GDT: G69: Bruins @ Wild 1pm CT, 7pm Sweden, 8pm Lapa (BSN)

[TaLoN]

It’s been pretty well explained by @MNNumbers

I explained how I read it. Not sure what you think I'm missing

 

[MNNumbers]

So, here are the 2 rules:

Offside.....implemented to keep offensive players from hanging out in their offensive zone when the puck is at the other end of the ice.
Review is implemented when an attacking player, on a rush, is microscopically in the offensive zone too early, and a goal happens even 60 seconds later.

Icing....implemented to prevent defending players from relieving the pressure in their zone by hacking the puck into their offensive zone.
However, please follow here.
If a defender shoots the puck into his offensive zone when he wants a line change (shooting the puck is a buying time move), and the defensemen change, but his linemates do not, and they chase the puck into their offensive zone, and then there are 30 seconds of board battles and so on, and finally this teams scores a goal.....THAT GOAL COUNTS.

But what if the initial dump in, which the linesman let go because it was 'close' to the red line, and it didn't look like a soon goal scoring opportunity, was actually from just millimeters on his own side of the red line? That should have been icing. The other team clearly got to the puck first. They were unable to clear from their zone, and a goal happened.

But the icing play is not reviewable, when the offside play is reviewable. Both rules depend strictly on a 'line' on the ice. Yet they are not treated the same with respect to reviews.

 

[TaLoN]

Offside.....implemented to keep offensive players from hanging out in their offensive zone when the puck is at the other end of the ice.

No, implemented to prevent offensive players from preceding the puck into the zone.

 

[Spurgeon]

I explained how I read it. Not sure what you think I'm missing

If a player does not reach the center line prior to dumping the puck in, that play is icing.

If the linesman waves off icing because he believes that the player reached the center line, when he actually did not, then the play should have been blown dead for icing.

If the offending team scores off that missed call, then under your preference, that play should be reviewable.

———————————

Anyways good 4-4 tie against the leagues best, think this team could do something when fully healthy.

 

[TaLoN]

Review is implemented when an attacking player, on a rush, is microscopically in the offensive zone too early, and a goal happens even 60 seconds later.

Review is implemented to verify the offensive player did not precede the puck into the zone

 

[TaLoN]

But what if the initial dump in, which the linesman let go because it was 'close' to the red line, and it didn't look like a soon goal scoring opportunity, was actually from just millimeters on his own side of the red line? That should have been icing. The other team clearly got to the puck first. They were unable to clear from their zone, and a goal happened.

Inconsequential is my entire point. The review cannot defeat the rule purpose. If it was waived off, icing is not at all in play. If a review happens, the players rest anyway. It was subjectively waived off, so not as clear cut as offside anyway. It's not like offside is something that is waived off like icing can be.

 

[TaLoN]

If a player does not reach the center line prior to dumping the puck in, that play is icing.

No, it's not, it creates a potential icing scenario, but if the puck never reaches the goal line, it cannot be icing at all.

 

[Spurgeon]

No, it's not, it creates a potential icing scenario, but if the puck never reaches the goal line, it cannot be icing at all.

Can you stop trolling?

 

[MNNumbers]

Inconsequential is my entire point. The review cannot defeat the rule purpose. If it was waived off, icing is not at all in play. If a review happens, the players rest anyway. It was subjectively waived off, so not as clear cut as offside anyway. It's not like offside is something that is waived off like icing can be.

I agree that a linesman has the right to waive off an icing. But he does not have the right to waive off an icing because the player was "close enough to the red line to make it good enough." If all other parts of the play were such that the play should be icing, it's icing. Even if the linesman doesn't call it.

In this way, in these circumstances, it is EXACTLY parallel to an offside call.

 

[TaLoN]

If the linesman waves off icing because he believes that the player reached the center line, when he actually did not, then the play should have been blown dead for icing.

If the offending team scores off that missed call, then under your preference, that play should be reviewable.

Not true either, icing isn't automatic. The NHL uses hybrid rules that has the linesman judge who wins the race down the ice... they typically use the hash marks as the point to judge, if the offending team gets the clear lead, by rule the icing is waived off as it was beaten out.

 

[MNNumbers]

Talon, let me ask you honestly....

Have you ever seen a play where you thought, "that's icing", because you saw the puck leave the defenseman's stick slightly before he reached the red line, but the linesman didn't call it, and there was no real race to the puck because the other team clearly was getting there first?

 

[Spurgeon]

Not true either, icing isn't automatic. The NHL uses hybrid rules that has the linesman judge who wins the race down the ice... they typically use the hash marks as the point to judge, if the offending team gets the clear lead, by rule the icing is waived off as it was beaten out.

I’m not talking about hybrid icing dude. I’m talking about a very clear scenario, where an offending team dumps the puck in PAST the opposing teams red line PRIOR to reaching center ice. The opposing team is in a position where they are the first to the puck. The play was waved off for icing immediately due to his assessment that the player reached the center line.

Enough with you deflecting the actual basis of the entire argument. You’re clearly just intentionally being dense.

 

[TaLoN]

I agree that a linesman has the right to waive off an icing. But he does not have the right to waive off an icing because the player was "close enough to the red line to make it good enough." If all other parts of the play were such that the play should be icing, it's icing. Even if the linesman doesn't call it.

In this way, in these circumstances, it is EXACTLY parallel to an offside call.

Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.

The rule wasn't put in place to prevent what happened in this scenario. In the offside scenario, the rule was put in place specifically to prevent what happened.

