Post-Game Talk: Game 54 - 2 U's 2 K's = 2 POINTS - BRUINS 4 Vancouver 0 - F

[22Brad Park]

Seems like the same position for McAvoy as the one you posted but Kuraly is onside.

TBH, I thought it was offsides as well.

The explanation from the league that Jack shared during the broadcast, and Im paraphrasing, was "McAvoy hadnt made a play on the puck in the offensive zone." Theres certainly some grey area with this rule/ruling however.

The puck is further ahead in this picture.

 

[22Brad Park]

But he hadn't touched it yet. Think of it as if he just sent it into the corner a moment before Kuraly tags up. He could chase it in and it's on-side. There's really no difference. He doesn't actually play/touch the puck before Kuraly tags up.

I do not not get this he had not touched it yet.(you clearly mean once it crossed line)It is over the blue line cause he put it there in my opinion.Anyways i will concede this to the play was ok crowd cause we all root for same team .Strange play.

 

[Puck Watcher]

Where did he tag up? He turned short of the blueline.His skate never touched blue paint.McAvoy clearing brought it in while he was already in there .Once that puck came out he had to clear zone before it was brought back in again.This picture clearly shows he never made it

Here's the next frame

 

[Dr Hook]

While I was happy the goal stood, the Canucks were right to feel aggrieved. How you call what McAvoy did there a dump in is a bit baffling. I guess by the letter of the law it is, but did he really not have possession? I thought it was a stretch.

 

[b in vancouver]

Seems like the same position for McAvoy as the one you posted but Kuraly is onside.

TBH, I thought it was offsides as well.

The explanation from the league that Jack shared during the broadcast, and Im paraphrasing, was "McAvoy hadnt made a play on the puck in the offensive zone." Theres certainly some grey area with this rule/ruling however.

I don't think there's much grey area in this one actually. It's so quick that we'll see linesmen call it offside in real time but last night the linesman made the right call.

 

[22Brad Park]

Here's the next frame

I dunno.Weird play.Myself I thought he clearly had possession cause he stickhandled on blueline then it crossed line.Regardless it helped Bruins so happy you guys are right

 

[b in vancouver]

I do not not get this he had not touched it yet.(you clearly mean once it crossed line)It is over the blue line cause he put it there in my opinion.Anyways i will concede this to the play was ok crowd cause we all root for same team .Strange play.

It's definitely a strange play. 100%. And I understand why a lot of people think it's offside because it just 'feels' like it should be as we don't see it happen that often like that.
I've had similar things happen in games when I've had to dance the blueline waiting, or coming down the side trying to stop before entering as a forward is still leaving the zone, but the puck's gotten ahead of me and had to wait a split second before touching it - those times when you have a bit of space like McAvoy had.
Once I saw the replay I was actually surprised Vancouver bothered challenging it.

 

[b in vancouver]

Away from the on-side/offside call... and from how Vancouverites thought of the game...

Lauzon. I'm super impressed with this kid. I really like him on his off point and quick release. I've talked a lot before about the challenges and benefits of being a left shot on right d as I've switched sides throughout my life and will probably ramble on in his thread about it later... but the idea of having McAvoy, Carlo and Lauzon down the right side should have every Bruin fan excited.

 

[Krupp]

Seidenberg
McQuaid
Miller

These guys were true power defenders, man. I f***ing miss all three of them. Seids's battles with Ovechkin during that 2011/12 playoff series was incredible. I would love it if these next three:

MacAvoy
Lauzon
Carlo

Are the new Big Guys that making this defense formidable for years to come. I'm gonna be even more excited when Studnicka and Frederic make it to the NHL on a permanent basis some day too!

 

[False Start]

Away from the on-side/offside call... and from how Vancouverites thought of the game...

Lauzon. I'm super impressed with this kid. I really like him on his off point and quick release. I've talked a lot before about the challenges and benefits of being a left shot on right d as I've switched sides throughout my life and will probably ramble on in his thread about it later... but the idea of having McAvoy, Carlo and Lauzon down the right side should have every Bruin fan excited.

Agreed.

Until Expansion and they pick him or Grz .

 

[22Brad Park]

Agreed.

Until Expansion and they pick him or Grz .

I would not reup Chara before I let that happen.

 

[b in vancouver]

Agreed.

Until Expansion and they pick him or Grz .

I just went and posted on his player discussion thread. That'd be terrible. The Bruins are so deep on d that you're definitely going to be losing someone but... ugh! They're going to have to figure out something.

 

[False Start]

I would not reup Chara before I let that happen.

I might be missing your point but won't we protect Carlo, McAvoy and 1 of Grz/Krug/Lauzon?

 

[BruinsBtn]

The whining from Vancouver is never-ending. My gawd. They whine about the refs in this game? The call on Bjork was a joke. Marchand got tripped blatantly and it wasn't called twice. Once on the spin move and once by Markstrom. Heck, they could have called four penalties on Vancouver in the first 5 minutes. Mercy.

 

[Dr Hook]

I might be missing your point but won't we protect Carlo, McAvoy and 1 of Grz/Krug/Lauzon?

Yeah I think Chara is irrelevant to this discussion. Either he retires by then, or if not, Seattle isn't taking a 43 year old Chara with one of their picks. The Bruins may well need to do a deal with Seattle, but that also assumes that they will be taking a defenseman from us. That seems to be the consensus, but who knows what Seattle will be choosing from league-wide and whether they will actually want a Bruins d-man.

