From the very beginning I was a huge supporter of the coaches challenge. After seeing it in action for a couple of years now, i'm pretty undecided about it. The main thing that annoys me - and from what ive seen, a lot of other people - is that a play that is like half an inch offsides can take back a goal.
The main argument against coaches challenges in that situation is that taking those plays back is not in the 'spirit of the rule'. I most certainly agree with this, the offsides rule was created to stop players from cherry picking. It was not intended to remove goals because someone was a quarter of an inch ahead of the puck as they crossed the blue line - that is not in the 'spirit of the rule'. If a referee couldn't determine that a player was offsides without looking at a replay in slow motion from multiple angles, the play should not be considered off sides.
What I dislike even more is that a team could enter the zone just barely offsides and unnoticed, cycle the puck around for 10 minutes before scoring. But wait, a coach can challenge that when they entered the offensive zone 10 minutes ago it was offsides so all that was for nothing. Such a scenario would be complete bullcrap, any advantage the players had by entering ever so slightly offsides is long gone. The team that got scored on should have had plenty of opportunities to take the puck away and get it out of their zone, or for their goalie to stop play. Obviously this 10 minute example is unrealistic, but it gets the point across quite effectively IMO.
-------------------
This got me thinking of a few options here to try to keep all of this in the spirit of the rule, neither are perfect and I would like to hear HFBoards thoughts and ideas as well.
Idea 1) If a team scores more than 10 seconds (this is not final) after entering the offensive zone offsides, the goal should stand regardless of any further review on the zone entry. By that point any advantage afforded by the initial entry or rush is probably irrelevant to the play. If the linesman did not see that the play was offsides the advantage was probably negligible to begin with. This change attempts to target scoring off of a rush that was offsides - a situation where being offsides may have actually mattered and given the scoring team an unfair advantage.
The obvious downside to this is when a team scores like 9.99 seconds after entering the zone. By definition of the rule, the goal should be called back. Yeah it sucks and wouldn't be in the spirit of the rule, but the line must be drawn somewhere. You may get a few occurrences of this happening, but it should be significantly less common than a goal being called back because they were half an inch offsides and scored well after they entered the zone.
Idea 2) My second suggestion is not based on time, but based on scoring chances. If a team enters the zone offsides and it goes unnoticed, and then scores on their first shot or scoring chance, the goal will be susceptible to getting waived after further review of the zone entry. Again, this is targeting teams scoring off of an offsides rush - a situation where being offsides offers the most unfair advantage. If a team scores on subsequent chances the goal shall not waved off on the basis of the zone entry being offsides.
The downside to this rule is that a team could enter slightly offsides and not get a scoring chance on the rush, cycle it around a while - to the point where the fact that it was offsides is increasingly irrelevant - and then score. This would be susceptible to being waved off, despite the rule's attempt at targeting rushes. Another downside is that a 'scoring chance' can be subjective, while a timer is not. Subjectivity always leads to controversy.
Idea 3) Just don't allow goals to be challenged on the basis of the zone entry being offsides lol. Simple. But then we're back to square one, and there was obviously support for a coaches challenge in regards to this, so going back to how it was may not be any better.
----------------------
From what I can tell, there is one potential flaw with my overall approach here. I came up with these ideas under the assumption that being offsides offers the largest advantage on a rush. Because of this assumption, both of my rules attempt to target rushes but in different ways. If my assumption is wrong then my ideas are pretty useless.
What do you guys think? How would you change the coaches challenge in relation to the offsides rule, if at all?
The main argument against coaches challenges in that situation is that taking those plays back is not in the 'spirit of the rule'. I most certainly agree with this, the offsides rule was created to stop players from cherry picking. It was not intended to remove goals because someone was a quarter of an inch ahead of the puck as they crossed the blue line - that is not in the 'spirit of the rule'. If a referee couldn't determine that a player was offsides without looking at a replay in slow motion from multiple angles, the play should not be considered off sides.
What I dislike even more is that a team could enter the zone just barely offsides and unnoticed, cycle the puck around for 10 minutes before scoring. But wait, a coach can challenge that when they entered the offensive zone 10 minutes ago it was offsides so all that was for nothing. Such a scenario would be complete bullcrap, any advantage the players had by entering ever so slightly offsides is long gone. The team that got scored on should have had plenty of opportunities to take the puck away and get it out of their zone, or for their goalie to stop play. Obviously this 10 minute example is unrealistic, but it gets the point across quite effectively IMO.
-------------------
This got me thinking of a few options here to try to keep all of this in the spirit of the rule, neither are perfect and I would like to hear HFBoards thoughts and ideas as well.
Idea 1) If a team scores more than 10 seconds (this is not final) after entering the offensive zone offsides, the goal should stand regardless of any further review on the zone entry. By that point any advantage afforded by the initial entry or rush is probably irrelevant to the play. If the linesman did not see that the play was offsides the advantage was probably negligible to begin with. This change attempts to target scoring off of a rush that was offsides - a situation where being offsides may have actually mattered and given the scoring team an unfair advantage.
The obvious downside to this is when a team scores like 9.99 seconds after entering the zone. By definition of the rule, the goal should be called back. Yeah it sucks and wouldn't be in the spirit of the rule, but the line must be drawn somewhere. You may get a few occurrences of this happening, but it should be significantly less common than a goal being called back because they were half an inch offsides and scored well after they entered the zone.
Idea 2) My second suggestion is not based on time, but based on scoring chances. If a team enters the zone offsides and it goes unnoticed, and then scores on their first shot or scoring chance, the goal will be susceptible to getting waived after further review of the zone entry. Again, this is targeting teams scoring off of an offsides rush - a situation where being offsides offers the most unfair advantage. If a team scores on subsequent chances the goal shall not waved off on the basis of the zone entry being offsides.
The downside to this rule is that a team could enter slightly offsides and not get a scoring chance on the rush, cycle it around a while - to the point where the fact that it was offsides is increasingly irrelevant - and then score. This would be susceptible to being waved off, despite the rule's attempt at targeting rushes. Another downside is that a 'scoring chance' can be subjective, while a timer is not. Subjectivity always leads to controversy.
Idea 3) Just don't allow goals to be challenged on the basis of the zone entry being offsides lol. Simple. But then we're back to square one, and there was obviously support for a coaches challenge in regards to this, so going back to how it was may not be any better.
----------------------
From what I can tell, there is one potential flaw with my overall approach here. I came up with these ideas under the assumption that being offsides offers the largest advantage on a rush. Because of this assumption, both of my rules attempt to target rushes but in different ways. If my assumption is wrong then my ideas are pretty useless.
What do you guys think? How would you change the coaches challenge in relation to the offsides rule, if at all?
