the letter. What the spirit of a rule is, is open to anyone's interpretation. A good rule is one that permits only a single reading – not multiple contradictory interpretations.

Just like your interpretation is possible, so is the other that Makar was "attempting to gain possession" of the puck or actually possessing it, and therefore committing one of the 4 actions listed as prohibited during delayed offside.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I read your entire post carefully.



Yes, in terms of the spirit, but not in terms of the letter. What the spirit of a rule is, is open to anyone's interpretation. A good rule is one that permits only a single reading – not multiple contradictory interpretations.

Just like your interpretation is possible, so is the other that Makar was "attempting to gain possession" of the puck or actually possessing it, and therefore committing one of the 4 actions listed as prohibited during delayed offside.

Not according to the definition of Possession, which you’ve been told a 1000 times, what the definition is, lol.

 

[MrSnrub]

Mods, please lock this thread.

 

[Bender]

Mods, please lock this thread.

That emoji is not correct... the horse should be a skeleton

 

[Pet Charles]

Which makes it infinitely more difficult to determine off-side, not sure thats the best move.

No, I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t turn out like that think it would. Changing the language in 83.3 to add “control of the puck” (in the attacking zone during a delayed offsides) makes it far easier to enforce. Right now, the linesman is not only expected to determine if the skates of the attacking player cleared the zone tag up before the puck enters the zone, but he also has to - in situations such as Makar’s - determine if he physically touched the puck in that fraction of a second of a delayed offside while he was stickhanding and flying into the zone. Everyone had to slow that down to 1/32 of normal speed to be able to see what happened and you’re arguing that that’s an easier task for the linesman than determining if the attacking player does or does not have control of the puck, unless we’re going to robot referees.

 

[JGuardz]

No, I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t turn out like that think it would. Changing the language in 83.3 to add “control of the puck” (in the attacking zone during a delayed offsides) makes it far easier to enforce. Right now, the linesman is not only expected to determine if the skates of the attacking player cleared the zone tag up before the puck enters the zone, but he also has to - in situations such as Makar’s - determine if he physically touched the puck in that fraction of a second of a delayed offside while he was stickhanding and flying into the zone. Everyone had to slow that down to 1/32 of normal speed to be able to see what happened and you’re arguing that that’s an easier task for the linesman than determining if the attacking player does or does not have control of the puck, unless we’re going to robot referees.

In this instance linesman did not blow the play down for offside. He correctly determined, in real time, the play was onside.

 

[Faterson]

In this instance linesman did not blow the play down for offside. He correctly determined, in real time, the play was onside.

It wasn't. When Nichushkin was still in the offensive zone and the puck followed him there, it was delayed offside.

And during that delayed offside, Makar was either possessing the puck or attempting to gain possession of the puck (take your pick), which is prohibited by rule 88.3.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

No, I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t turn out like that think it would. Changing the language in 83.3 to add “control of the puck” (in the attacking zone during a delayed offsides) makes it far easier to enforce. Right now, the linesman is not only expected to determine if the skates of the attacking player cleared the zone tag up before the puck enters the zone, but he also has to - in situations such as Makar’s - determine if he physically touched the puck in that fraction of a second of a delayed offside while he was stickhanding and flying into the zone. Everyone had to slow that down to 1/32 of normal speed to be able to see what happened and you’re arguing that that’s an easier task for the linesman than determining if the attacking player does or does not have control of the puck, unless we’re going to robot referees.

LOL you've never lined before, have you?

So you want the linesman instead of seeing if the puck was TOUCHED before any tag up....where it's clear LINEAR division.....to now go...well it wasn't per se touched, but it might have been controlled? So you want to make delayed offside SUBJECTIVE.....and you think that will CLEAR things up? Dear god

It wasn't. When Nichushkin was still in the offensive zone and the puck followed him there, it was delayed offside.

And during that delayed offside, Makar was either possessing the puck or attempting to gain possession of the puck (take your pick), which is prohibited by rule 88.3.

It was, you can clearly see the linesman CORRECTLY WASHOUT the offside, just because you don't know why, or can't comprehend why, doesn't mean it wasn't correct.

 

[Pet Charles]

In this instance linesman did not blow the play down for offside. He correctly determined, in real time, the play was onside.

Hold on. Guessing correctly on a flipped coin does not a skill make. It’s true that he absolutely did make the right ruling that it was a clean entry, but not a single person on this planet or planets yet undiscovered knew with any certainty that Makar did not touch the puck, per letter of the law, while stick-handling in that fraction of a second when the delayed offsides was in effect. In fact, the initial suspicion was that the play was offsides. The commentators were certain it would be overturned. Only with the benefit of video slowed to 1/32nd of regular speed that we all - including Makar and that linesman but excluding GoldenMonkey, who claims to have skills far exceeding we mere mortals - were able to confirm Makar wasn’t physically touching the puck in that instant.

