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

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,208
6,235
To me it’s easy to fix. Treat it like a penalty shot. Simple. If they score on the initial rush and they were offsides, then I can be reviewed. If the play continues with no goal, then it’s not reviewable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdavidev

sarge88

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2003
25,308
20,499
NHL: "We want more goals!"

Also NHL: "Wait, lets disallow this because his skate was in the air or over the blue line by a third of an inch"


That’s the dumbest part of the rule.....the fact that the skate needs to be on the ice.

It’s akin to disallowing a goal that doesn’t cross the goal line along the ice.
 

Lobster57

Registered User
Nov 22, 2006
7,673
5,843
Victoria, BC
when i was a little kid and the NFL was getting ready to bring in replay review i was excited. No more bad calls impacting the result. Now that i'm old and there's been years of evidence across multiple sports, i'm done with the experiment.

Sports are, in a lot of ways, built on mistakes. Pitcher hangs a curve, QB doesn't read a blitz coming, guy doesn't make the right switch on a pick and roll. None of those get a do-over, why should mistakes by an official?

Would i be pissed if the B's lose a playoff series on an obvious offside that doesn't get called? Abso-f'n-lutely. Am i worried about it actually happening? Nope. Besides there's enough ways for blown calls (or non-calls) to f*** things up that aren't reviewable anyway. The trip on Acciari couldn't be looked at, and it was BLATANT, so why are offsides and GI special?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

McGarnagle

Yes.
Aug 5, 2017
28,435
37,672
That’s the dumbest part of the rule.....the fact that the skate needs to be on the ice.

It’s akin to disallowing a goal that doesn’t cross the goal line along the ice.

They're pretty much using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when they do that crap. When the skate is off the ice it's both inside the zone but also nowhere and unknowable at the same time. The linesman needs a degree in quantum mechanics to accurately judge every play, but then would come to the conclusion that every play is objectively unjudgeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdavidev

Bruinator

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2005
7,737
4,024
Toronto
Problem is they spent 2 minutes waiting to see if Montreal wanted to challenge or not which is ridiculous in itself. There should not be any delay whatsoever and they should not be asking the team if they want to challenge, Go to centre ice and drop the puck. If the team wants to challenge, they should do it quickly. The next problem is the league spent 3 minutes figuring out that Coyle's blade entered the zone 3 mm before the puck but they completely forgot about the fact that kicking the puck into the zone constitutes possession of the puck and allows the player to precede the puck into the zone. OOPs, oh well who cares about the rules anyway lol.
 

Aussie Bruin

Registered User
Sponsor
Aug 3, 2019
9,740
21,473
Victoria, Aus
Problem is they spent 2 minutes waiting to see if Montreal wanted to challenge or not which is ridiculous in itself. There should not be any delay whatsoever and they should not be asking the team if they want to challenge, Go to centre ice and drop the puck. If the team wants to challenge, they should do it quickly. The next problem is the league spent 3 minutes figuring out that Coyle's blade entered the zone 3 mm before the puck but they completely forgot about the fact that kicking the puck into the zone constitutes possession of the puck and allows the player to precede the puck into the zone. OOPs, oh well who cares about the rules anyway lol.

I feel like I'm repeating myself ad nauseam on this point but I think it's important to get across - the NHL official rulebook nowhere defines either 'possession' or 'control'. So while there's plenty of expert opinion on what 'possession' is, and plenty has been given in Coyle's favor in the last 24 hours, strictly speaking there is no official definition and as such it's left free for the folks in Toronto to interpret it as they see fit. The advantage of this for the league is that while people can say they disagree with the decision made in this or any similar case, no-one can say that it was completely against the rules because on one key aspect they're completely open to individual interpretation.

I see that WEEI radio has now wisely cottoned on to this and suggested that the rules need to be changed to include definitions of the critical terms, and I agree 100%. But I think the the issue will need to gain traction beyond just New England for any changes to take place.

NHL needs ‘Charlie Coyle rule’ to define possession on offside calls
 

member 96824

Guest
I feel like I'm repeating myself ad nauseam on this point but I think it's important to get across - the NHL official rulebook nowhere defines either 'possession' or 'control'. So while there's plenty of expert opinion on what 'possession' is, and plenty has been given in Coyle's favor in the last 24 hours, strictly speaking there is no official definition and as such it's left free for the folks in Toronto to interpret it as they see fit. The advantage of this for the league is that while people can say they disagree with the decision made in this or any similar case, no-one can say that it was completely against the rules because on one key aspect they're completely open to individual interpretation.

I see that WEEI radio has now wisely cottoned on to this and suggested that the rules need to be changed to include definitions of the critical terms, and I agree 100%. But I think the the issue will need to gain traction beyond just New England for any changes to take place.

NHL needs ‘Charlie Coyle rule’ to define possession on offside calls

Yes it is, paragraph 3 of the rule:
“However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.”

It’s the reason you can skate backwards into the zone if you wanted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salem13

Seidenbergy

Registered User
Nov 2, 2012
7,234
2,990
Yes it is, paragraph 3 of the rule:
“However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.”

It’s the reason you can skate backwards into the zone if you wanted to.

I don't think you are reading his post correctly. He wrote that there is no definition of "possession" or "control" in the rules. He's right. What you posted does not contain any definition of either term.
 

PaulD

Time for a new GM !
Feb 4, 2016
28,755
15,809
Dundas
To me it’s easy to fix. Treat it like a penalty shot. Simple. If they score on the initial rush and they were offsides, then I can be reviewed. If the play continues with no goal, then it’s not reviewable.
perfect
 

Spooner st

Registered User
Jan 14, 2007
12,944
8,100
Even in super slo motion, there's no kicking motion. Watch it again:

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/br...nadiens-overturned-controversial-offside-call
If you look at the last moment before the puck hits his skate, Coyle's front of the right foot points towards the outside. And just before the puck hits his skate he slightly straightens it to redirect the puck towards his left side. If the puck hits the skate before he straightens it the puck would go to his right side.
He was in control, he redirected the puck.
 
