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

[Spooner st]

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.)

You even can see it in the full screen slow motion Twitter video you provided.Coyle following the puck the all time adapting as the puck came in slowly, and even while the puck hit the skate he readjust the skate to the right to try to get more speed from the puck. If that's not control... I understand that different people looking at the same thing will see different things. Just my opinion.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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.

Thanks. Yes that's it. There's also uncertainty and a contradiction in the rules on what constitutes goaltender interference. Perhaps there are others as well - the rulebook seems to like to give the officials some latitude in how they interpret and apply certain aspects of it. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just bad rule-writing.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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.

Clearly we don't, because even fellow Bruins fans can't agree on it, let alone the wider hockey community and officialdom. And even if we did, that would still leave the refs and reviewers free to interpret the terms as they see fit because the rulebook permits them to do so, and we'd still have issues like this arising.

 

[Spooner st]

 

[Seidenbergy]

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.

Ummmmm, yes it does.

See page 25, rule 13:

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

Rule 13 - Puck 13.1

Dimensions - The puck shall be made of vulcanized rubber, or other approved material, one inch (1'') thick and three inches (3'') in diameter and shall weigh between five and one-half ounces (51/2'' oz.) and six ounces (6 oz.). All pucks used in competition must be approved by the League.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Ummmmm, yes it does.

See page 25, rule 13:

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

Rule 13 - Puck 13.1

Dimensions - The puck shall be made of vulcanized rubber, or other approved material, one inch (1'') thick and three inches (3'') in diameter and shall weigh between five and one-half ounces (51/2'' oz.) and six ounces (6 oz.). All pucks used in competition must be approved by the League.

I was just about to post this - beat me to it!

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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.

The reviewers should have considered it when they were assessing the play, since the rules require them to do so. Impossible to know whether or not they did, but the length of time it took to make the decision suggests they did.

It shouldn't have taken 5 mins to see that purely in terms of where Coyle's skates were relative to the puck, he was just offside. So either they're just incompetently slow, they erroneously didn't consider possession, or they did and determined that Coyle didn't have control of the puck. Not sure which it is, but you would at least hope it's option 3.

 

[member 96824]

Ummmmm, yes it does.

See page 25, rule 13:

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

Rule 13 - Puck 13.1

Dimensions - The puck shall be made of vulcanized rubber, or other approved material, one inch (1'') thick and three inches (3'') in diameter and shall weigh between five and one-half ounces (51/2'' oz.) and six ounces (6 oz.). All pucks used in competition must be approved by the League.

LOL, I’m busted for not looking that up.

 

[Aeroforce]

It's ludicrous because goals are being disallowed due to infractions that are imperceptible to the human eye, hence the linesman missing the calls despite seeing them close up.

Not only are we talking about razor-thin amounts of space on the ice, we're dealing with milliseconds in real time. It's beyond absurd.

If replay can't be abolished, limit it to a 10 second review in real time. That would fix egregious errors like the aforementioned Matt Duchene incident. But if it's not obvious, the call on the ice stands. Cassidy nailed it - they are looking to overturn goals.

The current state upsets both the speed and flow of the game.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

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.

This is flat out not true. Since the review has been adopted
they have been calling offside on not straddling the blueline which is clearly not Duchesne like.

What if Tyreek Hill scored an OT TD in the AFC title game catching the ball on the sideline and his cleat touched the sideline by the amount Coyle was offside. Should they let the TD stand? Of course not.

 

[Fenway]

A major NHL official told me this morning in Sweden that Bettman plans to order the situation room decide within 60 seconds if a play is offside, saying if it takes more than that it is close enough to being onside.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

A major NHL official told me this morning in Sweden that Bettman plans to order the situation room decide within 60 seconds if a play is offside, saying if it takes more than that it is close enough to being onside.

Hopefully that turns out to the case. And then go one step further and give the coaches only 30 secs max to decide whether or not to challenge the goal. None of this letting them pore over the replay on a screen - oblige them to make a gut call based on what they saw with their own eyes. Then, with the threat of a PP against, they won't challenge unless they're near-certain the play was illegal or they're just desperate.

 

[KrejciMVP]

This is flat out not true. Since the review has been adopted
they have been calling offside on not straddling the blueline which is clearly not Duchesne like.

What if Tyreek Hill scored an OT TD in the AFC title game catching the ball on the sideline and his cleat touched the sideline by the amount Coyle was offside. Should they let the TD stand? Of course not.

I agree, I also think if the situation was reversed and the goal was taken away from the other team you'd hear arguments saying the goal was offsides.

the offsides calls stunk but time to move on to the next offsides call that will go against the bruins. Nothing is changing.

