Offside rule questions. Hall goal disallowed

[Replacement*]

In a recent game against Florida Draisaitl makes a spectacular pass to Hall from the blueline resulting in a goal, which then gets overturned.


http://oilers.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/recap?id=2015020629

The ruling didn't make sense to me then because the play wasn't offside. No proper explanation was given either. As much as was explained is that if the puck is on the line its considered out. That was in contrast to my understanding that a puck on the line is considered onside.

I was prepared to forget about that bogus call but then watched the hilites of todays games and particularly the OT winner in Tampa wherein the identical situation happens except in this case the puck is on the line, is considered ONSIDE and the OT goal is allowed.

http://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/recap?id=2015020657

This is like crazy right?

What is the actual rule interpretation here and why the variance? Didn't know where to put this and its kind of driving me batty.

Click to read more...

 

[KickHimPedro]

Puck has to cross over the line. Hall's goal the puck sat on the line, but didn't clear it to become an onside play. On the Tampa goal, the puck didn't clear the line back to clear the zone.

 

[Mr Positive]

If it is in the neutral zone first, the puck has to cross every bit of blue in order to be considered inside the zone. If the puck starts in the offensive zone, it has to cross every bit of blue in order to be considered outside the zone.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

 

[Replacement*]

I figured it was something stupid like that, thanks.

I'm kind of not impressed with the rule as stands tbh.

if the NHL wants more goals maybe the blueline shouldn't be as thick as this or maybe the rule could change to make it simpler as in any puck on the blueline is good enough, considered in, regardless of direction of play.

Common sense to me would be a puck has to be outside the blueline for the Draisaitl play to be offside.

As hockey wants to translate to more audiences it would make sense not to have such odd interpretations as this.

There was some question as to whether Drai himself fully understood the rule interpretation. I've been watching hockey for 50 yrs and had an incomplete understanding of the rule. No reason for there to be duality in the rule.

Why not simplify?

To me, even with the explanation, its an anal rule to have one of those plays be considered a goal, and the other not. Both should be goals.

 

[TheRebuild]

I know it's off-topic, but those coaches challenges are totally ruining the game. A lot of coaches play it strategically and will use it to get a longer timeout, or throw it out there on an inconclusive play with the hope that maybe it swings in their favor (no repercussions for trying, might as well right?), and the next thing you know you've got the linesmen standing around looking at an ipad screen for 10 minutes trying to figure out if some dude has his skate elevated - ever-so slightly - from an overhead view... because you know, if he had his skate on the ice it's onside, but if his skate is off the ice, it's offside...

seriously, Who. The ****. Cares. When did being onside/offside become so important? I feel like Stanley Cups have probably been clinched on offside goals, and now it's this massive ordeal.

 

[Spawn]

I agree that the off-side rule needs some work. The NHL wants more offense, but think about how many times in a game a rush is blown dead because a player is an inch or two ahead of the puck over the blueline? That's not an example of some player cherry picking, it's just an example of a player being off by a fraction of a second in his timing. All blowing that play dead causes is ~5 or so fewer scoring chances in a game, every game.

I will disagree though about making the blue line thinner. Think about how many more plays would be blown dead on power plays when a player just barely doesn't keep it in anymore.

Honestly, I say do the opposite. Make the blue line significantly thicker into the neutral zone and just change the rule so that the puck just needs to hit the blue line (rather than cross it entirely) for a player to be able to enter the offensive zone and be considered onside. Instead of 12 inch blue lines. Make them 18 inches. Hell, make them two feet.

A) Fewer rushes blown dead because of an inch or two
B) Fewer plays where a team needs to exit the zone, killing sustained pressure because the puck squeezed out by an inch.

 

[djdub]

Why not just get rid of off side altogether?

In this day and age it is impossible to cherry pick anyways.

 

[Spawn]

Why not just get rid of off side altogether?

In this day and age it is impossible to cherry pick anyways.

That's not a bad suggestion either.

 

[rboomercat90]

I know it's off-topic, but those coaches challenges are totally ruining the game. A lot of coaches play it strategically and will use it to get a longer timeout, or throw it out there on an inconclusive play with the hope that maybe it swings in their favor (no repercussions for trying, might as well right?), and the next thing you know you've got the linesmen standing around looking at an ipad screen for 10 minutes trying to figure out if some dude has his skate elevated - ever-so slightly - from an overhead view... because you know, if he had his skate on the ice it's onside, but if his skate is off the ice, it's offside...

seriously, Who. The ****. Cares. When did being onside/offside become so important? I feel like Stanley Cups have probably been clinched on offside goals, and now it's this massive ordeal.

