Offside rule questions. Hall goal disallowed

[Replacement*]

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.

But that application of the line is inconsistent and changes dependent on direction. Thus introducing a variable in how the same line is used. Which is entirely unnecessary and which obviously creates confusion among fans, and even among players.

This is all simplified by a simpler concept that any puck on the line in either direction does not end play, it sustains play, play still ensues in any instance as long as the puck is on the line, and not over the line. Simple. The superiority of this simple application is it results in a slim buffer zone and thus less offsides.

Understand as well this application of the rule is constant with the goal line rule that a puck on the line is not a goal and that the puck has to entirely be on the white, across the line, to be considered a goal.

If one views it from a line causing a stoppage of play when the puck crosses complete over then this application would make the line rules more consistent and easily understood.

ps added confusion is also created because different sports have different rules about the lines and what constitutes offside, goal or no goal etc. Which constantly cause confusion in those sports as well.

 

[ZJuice]

No offsides would be pretty fun
Except during 3vs3

 

[Replacement*]

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.

Very good post. Similar as well to what I was thinking is that when chip sensor technology starts to be introduced they wil have to simplify the rule in any case as sensors will simply detect on line, off line. they won't switch depending on puck direction.
For instance in Tennis the beam sensors detect any ball that is even a fraction on the line and those balls are all considered in and which sustains play.

That is the sensible application of any rule involving lines and which it logically follows allows the use of exacting sensors to determine a ball (or puck) still being on the line and play thus resuming..

Anyway this thread is more interesting than I thought it would be. Also, I appreciate the honesty of those posters that have revealed similar confusion to what I had. Thank you for that.

 

[Raab]

But that application of the line is inconsistent and changes dependent on direction. Thus introducing a variable in how the same line is used. Which is entirely unnecessary and which obviously creates confusion among fans, and even among players.

This is all simplified by a simpler concept that any puck on the line in either direction does not end play, it sustains play, play still ensues in any instance as long as the puck is on the line, and not over the line. Simple. The superiority of this simple application is it results in a slim buffer zone and thus less offsides.

Understand as well this application of the rule is constant with the goal line rule that a puck on the line is not a goal and that the puck has to entirely be on the white, across the line, to be considered a goal.

If one views it from a line causing a stoppage of play when the puck crosses complete over then this application would make the line rules more consistent and easily understood.

ps added confusion is also created because different sports have different rules about the lines and what constitutes offside, goal or no goal etc. Which constantly cause confusion in those sports as well.

Its not that confusing if you know the rule. The blueline is basically part of the neutral zone until the entire puck is over where it then becomes the attacking zone until the puck comes out again. You're allowed to have your stick and body over the line when entering the zone as long as you keep one skate in the neutral zone until the puck has fully crossed the line into the attacking zone.

 

[Replacement*]

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.

AS I just stated I appreciate this. Your post is key to revealing that the confusion regarding the rule is not isolated. I bet more fans than maybe care to admit are confused by the rule. I bet there are players that are. What this results in is more offsides than their needs to be and more instances where plays are deemed offside when this is not necessary. Video review has revealed how silly the blueline rule is and how it contributes to more offsides than required.

A thick line to me represents an "in" buffer area. That's the sensible application because any puck on that line sustains play. Presuming that people prefer sustained play vs anally caused breaks in play. Which I would assume almost anyone does. Sustained play is one of the best features of hockey imo and when I get most riveted in the game. Conversely whistles going off every 5-10 secs is when the mind wanders onto something else.

 

[Replacement*]

Its not that confusing if you know the rule. The blueline is basically part of the neutral zone until the entire puck is over where it then becomes the attacking zone until the puck comes out again. You're allowed to have your stick and body over the line when entering the zone as long as you keep one skate in the neutral zone until the puck has fully crossed the line into the attacking zone.

Ignoring the confusion for a moment, consider what I, and Aerchon, have stated in our posts (and also other proponents of a thicker blue line) is that a blue line should be an "in play" buffer line that sustains play, rather than ends play depending on what direction the puck is going in.

