The Athletic - Boston FLUTO: ‘What is the purpose of this rule?’: Bruce Cassidy laments a game-changing offside challenge

[Gordoff]

Well...might as well press it every single time under your setup?

Just review all goals... no need to involve coaches at all... do the review at regular speed like the crowd sees

We want to keep the crowd happy

If a play is offensive enough it can be seen at regular speed, then overrule the refs... but always let the closeones go to the origional call on ice

The only reviews that should ever use slowmo are when we are determining good goals that werent awarded by the ref

Any puck that crosses the line legally needs to count

The biggest complaint most fans have is not enough scoring... not enough high tempo offense

Slowing rushes at the blueline and calling off goals for accidental mistimed zone entries is stupid

As cassady asked... what is this for? Other than the team that screwed up and deserves a goal against them anyhow... who benefits?

How many of you would care if mcdavid was an inch offside on draisaitls goal tonight?

It only upsets us when its our team... but if our team allows the goal than thats hockey. Just play better. An inch offside didnt screw you... you screwed yourself

Well according to -the announcer last night "all goals are reviewed by the NHL in Toronto" so if they don't see a blatant offside what the **** is the problem? It was obvious that the on ice officials were thinking that if they called it a good goal the Scabs would've not only been down a goal BUT would also be getting a penalty for the coaches challenge. Obviously they didn't want that insane crowd to call the police to report them for "stealing 2 points from the sainted Habitants" so they did the cowardly thing and called it offsides. It's a trash system thought up by morons and lawyers.

 

[Blowfish]

Nobody is holding your eyes open with toothpicks and forcing you to read...anything. No like, no read.

Hockey forum to post comments. Right?

 

[DarrenBanks56]

like i said before. if the beloved patriots ever got screwed by calls like the bruins have. i think the whole northeast would self destruct.

 

[LSCII]

like i said before. if the beloved patriots ever got screwed by calls like the bruins have. i think the whole northeast would self destruct.

They did during the second Super Bowl vs the Eagles. 2 very questionable TD receptions that should have been overturned if they called it the same way they had all season long.

 

[Kate08]

Have we confirmed that Joel Ward wasn’t offside in 2012? I’d like to challenge that.

You bastard.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

Have we confirmed that Joel Ward wasn’t offside in 2012? I’d like to challenge that.

you had to bring another back into the memory bank. it was definitely GI i k ow that

 

[ap3lovr]

I like the idea of reviewing offside at full speed.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

I like the idea of reviewing offside at full speed.

it shouldnt be reviewed at all. if its really bad a linesman will see it full speed.

 

[LSCII]

I don't get this line of thinking.

The rule is that no player can enter the zone before the puck. Either offsides or not. Video showed it to be offsides.

Just sour grapes. Its expected from the fans, though it was surprising from this coach.

Offside and icing calls (where the player dumps it in from behind the red line and his follow through makes it not icing) were always judgement calls, and more of the as long as it was close type variety. The review rule was not put in place to do frame by frame slo motion break down of a random zone entry 3 minutes prior to the call in question. It was to make sure the right call is made on the ice as it pertains to that specific play. Taking that long to review a play literally sucks the life out of the game and ruins the momentum.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Offside and icing calls (where the player dumps it in from behind the red line and his follow through makes it not icing) were always judgement calls, and more of the as long as it was close type variety. The review rule was not put in place to do frame by frame slo motion break down of a random zone entry 3 minutes prior to the call in question. It was to make sure the right call is made on the ice as it pertains to that specific play. Taking that long to review a play literally sucks the life out of the game and ruins the momentum.

Funny, but Julien and his staff concluded in less than 30 seconds it was offsides. I thought it was offsides when it happened. Perhaps the problem is with the officials, not the challenge.

Anyway, they did make sure the right call was made. It was offsides.

 

[Salem13]

Funny, but Julien and his staff concluded in less than 30 seconds it was offsides. I thought it was offsides when it happened. Perhaps the problem is with the officials, not the challenge.

Anyway, they did make sure the right call was made. It was offsides.

No, it was not, he had control and possession.

If someone else had the puck or the puck was "fired in" by another player he would have been off-sides.

With possession and control you can precede the puck.

 

[Jdavidev]

Funny, but Julien and his staff concluded in less than 30 seconds it was offsides. I thought it was offsides when it happened. Perhaps the problem is with the officials, not the challenge.

Anyway, they did make sure the right call was made. It was offsides.

But... of course, it was wrong. He had possession.

Even if he was offside, I don't want that goal being called back. Ever. Same way I don't want them to review icings or face offs or line changes or played with a high stick. Scored with a high stick? Sure. Yes. But not some minor technicality that happened somewhere previously in the play between whistles.

It's mind numbing that anyone can advocate for this kind of review.

 

[LSCII]

Funny, but Julien and his staff concluded in less than 30 seconds it was offsides. I thought it was offsides when it happened. Perhaps the problem is with the officials, not the challenge.

Anyway, they did make sure the right call was made. It was offsides.

Yet you didn't address any of the main points in my post. Just the time it took. I mean shit, why does it matter that this isn't what the rule was put in place for, right?

 

[alg363636]

There should be a time limit for review. Maximum 2 minutes stoppage of play. If after 2 minutes both the on ice officials and Toronto can't make a clear determination whether it's offside or not then the goal counts.

I do think having the challenge is important - like the article mentions sometimes officials miss blatant offside calls. That Duchene goal would have taken one review - not even slowed down - to determine it's offside. That's why we have the challenge. That goal and the play preceding would not have been possible without Duchene being offside.