 

[False Start]

Yeah I think Chara is irrelevant to this discussion. Either he retires by then, or if not, Seattle isn't taking a 43 year old Chara with one of their picks. The Bruins may well need to do a deal with Seattle, but that also assumes that they will be taking a defenseman from us. That seems to be the consensus, but who knows what Seattle will be choosing from league-wide and whether they will actually want a Bruins d-man.

Yup agreed. Theoretically, Bjork, Senyshyn, Heinen could all be available as well. All up to Seattle.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

McAvoy already brought it in though.He clearly had possession of it.To much tinkering with rules nowadays

To extend your logic, any time a player dumps a puck in with a teammate in the zone, it would be offside. The whole idea of a delayed offside is that the puck must be actually played inside the zone with a player in the zone for it to be offside.

Edit: I see this has already been brought up.

 

[jgatie]

McAvoy was crazy good again last night

I meant Coyle got robbed for not being in the top 3. McAvoy definitely deserved it, and Markstrom was good. I just can't give a star to a guy that let in 4 goals on less than 25 shots, regardless of how he played. Especially when Coyle was that good.

 

[jgatie]

I do not not get this he had not touched it yet.(you clearly mean once it crossed line)It is over the blue line cause he put it there in my opinion.Anyways i will concede this to the play was ok crowd cause we all root for same team .Strange play.

What do you not get? It is very simple. It is not an offside until an offensive player actually touches the puck in the offensive zone, before any players proceeding have tagged up. So:

1. Kuraly is in the zone, puck is outside the zone.
2. McAvoy pushes puck into the zone, and then does not touch it while inside the zone.
3. Kuraly skates back and touches the blue line with his skate (aka "tags up").
4. McAvoy then plays the puck in the offensive zone.

Therefore, an offside has not occurred.

 

[Olden McGroin]

Sure the hit was somewhat late, but star players get extra attention all game long. Petey's lucky it was Grizz and not Zee.

As for J.T. Miller, these comments aren't even worthy of being bulletin board material.

The Canucks are who we thought they were.

 

[Five Hole]

While I was happy the goal stood, the Canucks were right to feel aggrieved. How you call what McAvoy did there a dump in is a bit baffling. I guess by the letter of the law it is, but did he really not have possession? I thought it was a stretch.

It doesn't have to be a "dump in". At any point during a delayed offside situation you are 100% allowed to send the puck any where in the zone you want with 2 exceptions, both result in a whistle,

1. You can't hit any of your own players, even by accident.
2. You can't shoot on goal.

He very deliberately taps the puck 2 feet in front of himself and into the zone. He is not cradling it or sliding it and his stick in never in contact once in the zone. Then he very clearly waits to make contact with it again until Kuraly has tagged up.

Not too common to see it play out this way, but not even close to a gray area. Also, it has been this way for YEARS, this is not a new rule or a new interpretation.

For me I think the confusion comes with possession. He has possession and by tapping the puck ahead of himself he gives up that possession but placed the puck where only he could retrieve it. I'm so glad our stud young D man knows his sport so well, that is high hockey IQ on display right there.

 

[Dr Hook]

It doesn't have to be a "dump in". At any point during a delayed offside situation you are 100% allowed to send the puck any where in the zone you want with 2 exceptions, both result in a whistle,

1. You can't hit any of your own players, even by accident.
2. You can't shoot on goal.

He very deliberately taps the puck 2 feet in front of himself and into the zone. He is not cradling it or sliding it and his stick in never in contact once in the zone. Then he very clearly waits to make contact with it again until Kuraly has tagged up.

Not too common to see it play out this way, but not even close to a gray area. Also, it has been this way for YEARS, this is not a new rule or a new interpretation.

For me I think the confusion comes with possession. He has possession and by tapping the puck ahead of himself he gives up that possession but placed the puck where only he could retrieve it. I'm so glad our stud young D man knows his sport so well, that is high hockey IQ on display right there.

Yeah I get the rule- it is pretty much always seen with dump ins or shoot ins. This is where I have a problem with it. Not the rule, but the decision that he gave up possession. It sure doesn't look like he does to me, not when I watched it happen, nor in the replays. The league does not help itself one bit when we have seen other plays where they rule a player has possession when he clearly doesn't (like on a delayed penalty as an obvious one). Anyway, it is what it is and it is a correct call, but I also understand why the Canucks were aggrieved by it, and I can understand why Green thought it was worth a challenge, because it all turns on how possession is defined. To me this is one more example of the league not being particularly consistent in its definition and application of rules (see hits to head for another obvious example).

 

[The National]

Well Coyle is across the blue line before the puck, McAvoy was not across the blue line, pretty simple, no?

Got me there.

 

[Slurpeelover27]

The whining from Vancouver is never-ending. My gawd. They whine about the refs in this game? The call on Bjork was a joke. Marchand got tripped blatantly and it wasn't called twice. Once on the spin move and once by Markstrom. Heck, they could have called four penalties on Vancouver in the first 5 minutes. Mercy.

Lol that’s nothing. I live in Vancouver and pretty much the whole city despises the Bruins for beating them in 2011, especially Marchand. Anytime Brad goofs on something (suspension, lost finals last year, missed overtime shootout) they will bask in his failings. Pretty sad actually and embarrassing.

There are even many who believe the NHL conspires against them and point to ‘obvious biased officiating’ such as in 2011 finals against your Bruins and anything else they can use as an excuse as to why they have never won a Stanley Cup.

There is no need to actually put them down. Just ignore them and root against them as that will upset them even more.

The fan base roots against all other Canadian teams even when they have no chance to win as misery definitely loves company around here.

 

[BruinsFanMike82]