The advantage of that would be more sustained play and less offsides. I would think from a fan or player perspective that would be preferred. Stoppages of play during offsides are annoying if anything in how often they occur and with that annoyance increasing when one senses how anally the official applied it in the instance. To wit any player complains about an offside that was so close and called so annally. The blue line as "in play" buffer zone solves some of that.

ps and just for giggles any rule that takes a 100 words for you to describe is probably more complicated than it needs to be and it DOES create confusion.

Conversely, the alternate rule application is this;

Puck on line/puck in play.

6 word simplicity. Rule understood, the clearest application.


Cognitively speaking I will introduce this now. There is a direct correlation between understanding a rule and the stated simplicity of the rule.

 

[McBeastMode]

I'm assuming the linesman did not see the puck stay on the line, because his view was obstructed..

C&P From Kerry Fraser's blog..

"When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players. (*However, a player actually controlling the puck who crosses the line shall not be considered "off-side," provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.) A player deemed to be in control and possession of the puck can skate backwards into the zone and not violate the off-side rule.

Since a player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line ahead of the puck, a player is deemed to be on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line (in the neutral zone)."

 

[Spawn]

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.

Teams still hold the puck when they lose the blueline. Just now you've just got 5-10 seconds of everyone having to clear the zone and regroup before attacking again.

Without that clearing of the zone you'd have more teams spending time on the attack rather than regrouping.

 

[Replacement*]

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

This could actually be a key. In hockey I played in an area of town where anybody that wanted to could be a coach. The quality of instruction, really if there was any, was uniformly poor. I doubt any of the coaches I had understood the rule as much as you did. Its possible as well that a player that learns the game in Germany may not have 100% coaching either.

But its interesting you used the word "should" above.

Which is different than saying that most do know the rule.

In anycase no casual fan would necessarily understand the full nuance of the rule As per how they had to explain the rule intricately to the audience in Tampa.

Now imagine if the Draisaitl play occurs in Tampa. There would similarly be more people there probably leaving the game thinking "That call was screwed up, that should be a goal" That creates a frustration with the product.

 

[Replacement*]

I'm assuming the linesman did not see the puck stay on the line, because his view was obstructed..

C&P From Kerry Fraser's blog..

"When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players. (*However, a player actually controlling the puck who crosses the line shall not be considered "off-side," provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.) A player deemed to be in control and possession of the puck can skate backwards into the zone and not violate the off-side rule.

Since a player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line ahead of the puck, a player is deemed to be on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line (in the neutral zone)."

Its very instesting that an authority on the subject takes about 200 words to explain the intricacy of the rule. Have any person with even a modicum of attention deficit, that is not at all familiar with the rule, and their eyes will glaze over and roll around in the back of their head and have to start over 4 times until they fall asleep or find something more riveting to do.

Similarly when I'm doing income tax return and reading through a new legislation its painful when you have to read 15 subset rules to understand whether you qualify for a tax exemption or not...Next time I call Revenue Canada I should ask them to interpret the hockey blue line rule as well.

 

[Delicious Pancakes]

Great thread Replacement. I too thought that as long as the puck was touching the blue line there was no offside both coming into the attacking zone and trying to hold the line from within the attacking zone. As somebody who has played the game for 25 years and watched a tonne of hockey it blows my mind that I was not aware of this nuance to the offside rule. Of course as a defenseman I wasn't doing too many toe-drags to stay onside entering the zone.

 

[Fishy McScales]

AS I just stated I appreciate this. Your post is key to revealing that the confusion regarding the rule is not isolated. I bet more fans than maybe care to admit are confused by the rule. I bet there are players that are. What this results in is more offsides than their needs to be and more instances where plays are deemed offside when this is not necessary. Video review has revealed how silly the blueline rule is and how it contributes to more offsides than required.

A thick line to me represents an "in" buffer area. That's the sensible application because any puck on that line sustains play. Presuming that people prefer sustained play vs anally caused breaks in play. Which I would assume almost anyone does. Sustained play is one of the best features of hockey imo and when I get most riveted in the game. Conversely whistles going off every 5-10 secs is when the mind wanders onto something else.