I don't think officials and Toronto should have endless time to view still frame, high definition shots of zoomed in skates and lines to determine whether a goal that resulted several seconds later counts. I think reasonable offside call can be determined in 2 minutes of review.

 

[BMC]

Laments it does he? His team got f***ed over in broad daylight and all he can do is lament about it afterwards. He should have gone all milkcrate on the officials if only to show his players that he's got their backs when they're involved in a controversial call and then called the officials out again during the post game press conference. The hell with the fines. I'm tired of Bruins coaching staffs (Claude's did it too) just tamely accepting the officials screwing them over. "Thank you sir may I have another?" should be the motto of the Bruins coaching staff from now on.

Yes I am still furious about it. No it doesn't help that this happened in Montreal. And it especially doesn't help that the staff did absolutely nothing to respond to it, they just took it.

 

[nycpunk1]

Offside and icing calls (where the player dumps it in from behind the red line and his follow through makes it not icing) were always judgement calls, and more of the "as long as it was close type" variety. The review rule was not put in place to do frame by frame slo motion break down of a random zone entry 3 minutes prior to the call in question.

I personally think this should be true, but I don't know if it is. I feel like the major sports leagues in the US have limited the argument about replay to "should we use it and when should we use it" without seriously engaging with the question "what level of precision is meaningful". That leaves fans to apply their own logic. Even when they aren't on opposing sides of a review, fans fundamentally disagree on this.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

There should be a time limit for review. Maximum 2 minutes stoppage of play. If after 2 minutes both the on ice officials and Toronto can't make a clear determination whether it's offside or not then the goal counts.

I do think having the challenge is important - like the article mentions sometimes officials miss blatant offside calls. That Duchene goal would have taken one review - not even slowed down - to determine it's offside. That's why we have the challenge. That goal and the play preceding would not have been possible without Duchene being offside.

I don't think officials and Toronto should have endless time to view still frame, high definition shots of zoomed in skates and lines to determine whether a goal that resulted several seconds later counts. I think reasonable offside call can be determined in 2 minutes of review.

If they insist on keeping this awful review process in place then limiting the time it takes to review is a good step in the right direction at least. I disagree with you that there should even be a video review for offsides, but if they are going to keep it then limiting the total stoppage to 2 minutes (or less) at least helps get it closer to the spirit of the offsides rule.

 

[Seidenbergy]

No, it was not, he had control and possession.

With possession and control you can precede the puck.

But... of course, it was wrong. He had possession.

Did he have possession AND control? The puck hit his skate. That's it. I'm not sure that qualifies.

It's similar to a delayed penalty call. Would the refs blow the whistle and count it as possession and control if the puck simply hit the skate of a player on the offending team? They're not supposed to.

 

[trenton1]

F that, with all due respect.

Side effect of having a new baby is you watch a ton of hockey, especially at odd hours. The worst part of the game right now is watching officials on headsets while the on air commentators try and determine if a puck was a centimeter offside 2 minutes before a goal was scored.

The rule needs adjustment, glad Bruce is calling it out. Might sound like sour grapes because it cost them last night, but doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

(I’m not blaming last night’s loss on officiating)

I hate the offside review even when it's in a game not involving the Bruins. The only line that should be scrutinized is the goal line.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

Play was offside, the review got it right. Bruins sat back immediately after as Montreal upped the pressure.

The removal of the ability for the bench to watch a replay before challenging makes sense, but how does the league enforce that?

Coaches use replay on the bench to coach players in game.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Play was offside, the review got it right. Bruins sat back immediately after as Montreal upped the pressure.

The removal of the ability for the bench to watch a replay before challenging makes sense, but how does the league enforce that?

Coaches use replay on the bench to coach players in game.

No it wasn't offside, most hockey analysts are saying that Coyle had possession of the puck, therefore it was onside. As per usual the hockey ops in TO were able to put the hammer to us, feels like a broken record. It is strictly because of NHL officiating and the " decision room in TO " that I no longer get the hockey package, nothing but incompetence/biasness all around.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

They did during the second Super Bowl vs the Eagles. 2 very questionable TD receptions that should have been overturned if they called it the same way they had all season long.

nah. That stuff happens in every NFL game.
Im talking about the bullshit like offsides disallowed goals. Puck out of play, but in play, then a goal. Game 5 blatant slewfoot that leads to a goal in the SC Finals. Not your every day NHL stuff.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

Play was offside, the review got it right. Bruins sat back immediately after as Montreal upped the pressure.

The removal of the ability for the bench to watch a replay before challenging makes sense, but how does the league enforce that?

Coaches use replay on the bench to coach players in game.

I thought the Bruins pressured after the no goal and senny was blatantly interfered with, as he wouldve blown by that defender.

 

[mikelvl]

Kukla's Korner Hockey - Kukla's Korner

Here is actual proof that the Bruins are getting royally screwed above and beyond every other team in the league. Five goal calls overturned so fart this year. Two teams with 3. Six teams with 2. Eleven teams with 1. Eleven teams with 0!!

What the h.e. double hockey sticks is going on here!?!?!?!?

 

[DarrenBanks56]

No it wasn't offside, most hockey analysts are saying that Coyle had possession of the puck, therefore it was onside. As per usual the hockey ops in TO were able to put the hammer to us, feels like a broken record. It is strictly because of NHL officiating and the " decision room in TO " that I no longer get the hockey package, nothing but incompetence/biasness all around.

They can say he had possession but if that puck was lagging behind himenough for the linesman to actually see with the naked eye, you know it wouldve been blown for offside. No way they wouldve not blown that dead, possession wouldve never come into the linesmans head on that play live.