Last edited:

PaulD

Time for a new GM !
Feb 4, 2016
28,755
15,809
Dundas
Problem is they spent 2 minutes waiting to see if Montreal wanted to challenge or not which is ridiculous in itself. There should not be any delay whatsoever and they should not be asking the team if they want to challenge, Go to centre ice and drop the puck. If the team wants to challenge, they should do it quickly. The next problem is the league spent 3 minutes figuring out that Coyle's blade entered the zone 3 mm before the puck but they completely forgot about the fact that kicking the puck into the zone constitutes possession of the puck and allows the player to precede the puck into the zone. OOPs, oh well who cares about the rules anyway lol.
Exactly.

Send this post to the league.
 

Tbaybruin

Registered User
Feb 2, 2016
3,878
4,194
Got to be honest

Even when offside involves other teams... even when it goes in your own favor...

It needs to be called out as the crappiest rule in sports

IF YOU CANT DETERMIN ITS OFFSIDE WITH A SINGLE REVIEW AT REAL LIFE SPEED... THEN IT DIDNT MATTER!!!

stop destroying the excitement of this sport over something none of us would ever complain about.

I guess there was ONE example of a matt duchesne style offside in my entire 45 year history as a fan. Every single viewer except the officials saw it. A single regular speed review would have seen it

EVERY SINGLE GOAL IN NHL SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY REVIEWED AT REGULAR SPEED FOR OFFSIDE/HIGH STICK/NET OFF/PUCK COVERED UP BY GOALIE/AND DANGEROUS GOALTENDER INTERFERENCE

No need for any coaches challange.

One view by the refs in real time
One view by the special judges in real time
If the goal passes both... then it was obviously close enough we want it to count!!!

Offense sells the game! We want goals to count!

But... start protecting goalies better... warn players that the tie goes to the runner in baseball. Contact with goalies will be called strict.

No dman is intentionally going to knock highspeed opponents into his own goalie. So collisions are THE FAULT of the attacking player

This is a safety issue for the goalie. Plays where a forward might brush against a goalie while fighting for position outside the paint dont matter. Screens are allowed. Its part of the game that doesnt endanger the goalie

Honestly, its always bothered me more when a penalty should be called but isnt resulting in a goal. That's INTENTIONAL cheating!

If we have to accept intentional cheating blown ref calls, we can sure as hell live with accidental normal plays that might technically break a rule, but so minorly no one would ever notice without superslowmo
 

member 96824

Guest
I don't think you are reading his post correctly. He wrote that there is no definition of "possession" or "control" in the rules. He's right. What you posted does not contain any definition of either term.

you’re right...I misread, but still..I think we all know what the words possession and control mean.

For example, the rulebook also doesn’t define what “puck” is either, but if the B’s push a stick into the net the officials aren’t going to count it as a goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatriceBergeronFan

Spooner st

Registered User
Jan 14, 2007
12,944
8,100
It was put in to eliminate the obvious calls that get missed. I don't think the intent was to spend 3 minutes looking at the same play over and over blowing it up to see if a toothpick could fit between the blueline and the skate.
Specially the goal was to find if Coyle was in possession of the puck which the video demonstrates he clearly was.
 

Tbaybruin

Registered User
Feb 2, 2016
3,878
4,194
Or we can just let the human element play out. Lit the officials call the game. Win or lose I don’t care. Look at the benches after almost every game the coaches looking at the iPads to see if the goal will be challenged. Brutal. Only other solution I like is put off ice official in the stands one on each blue line and buzz the on ice official if the offside happened so the call would only be delayed 1 second.
 

Seidenbergy

Registered User
Nov 2, 2012
7,234
2,990
you’re right...I misread, but still..I think we all know what the words possession and control mean.

Actually this thread is literal proof that we do not know. Nobody does. Everyone has their own interpretation, including the refs. Hence the issue and the reason why nobody here can agree.
 

Seidenbergy

Registered User
Nov 2, 2012
7,234
2,990
If you look at the last moment before the puck hits his skate, Coyle's front of the right foot points towards the outside. And just before the puck hits his skate he slightly straightens it to redirect the puck towards his left side. If the puck hits the skate before he straightens it the puck would go to his right side.
He was in control, he redirected the puck.

This post proves the opposite, if anything.

If we assume that his movements were a conscious effort and not just natural movement as the skates hit imperfect ice (it's literally impossible to keep a skate 100% perfectly straight for any real difference on "used" ice), then he should've kept his skate pointed towards the outside. Why? Simple geometry. It would've "pushed" the puck in front of him, not behind. By straightening his skate, the puck never gets in front of him and actually goes behind him to a place where he obviously doesn't want it. If the puck goes somewhere you don't want, by definition, that's the opposite of control.

(With regard to your last sentence in particular: literally every time the puck hits one's skates, it gets redirected. That is in no way indicative of "control". Control implies purposeful redirection to an intended destination.)
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,564
Connecticut
Actually this thread is literal proof that we do not know. Nobody does. Everyone has their own interpretation, including the refs. Hence the issue and the reason why nobody here can agree.

The question about possession and control only came up in this thread. No one was talking about possession when the incident occurred. Not the broadcasters or the refs in explanation. Nor did Cassidy mention it post game. You have to be a real homer to think Coyle was in possession of the puck when he entered the zone.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->