As I said earlier, I think you might be onto something here.

I regularly roll my eyes at players who make that move just on the line that puts team mates offside. It's super frustrating and I think to myself "why the hell don't you just bring it into the zone first and THEN go all fancy-pancy?" I guess it's entirely possible that players who do this are oblivious to how the rule actually works.

 

[Replacement*]

As I said earlier, I think you might be onto something here.

I regularly roll my eyes at players who make that move just on the line that puts team mates offside. It's super frustrating and I think to myself "why the hell don't you just bring it into the zone first and THEN go all fancy-pancy?" I guess it's entirely possible that players who do this are oblivious to how the rule actually works.

Yeah, I really enjoyed your earlier post and thanked you for it. The very interesting thing is Drai was seeing where the line is, he's a very skilled player, and deft with puck control, and yet that's where he places the puck, on the line. Albeit in a position where prior to reviewed calls, reviewed offsides, and challenges, that would've been a goal.

Even given the rule as stated that would've been close enough to be a goal. In realtime of course it was not considered offside. Sucks that that wasn't a goal but not the sole basis for the thread, just what spurred all the questions.

 

[McBeastMode]

Thanks, Replacement for starting this thread..I learned something new today as did many others...

We all got some clarity of the nuances, that constitute an offside..
Here's the play that started this whole thread, and as we all know now..That puck was not offside..

 

[OilerMcLord]

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.

We have a winner!!!

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

deleted from net.

 

[Section337]

Even if a kid doesn't intend to ref, if they are serious about hockey they should spend a few Saturday's over the years in a referee's clinic. On the same note, quite a few announcers and play by play guys need to avail themselves of the same option.

 

[Oil Gauge]

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.

But that application of the line is inconsistent and changes dependent on direction. Thus introducing a variable in how the same line is used. Which is entirely unnecessary and which obviously creates confusion among fans, and even among players.

This is all simplified by a simpler concept that any puck on the line in either direction does not end play, it sustains play, play still ensues in any instance as long as the puck is on the line, and not over the line. Simple. The superiority of this simple application is it results in a slim buffer zone and thus less offsides.

Understand as well this application of the rule is constant with the goal line rule that a puck on the line is not a goal and that the puck has to entirely be on the white, across the line, to be considered a goal.

If one views it from a line causing a stoppage of play when the puck crosses complete over then this application would make the line rules more consistent and easily understood.

ps added confusion is also created because different sports have different rules about the lines and what constitutes offside, goal or no goal etc. Which constantly cause confusion in those sports as well.

The rule is not different depending on direction. The puck always has to completely cross the line to change zones. And a skate touching the line is always considered to be onside.

I'll guarantee to you that Draisaitl knows how the rule works. I'd say that 99.9% of NHL players correctly understand the offside rule as it stands now.

Your suggestion of the rule is not the same as the goal line rule. You are suggesting that as soon as the puck breaks (or maybe is completely on the line, I'm not sure because you haven't yet explained all the nuances of your rule...) the plain of the blueline that it is in the zone. With the goal line it has to completely cross the line.

I don't think changing the rule will result in much of a difference in the amount of offside calls. Players will always try to push the line. They will try to be crossing the far edge of the line as the puck is getting to the line.

The only advantage I see is that it would help a player receiving a stretch pass though, it would give them 12 extra inches to accept the pass.

Regardless of what the rule is every player is going to push the limit to try to get any inch that they can out there, and that is going to cause offsides at the same rate as we are seeing today.

I can see how a casual fan who has never had the rule explained to them would not know the rule. But that is going to happen no matter what the rule is. Especially with your rule where the line is different for a skate and the puck entering the zone.

I'm not sure how i feel about video review on goals for offside. It obviously can correct big mistakes, and I think it should. But you can't review one without reviewing them all, review it because it was a foot offside and you have to review it if its a mm offside.

 

[Replacement*]

Thanks, Replacement for starting this thread..I learned something new today as did many others...

We all got some clarity of the nuances, that constitute an offside..
Here's the play that started this whole thread, and as we all know now..That puck was not offside..