Linesman are overall and tend to make mostly correct calls on offside situations that are microscopically close. Just because we saw a goal scored on the ice doesn't mean we should ignore that by the intent of the rule, it shouldn't have been scored.

 

[Spurgeon]

Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.

The rule wasn't put in place to prevent what happened in this scenario. In the offside scenario, the rule was put in place specifically to prevent what happened.

Linesman are overall and tend to make mostly correct calls on offside situations that are microscopically close. Just because we saw a goal scored on the ice doesn't mean we should ignore that by the intent of the rule, it shouldn't have been scored.

But we can ignore a team gaining an advantage from a dump-in that should have been whistled dead for icing?

 

[MNNumbers]

Again, you are still fundamentally defeating the entire purpose of the rule with the review, thus why it is not the same thing at all.

It can't be true that the "entire" purpose of the icing rule is to force teams to defend with tired players. The rule was in place for years and years before the "no player change" phrase was added.

The purpose for the rule was originally to force teams to try to play the puck out of their, instead of just hacking it all the way down the ice. The 'no change' clause was added in the Dead Puck Era to try to create more goals in the game.

In the same way, the initial purpose of 'offside' way back was to prevent offensive players from hanging out in their offensive end when the puck was in the other end of the ice. I am absolutely positive that no one said, on principle, "hey, we need a rule that says you can't enter the offensive zone before the puck, because we don't want players in there a millisecond before the puck."

 

[TaLoN]

Talon, let me ask you honestly....

Have you ever seen a play where you thought, "that's icing", because you saw the puck leave the defenseman's stick slightly before he reached the red line, but the linesman didn't call it, and there was no real race to the puck because the other team clearly was getting there first?

Of course, but that doesn't mean it needs review.

I can't understand why you think this should be reviewed like offside. The purpose of the rule is nothing the same. It was never put in to prevent offensive zone play, thus if the team icing the puck manages to pull it off without getting an icing call, props to them.

It's meant to prevent using it as a defensive tactic, which the rule has been very successful in achieving.

 

[TaLoN]

It can't be true that the "entire" purpose of the icing rule is to force teams to defend with tired players. The rule was in place for years and years before the "no player change" phrase was added.

The entire purpose was to prevent the use as a defensive tactic I said. The other punishments added to it came later because they didn't feel the rule was effective enough in the state it existed. Thus to prevent it further, they implemented no line changes for the offending team, and foregoing commercial breaks.

 

[TaLoN]

It can't be true that the "entire" purpose of the icing rule is to force teams to defend with tired players. The rule was in place for years and years before the "no player change" phrase was added.

The purpose for the rule was originally to force teams to try to play the puck out of their, instead of just hacking it all the way down the ice. The 'no change' clause was added in the Dead Puck Era to try to create more goals in the game.

In the same way, the initial purpose of 'offside' way back was to prevent offensive players from hanging out in their offensive end when the puck was in the other end of the ice. I am absolutely positive that no one said, on principle, "hey, we need a rule that says you can't enter the offensive zone before the puck, because we don't want players in there a millisecond before the puck."

No, they said you can't precede the puck. You're the only one saying millisecond, for hyperbole purposes. That said, it's a clear binary rule that review only supports.

 

[MNNumbers]

I'm quitting

 

[Spurgeon]

I'm quitting

Yeah; the mental gymnastics involved is too much.

 

[Wasted Talent]

The entire purpose was to prevent the use as a defensive tactic I said. The other punishments added to it came later because they didn't feel the rule was effective enough in the state it existed. Thus to prevent it further, they implemented no line changes for the offending team, and foregoing commercial breaks.

If we're talking about the original intent of the rule, offside was introduced to prevent players from waiting for the puck in the offensive zone after forward passing was introduced.

I doubt they were thinking about offside scenarios where you need five different slow-motion replay angles to determine if the puck entered the zone a millisecond late.

 

[Wabit]

But we can ignore a team gaining an advantage from a dump-in that should have been whistled dead for icing?

All I've gotten from every thing you've said is you want more reviews on the ice. Seems like a strange hill to die on after a game where MN got burned by reviews.

 

[TaLoN]

If we're talking about the original intent of the rule, offsides was introduced to prevent players from waiting for the puck in the offensive zone after forward passing was introduced.

I doubt they were thinking about offside scenarios where you need five different slow-motion replay angles to determine if the puck entered the zone a millisecond late.

Of course review wasn't imagined 100 years ago... that is again just hyperbole.

The rule was setup just like the offside rule in soccer... the forward can't precede the puck just like in soccer, the forwards cannot precede the ball.

When you make such a rule, then call it live as close as possible, it's not surprising now that technology allows, you review to correct missed offside when a goal results.

It's natural evolution. Ok, you don't like it... you've made it clear, but I have no problem with it at all, no matter how much anyone complains about it.

 

[Spurgeon]

All I've gotten from every thing you've said is you want more reviews on the ice. Seems like a strange hill to die on after a game where MN got burned by reviews.

I don’t want any of them to be reviewable. I’m trying to point out inconsistencies in what the NHL does and does not allow to be reviewed.

 

[Minnewildsota]

Yeah; the mental gymnastics involved is too much.

IMHO, there's no mental gymnastics going on.

@TaLoN is merely stating that if you review icing, that goes against what icing was designed for. The team that ices the puck is "punished" for doing so. If you review the icing, it merely removes the punishment, thus making the icing call moot anyway.