Edit: It’s hard enough for them to have to judge whether the puck crosses legally, but at least the conditions for making a traditional offsides ruling are as well defined as possible (black puck, blue line, white ice). The original point, again, is that maintaining a loophole such as the one created by permitting a player who has entered the zone to control the puck but not physically touch the puck while a teammate is still in the zone is a recipe for trouble. At the very least, the loophole is inconsistent with the rest of the delayed offsides rule.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Hold on. Guessing correctly on a flipped coin does not a skill make. It’s true that he absolutely did make the right ruling that it was a clean entry, but not a single person on this planet or planets yet undiscovered knew with any certainty that Makar did not touch the puck, per letter of the law, while stick-handling in that fraction of a second when the delayed offsides was in effect. In fact, the initial suspicion was that the play was offsides. Only with the benefit of video slowed to 1/32nd of regular speed that we all - including Makar and that linesman but excluding GoldenMonkey, who claims to have skills far exceeding we mere mortals - were able to confirm Makar wasn’t physically touching the puck in that instant.

And yet....he MADE the correct call....in real time.....imagine that.....

I know, I know, you think officials out there....are just guessing.

 

[Bender]

Holy crap!

The NHL has reversed its decision! They are going to have to replay Game #1 :

NHL - it was offsides!

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Hold on. Guessing correctly on a flipped coin does not a skill make. It’s true that he absolutely did make the right ruling that it was a clean entry, but not a single person on this planet or planets yet undiscovered knew with any certainty that Makar did not touch the puck, per letter of the law, while stick-handling in that fraction of a second when the delayed offsides was in effect. In fact, the initial suspicion was that the play was offsides. The commentators were certain it would be overturned. Only with the benefit of video slowed to 1/32nd of regular speed that we all - including Makar and that linesman but excluding GoldenMonkey, who claims to have skills far exceeding we mere mortals - were able to confirm Makar wasn’t physically touching the puck in that instant.

Edit: It’s hard enough for them to have to judge whether the puck crosses legally, but at least the conditions for making a traditional offsides ruling are as well defined as possible (black puck, blue line, white ice). The original point, again, is that maintaining a loophole such as the one created by permitting a player who has entered the zone to control the puck but not physically touch the puck while a teammate is still in the zone is a recipe for trouble. At the very least, the loophole is inconsistent with the rest of the delayed offsides rule.

Glad you cleared that up, Makar has not entered the zone........now that we are all straight, what's next?

 

[Anglesmith]

I read your entire post carefully.



Yes, in terms of the spirit, but not in terms of the letter. What the spirit of a rule is, is open to anyone's interpretation. A good rule is one that permits only a single reading – not multiple contradictory interpretations.

Just like your interpretation is possible, so is the other that Makar was "attempting to gain possession" of the puck or actually possessing it, and therefore committing one of the 4 actions listed as prohibited during delayed offside.

Well, no, because the letter of the rule specifically says "loose puck." Are you suggesting that one could unironically consider the puck to be a loose puck during that time? And that Makar simply being near the puck constitutes an attempt to change that?

If the wording was just "attempting to have possession of a puck," you would have a point. But the rules specifically paint the picture of a player attempting to go and get a puck that he does not have. The player in this case is making an attempt to change the state of play, and thus the whistle is justified.

And again, the rulebook could read "attempts to gain or maintain possession of the puck" if that was the intent. But there is a clear intentional point of specifying a loose puck. All of the four criteria are consistent in being attempts by the attacking team to alter the game state while offside. Maintaining possession of the puck without touching it does not fulfill this requirement by either spirit or letter of the rule.

 

[Faterson]

Are you suggesting that one could unironically consider the puck to be a loose puck [...]?

Sorry, but this time it's obvious you haven't read this entire thread (and I don't blame you!), 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):

A player already in possession of the puck is allowed to retain possession during delayed offside.

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.

 

[JLo217]

Change the title to MVP

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

Change the title to MVP

refs-oilers 4-0

 

[Oil Gauge]

My personal perspective is you are missing a step in the decisioning although reaching the correct result. In your paragraph starting “He did not…”, note that in your preceding paragraph it says “if…any member of the attacking team touches the puck…” the play will be blown dead. Not “he”, but “they”. What I think you are missing is the paragraph in rule 83.3 that precedes the one you qouted which says the delayed off-side will be nullified if the defending team passes the puck into the neutral zone, which they did and which is how Makar gained possession. That is what allowed Makar, a member of the attacking team, to touch the puck without the play being blown dead.

No, that refers to the defensive team moving the puck out of their zone during a delayed offside. This has to happen after a play is deemed a delayed offside. Even if the play was a delayed offside before the oilers cleared the puck from the zone it would only negate that delayed offside. A new delayed offside would be created when Makar brings the puck over the line before his teammate has cleared the zone.