So the NHL's offsides calls at the blueline continue to drive me nuts. Last night I'm sure most people noticed with 2mins left when the Oil had the puck in the Preds end and it came back to the point that it wasn't even close to being offside. The puck was simply on the line, not over the line, Schultz kept it in and it was more onside then the play shown above that started this.

So what gives? Refs don't know the correct interpretation either? Again it wasn't even close to offside. The puck was simply on the blueline, all the puck was on the blueline.

Among all the other rat**** bad officiating that went on last night.

 

[oiler-dude]

So the NHL's offsides calls at the blueline continue to drive me nuts. Last night I'm sure most people noticed with 2mins left when the Oil had the puck in the Preds end and it came back to the point that it wasn't even close to being offside. The puck was simply on the line, not over the line, Schultz kept it in and it was more onside then the play shown above that started this.

So what gives? Refs don't know the correct interpretation either? Again it wasn't even close to offside. The puck was simply on the blueline, all the puck was on the blueline.

Among all the other rat**** bad officiating that went on last night.

That just sounds like a bad call from the linesman, but I didn't see the play in question. Linesmen know how the rule works, but they're human, they'll make mistakes unfortunately.

 

[Replacement*]

That just sounds like a bad call from the linesman, but I didn't see the play in question. Linesmen know how the rule works, but they're human, they'll make mistakes unfortunately.

Point is it wasn't even close. The blueline is thick. The puck was on the blueline but around 9inches from being offside.

it wasn't CLOSE to being offside. The point being why make a false positive call of offside if an official is not properly seeing the play at all?

if you don't know its offside, and its clearly onside, don't blow the whistle.

Again the Tampa play was closer to being offside. They got that one right.

But oh Oilers? forget it. Not even a passing benefit of doubt that the play was kept onside.

 

[Oil Gauge]

Point is it wasn't even close. The blueline is thick. The puck was on the blueline but around 9inches from being offside.

it wasn't CLOSE to being offside. The point being why make a false positive call of offside if an official is not properly seeing the play at all?

if you don't know its offside, and its clearly onside, don't blow the whistle.

Again the Tampa play was closer to being offside. They got that one right.

But oh Oilers? forget it. Not even a passing benefit of doubt that the play was kept onside.

While I don't recall the play in question, its obviously just a bad call. He's gotta make a call so he probably made his best guess and got it wrong.

This has nothing to do with the schematics of the offside rule and everything to do with human error.

 

[Replacement*]

While I don't recall the play in question, its obviously just a bad call. He's gotta make a call so he probably made his best guess and got it wrong.

This has nothing to do with the schematics of the offside rule and everything to do with human error.

Guess?

The thing is in real time the Tampa play the puck looks to be offside. The player had to really be careful not to be offiside. The Schultz one from any angle didn't look close to offside and was a routine play. If you saw it you'd wonder how it was ever judged offside.

Why even make a blueline thick if Its still "human error". Whats the reasonable limit with that without calling it "three blind mice"

For instance, prior to line sensors in tennis the crowd would go nuts if an official makes the wrong call if the ball is anymore than an inch from the thin line. With ball travelling 100miles an hour. Conversely a hockey player handling a puck is a lot slower speed. Easy to see. The puck is black on white ice surface. Perception doesn't get easier than that.

Plus lets be honest here. One of these plays is a clutz named Schultz. Ref probably just assumed it was offside, and then theres the "well, Oilers" factor.

I don't generally subscribe to differential officiating occuring but if this Chris Pronger with the puck I doubt its called offside.

Go back to looking at the Tampa play above. Lightning D is being chased out and hounded by a Penguin and it looks as if the puck is going outside the zone. Clearly looks like that will occur. The lineman can't even see where the puck is but in that instance for some reason doesn't make the offside call. Results in a big Tampa goal seconds later to tie a game very late that they Win in OT. Normally with the lineman in doubt on that one it would've been called offside.

 

[Oil Gauge]

Guess?

The thing is in real time the Tampa play the puck looks to be offside. The player had to really be careful not to be offiside. The Schultz one from any angle didn't look close to offside and was a routine play. If you saw it you'd wonder how it was ever judged offside.