Put me in the camp that's come to hate video review of any kind because of what it's doing to the game. It turned baseball into a joke this year. It delayed CFL games forever and they still couldn't get calls right. In the NHL it's being used for extra long timeouts. It would be one thing if video reviewed calls were proven one way beyond a shadow of a doubt but that isn't happening either. The other thing it seems to have done is lower the quality of officiating as referees don't seem to be as concerned with getting their calls right as much as they used to.

 

[cbzblaze]

Making the blueline wider will come up sometime in the near future in the GM meetings.
Video review problems can be solved by giving the team a delay of game penalty for every failed review. That way they can't abuse it as a prolonged timeout.

 

[Aerchon]

There have been many goals, some big ones too, where the play is significantly offside. Eliminating those bad goals is a very good thing.

However, I don't think anyone realized how often this happens or how many variances to the rule there actually is. Or how difficult it is to accurately review these situations plus how long it takes.

I think offsides are important to the game but like Replacement has said the rules surrounding off side need to be simplified. I would one up that and say significantly modified even to improve the flow of the game and increase scoring, while making it easier to get these calls correct.

I am one of those that believes chip technology needs to be introduced to the pucks, skates, and lines. Heard it's either not possible or not feasible and just want to call BS. With technology today it's hard to believe it can't be done.

So with chip technology for accuracy I would also simplify by getting rid of the rule where the skate needs to be on the ice. Plus I would give the offense more time by making it so as soon as the puck breaches the blue line closest to center ice, offensive players can enter the zone. And for clearing the zone the puck needs to completely cross just as it is now. That way the sensors are in the exact same plane for both situations.

Puck sensors would also add more goals for those reach back saves that irk everyone but the goalie.

I also think net posts should be angled inward or nets made bigger. While goalie equipment needs to be reduced and obstruction calls need to be enforced.

Speed of the game would get pretty fast but a zero tolerance for predatory hits and head contact needs to be brought in.

 

[McGoMcD]

I think the offside call should be taken of the video challenge. Nothing to do with the Hall goal, I have said this for a while. Two reasons, 1. it doesn't' change how players defend. It just doesn't make that big of a difference. 2. this might seem odd, but technically the play could go on for 5 minutes. Once you enter the zone it will keep going. You could be offside after enter, then the play could go on for 5 minutes, you score a goal, then it is called back. No one would care about the offside or think it effected the play, but technically you would have to call the goal off.

Any way, I just don't see why offside should be on the challenge. It just isn't that much of a consequential play.

 

[Oil Gauge]

Making the blueline wider will come up sometime in the near future in the GM meetings.
Video review problems can be solved by giving the team a delay of game penalty for every failed review. That way they can't abuse it as a prolonged timeout.

Actually it already has come up and they have tried it out.

Makes both the offensive/defensive and neutral zones bigger.

I'm perplexed as to how someone with 50 years of NHL watching experience and 43 thousand posts didn't understand offside. it is a simple concept.

 

[Arpeggio]

Having no offside would just slow the game down even more. Teams would hold on to the puck forever because there's no reason to hold the blueline.

 

[Oil Gauge]

Having no offside would just slow the game down even more. Teams would hold on to the puck forever because there's no reason to hold the blueline.

True, Maybe the ball hockey offside rule where the red line is the blue line once you gain the zone

 

[alphahelix]

I hate this crap with getting out the measuring sticks. I'd make it so that its not offside unless the player is in the zone for a full second before the puck at least. Or maybe its only offside on zone re-entry after the puck is cleared past the redline, and the initial entry is unregulated.

I think it should be some sort of hybrid rule adjustment but I don't want to be the one to come up with it. I think players should have a little more leeway though, video review after the fact to see if things are off by a milimeter is against the spirit of the game and ruins the flow.

 

[Jumptheshark]

they must have changed the rule

it used to be that if you had a two CLEARLY on the blue line--it was not offisde

I rewatched the goal several time and the skate of one league was clearly touching blue

 

[Supermassive]

I figured it was something stupid like that, thanks.

I'm kind of not impressed with the rule as stands tbh.

if the NHL wants more goals maybe the blueline shouldn't be as thick as this or maybe the rule could change to make it simpler as in any puck on the blueline is good enough, considered in, regardless of direction of play.

Common sense to me would be a puck has to be outside the blueline for the Draisaitl play to be offside.

As hockey wants to translate to more audiences it would make sense not to have such odd interpretations as this.

There was some question as to whether Drai himself fully understood the rule interpretation. I've been watching hockey for 50 yrs and had an incomplete understanding of the rule. No reason for there to be duality in the rule.

Why not simplify?

To me, even with the explanation, its an anal rule to have one of those plays be considered a goal, and the other not. Both should be goals.

I was watching the Florida broadcast and they clearly stated the rule as soon as the play was signalled for review, which I found impressive. Usually small-market announcers are using football/baseball/basketball jargon and don't know the rules.