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

A major NHL official told me this morning in Sweden that Bettman plans to order the situation room decide within 60 seconds if a play is offside, saying if it takes more than that it is close enough to being onside.

MY thoughts also... if you need 100 eyes and 10 minutes to conclude, it means it is probably inconclusive ! That means call on the ice stands.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

A major NHL official told me this morning in Sweden that Bettman plans to order the situation room decide within 60 seconds if a play is offside, saying if it takes more than that it is close enough to being onside.

should be one view and done tops 15 seconds. should be enough to decide

 

[Therick67]

This is flat out not true. Since the review has been adopted
they have been calling offside on not straddling the blueline which is clearly not Duchesne like.

What if Tyreek Hill scored an OT TD in the AFC title game catching the ball on the sideline and his cleat touched the sideline by the amount Coyle was offside. Should they let the TD stand? Of course not.

That's how it's being used NOW, but that's not what the intent was.

Are you telling me they found a goal like Coyle's and decided they needed to put this rule in place? The answer is no.

 

[TCB]

 

[Spooner st]

Totally agree, and said as much. If we look closely we can see Coyle adapting to the lack of speed from the puck, and redirecting it. It was a great play by Coyle.

 

[JAD]

I work nights and check my phone during work for the score of the game. Twice this year already I had to do double takes with puzzlement at the final score. First time against the Avalanche: I check my phone Boston up 3 - 1. I check later final score Colorado 4 - Boston 2. I'm like- What? What the heck? I could have sworn Boston was up 3 - 1???

Then against Montreal I first look Montreal 3 - 1. I look later Boston 5 - Montreal 4. I'm thinking, good they've come back to take control. I check again later first glance 5 - 4 final. I'm thinking good 5 - 4 final. Then it hits me, what? No! What? What the hell!

Twice this year Boston has lost in regulation due to game changing goals being called back.

Offsides is a judgement call by the referees - now subject to questioning and video review if a goal is scored. With that precedence in place, should not all judgment calls by the referees that are missed that lead to a goal be subject to video review? An example: a penalty that's missed such as they slew foot that leads to a goal? ( yeah, I'm thinking game 5 finals. And yeah, I'm still pissed.)
I love my Bruins and I love hockey. But the really really bad and inconsistent officiating has taken the joy away from me. Now, I just watch expecting the refs to screw the game up some how. No joy or satisfaction until the final horn. And I've been watching for 50 years. It's so bad it's sad.

I feel Cassidy's pain and frustration.

Offsides is somewhat like calling balls and strikes.

The only thing that should be subject to review is if the puck was in the net. Otherwise, let the referee's judgment and discretion stand, for better or for worse: and let them live with their mistakes and be judged accordingly - by the fans, the press, the players, and ultimately by their bosses.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

NHL hockey has always had inconsistent officiating. Its no worse now than it ever was. Better than in most eras. Its an extremely hard game to call. Continual "could go either way" calls. Just consider the officials have to call the game while skating and have no escape route from the playing area.

That said, offsides is clear. Its why linesmen make the calls, not referees. Player before puck, offsides. The officials missed it, replay corrected it.

 

[jgatie]

NHL hockey has always had inconsistent officiating. Its no worse now than it ever was. Better than in most eras. Its an extremely hard game to call. Continual "could go either way" calls. Just consider the officials have to call the game while skating and have no escape route from the playing area.

That said, offsides is clear. Its why linesmen make the calls, not referees. Player before puck, offsides. The officials missed it, replay corrected it.

There are exceptions for "player before the puck" that center around an ambiguous at best (and non-existent at worst) definition of "possession and control". Therefore your seemingly "cut-and-dry" take is rightly called into question.

 

[Spooner st]

On post #161 @Fenway shared info on the possibility the league might try to fix the time issue. That's good news at least they're showing interest in resolving the problem. Let's hope by the time the playoffs rolls around things will be fined tuned.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

There are exceptions for "player before the puck" that center around an ambiguous at best (and non-existent at worst) definition of "possession and control". Therefore your seemingly "cut-and-dry" take is rightly called into question.

Correct regarding exception.

"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."

 

[jgatie]

Correct regarding exception.

"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."

Now look for a definition of "possession and control" and you will see why this discussion exists, and why it is not simply "Player before puck, offsides".

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Now look for a definition of "possession and control" and you will see why this discussion exists, and why it is not simply "Player before puck, offsides".

Only a diehard Bruins fan would consider Coyle to be in possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line in this situation.