Why even make a blueline thick if Its still "human error". Whats the reasonable limit with that without calling it "three blind mice"

For instance, prior to line sensors in tennis the crowd would go nuts if an official makes the wrong call if the ball is anymore than an inch from the thin line. With ball travelling 100miles an hour. Conversely a hockey player handling a puck is a lot slower speed. Easy to see. The puck is black on white ice surface. Perception doesn't get easier than that.

Plus lets be honest here. One of these plays is a clutz named Schultz. Ref probably just assumed it was offside, and then theres the "well, Oilers" factor.

I don't generally subscribe to differential officiating occuring but if this Chris Pronger with the puck I doubt its called offside.

Go back to looking at the Tampa play above. Lightning D is being chased out and hounded by a Penguin and it looks as if the puck is going outside the zone. Clearly looks like that will occur. The lineman can't even see where the puck is but in that instance for some reason doesn't make the offside call. Results in a big Tampa goal seconds later to tie a game very late that they Win in OT. Normally with the lineman in doubt on that one it would've been called offside.

So I was curious as to what you consider to be not even close to offside. So I went and looked at the play. It was pretty much just as close as the tampa play. Probably within a cm or so.

The toe of his blade is even blocking the puck which obstructs his view, and the linesman is making this call from 80 feet away.

Its a lot closer than you made it out to be.

Its just a wrong call, human error, he made a mistake.

The tampa play is also a play where the player is carrying the puck, this makes it a lot easier because the puck gradually moves towards the line. On the Schultz play the puck is shot at Schultz, who is standing well behind the line and has to reach considerable far forward to keep the puck in. On the Tampa play the tampa players stick is never in a position where the puck could go offside. With the Schultz play his stick barely gets into position in time to keep the puck onside. Its more likely that the Schultz play could have been offside. After looking at the video its obvious that it didn't but the way it happened I can see how he could have made the wrong call. I'm sure he kicked himself over it after the game though.

The thicker line makes it easier for plays where a player gains the line then makes a quick move back onto the line. It gives the linesman, as well as the player a buffer zone. This helps the linesman so that he doesn't have to watch both edges of the line at the same time. If we go back to the Draisaitl play where he attempts to gain the line as the defender attempts to poke check him. If he would have gained the line before he pulled the puck back to avoid the poke check, the thicker line gives him more room to evade the poke check, and obviously gives the linesman more time to shift his focus from one side of the line to the other.

 

[Replacement*]

So I was curious as to what you consider to be not even close to offside. So I went and looked at the play. It was pretty much just as close as the tampa play. Probably within a cm or so.

The toe of his blade is even blocking the puck which obstructs his view, and the linesman is making this call from 80 feet away.

Its a lot closer than you made it out to be.

Its just a wrong call, human error, he made a mistake.

The tampa play is also a play where the player is carrying the puck, this makes it a lot easier because the puck gradually moves towards the line. On the Schultz play the puck is shot at Schultz, who is standing well behind the line and has to reach considerable far forward to keep the puck in. On the Tampa play the tampa players stick is never in a position where the puck could go offside. With the Schultz play his stick barely gets into position in time to keep the puck onside. Its more likely that the Schultz play could have been offside. After looking at the video its obvious that it didn't but the way it happened I can see how he could have made the wrong call. I'm sure he kicked himself over it after the game though.

The thicker line makes it easier for plays where a player gains the line then makes a quick move back onto the line. It gives the linesman, as well as the player a buffer zone. This helps the linesman so that he doesn't have to watch both edges of the line at the same time. If we go back to the Draisaitl play where he attempts to gain the line as the defender attempts to poke check him. If he would have gained the line before he pulled the puck back to avoid the poke check, the thicker line gives him more room to evade the poke check, and obviously gives the linesman more time to shift his focus from one side of the line to the other.

Good points made sir. I have to defer to your argument. well done.

I think with no Oilers games on for a couple weeks I must be hard up for something to complain about..

That said, still a wrong call, albeit closer than it looked in realtime.