Count me in among the people who didn't know the minute details of the rule, but also count me in among the people who would rather video review just be used for whatever happens at the net. Leave the offsides for the linesmen to call, and stop making more game-disrupting rules when fewer will do. This a grown-ups' game, we don't need video review and a committee in Toronto to run every goddamn game.

 

[Fishy McScales]

The offside rule IS consistent. The puck needs to fully cross a line in all situations in order for its game-affecting state to have changed.

It's the same with goals or icing (though we almost never see it on icing calls).

However, I find it very interesting that someone who has watched this much hockey has misunderstood the rule all this time (this is absolutely not a knock on your hockey knowledge, Replacement) and that there is room for that misinterpretation.

Because if it's true that Draisaitl also misunderstood the rule, that could explain why players keep making these "bone-headed" dekes around the blue line for their team mates to go offside.

Draisaitl had all the time in the world to cross the line fully with the puck, yet for some seemingly inexplicable reason he didn't and Purcell went offside to cost the Oilers a goal. He may very well have thought he was safely in the zone just by reaching the blue line.

Very interesting.

 

[Replacement*]

Actually it already has come up and they have tried it out.

Makes both the offensive/defensive and neutral zones bigger.

I'm perplexed as to how someone with 50 years of NHL watching experience and 43 thousand posts didn't understand offside. it is a simple concept.

It isn't a simple concept because the offside rule is DIFFERENT depending on which way the direction of play is. Which is not required.

In retrospect the reason I would not know the most intricate of interpretations of the blueline offside rule is that until the time of "offside video review" which has only started this season the offsides have never been interpreted and reviewed and reversed so anally by officiating.

Indeed I could say that video review is revealing how stupid the offside rule at present is.

Any puck on the blueline should be considered onside. Regardless of direction of play. That is the most clear and logical application and no widening of the blueline is required to do that, just common sense.

Even Draisaitl, who knew where the puck was on the ice is apparently somewhat confused by the rule.

 

[Raab]

I figured it was something stupid like that, thanks.

I'm kind of not impressed with the rule as stands tbh.

if the NHL wants more goals maybe the blueline shouldn't be as thick as this or maybe the rule could change to make it simpler as in any puck on the blueline is good enough, considered in, regardless of direction of play.

Common sense to me would be a puck has to be outside the blueline for the Draisaitl play to be offside.

As hockey wants to translate to more audiences it would make sense not to have such odd interpretations as this.

There was some question as to whether Drai himself fully understood the rule interpretation. I've been watching hockey for 50 yrs and had an incomplete understanding of the rule. No reason for there to be duality in the rule.

Why not simplify?

To me, even with the explanation, its an anal rule to have one of those plays be considered a goal, and the other not. Both should be goals.

I like the rule because it works both ways. If your coming through the neutral zone you need to get the puck all the way into the attacking end. Once your in though the puck has to come all the way out over the line to clear the zone. As a defensemen I like the rule as it gives you a bit more to work with and hopefully throw an attacking rush off side or help to hold the attacking zone.

 

[I am the Liquor]

Dispensing with offside and icing would open the game up and break down the stifling defensive schemes that have choked all the entertainment value out of the game.

 

[Replacement*]

The offside rule IS consistent. The puck needs to fully cross a line in all situations in order for its game-affecting state to have changed.

It's the same with goals or icing (though we almost never see it on icing calls).

However, I find it very interesting that someone who has watched this much hockey has misunderstood the rule all this time (this is absolutely not a knock on your hockey knowledge, Replacement) and that there is room for that misinterpretation.

Because if it's true that Draisaitl also misunderstood the rule, that could explain why players keep making these "bone-headed" dekes around the blue line for their team mates to go offside.

Draisaitl had all the time in the world to cross the line fully with the puck, yet for some seemingly inexplicable reason he didn't and Purcell went offside to cost the Oilers a goal. He may very well have thought he was safely in the zone just by reaching the blue line.

Very interesting.

Thanks for the thought that went into this post. Well expressed.

The key as I just mentioned, is that a player could play the game for decades, or a fan watch it for decades, and not completely understand the nuance of the rule, and it wouldn't be made apparent in any way that there was misunderstanding, until such time that the offside video review and fine tooth comb anal review of these calls started occurring.

Previously, before video review, the play by Draisaitl would likely have standed. It doesn't know, that's the change.

ps Also, I've played chess with people that have played the game for 20 years that don't understand (fully) either castling variation or en passant in entirety. You'll find really that in all walks of life somebody discern subtle variation and subrules better than others. That could well be a unknown right/left brain dominant hemisphere difference as has been speculated to explain such differences in understanding and perception.

 

[Raab]

Most Canadian kids should know the rule by peewee. Maybe Draisatl's coaches when he was young never told him the rules.