JoeSakic13
Registered User
Guys, I don’t think they’re calling this one back.
Players didn’t find a loophole,it was designed that way on purpose.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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
Check out 0:49
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.The play that will live in Oilers fans' collective memories for an eternity. Not sure they realize it only counted for 1 goal in Game 1, a game in which they allowed 8 goals.
This. If not for the zebras we'd all be watching the Leafs & Oilers...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.
Check out 0:49
It's not like it's some special rule, just think of it as a short dump in.Honestly, i'm impressed the players know the rule.
We all know Edmonton would've won in 4 if the refs waived off every legal goal the Avs scored.If we beat Tampa, should we send Edmonton the cup?
We all know Edmonton would've won in 4 if the refs waived off every legal goal the Avs scored.
Why are we getting dragged into thisThis. If not for the zebras we'd all be watching the Leafs & Oilers...
Why are we getting dragged into this
Honestly, i'm impressed the players know the rule.
CHECK AGAINJust checked the box score again and even after 84 pages of nonsense the goal is still legal.
Whew.
Yeah... for sure an obvious sweep by the oilers after they get that call... everyone can see that.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.