Should the NHL use Ray Ferraro's idea on offisde goal challenges?

[mydnyte]

if the Ref calls a play onside, the players cannot stop playing even if its blatantly offside, so, the being able to review the offside NON-call rule is rubbish

 

[Machinehead]

Better idea: don't have the challenge.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's not a bad idea, but as others have mentioned the simplest and best solution is to get rid of the challenge.

They implemented a cumbersome rule that slows the game down for something that was rarely a problem. Being offside by a centimeter doesn't give you some massive advantage if the linesman happens to miss it. And there's only a few egregious missed offsides, which is going to happen sometimes when it's human beings making the calls in realtime.

 

[Machinehead]

10 second rule. If you're in the zone for 10 seconds, it doesn't matter how you got in.

I do like this.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Minor tweaks for things like how long the puck has been in the zone and whether the opposing team “possessed” it and had an opportunity to clear seem like improvements, but actually just open even more lanes of interpretation and room for mistakes. That’s basically what has made the NFL unwatchable: Rather than simplifying the rulebook they consistently try to tweak things for a full definition, so it’s basically a team of officials on and off the field trying to mash their brains together every other play to apply a complex web of legalese to a 7-yard pass.

Just scrap the challenge and move on.

 

[bouncesonly]

Double the width of the blue line towards the goal, get rid of offside challenges.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Cherrypickers Uber alles!
It's gonna need someone to introduce some forwards to the goalie on team picture day.

The rule is not hard to interpret, for those who ALREADY complain that the refs have too much latitude to make subjective calls, asking them to subjectively determine if a guy on the other side of the line "had any effect on the play" seems curious.

Curious indeed.

You're one of those new fans who prefers 5v5 to 6v6. Bring back the rover I say. Get rid of goalies leaving their feet and forward passing in the offensive zone too.

 

[sandysan]

You're one of those new fans who prefers 5v5 to 6v6. Bring back the rover I say. Get rid of goalies leaving their feet and forward passing in the offensive zone too.

I'm old but I'm not that old. and if you want to fundamentally change the nature of the game so satisfy your blood lust for scoring, have you met my friend NBA ?

 

[FissionFire]

It would eliminate skating from the game. Just a bunch of guys camping at both goal mouths. D-men just clear the puck doing slap passes towards the other net. Repeat both ways until one camping forward manages to shovel in a goal.

I’d counter that by saying that basketball doesn’t have an offsides, yet you don’t see players camping out under the rim all game.

Indoor soccer also has no offsides and you don’t have camping like that.

I do t agree with your apocalyptic view that eliminating offsides would turns the game into a bunch of people standing around, as sports currently that don’t have this rule actually tend to be faster flowing and in constant motion rather than slow and lazy.

 

[sandysan]

I’d counter that by saying that basketball doesn’t have an offsides, yet you don’t see players camping out under the rim all game.

Indoor soccer also has no offsides and you don’t have camping like that.

I do t agree with your apocalyptic view that eliminating offsides would turns the game into a bunch of people standing around, as sports currently that don’t have this rule actually tend to be faster flowing and in constant motion rather than slow and lazy.

that might have to do with the rule that prevents you from staying in the key for more than three seconds, that its an illegal offensive strategy.

and if there is a league that the NHL should be aspiring to, its clearly indoor soccer.

Clearly


if you don't think the offisde rule was implemented to prevent cherry picking, why DO you rthink offside exist ? because it keeps people on the edge of their seats wondering ig his skate blade was on the ice or off ?

 

[SotasicA]

I’d counter that by saying that basketball doesn’t have an offsides, yet you don’t see players camping out under the rim all game.

Indoor soccer also has no offsides and you don’t have camping like that.

I do t agree with your apocalyptic view that eliminating offsides would turns the game into a bunch of people standing around, as sports currently that don’t have this rule actually tend to be faster flowing and in constant motion rather than slow and lazy.

Those are also two sports that suck. I just don't see an incentive in skating the puck up when you don't have to.

I think it might work if you eliminate the forward pass, but I don't think that's an improvement either.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I'm old but I'm not that old. and if you want to fundamentally change the nature of the game so satisfy your blood lust for scoring, have you met my friend NBA ?

I have meet your friends false equivalency and moved goal post.

 

[Montrealer]

I like this idea from a couple of years ago, to eliminate offsides on *entries only* (once the puck gets in the offensive zone, if it leaves the offense needs to leave the zone before it can go back in) so you don't have teams playing keepaway with the puck to keep a lead: Time has come for the NHL to change its offside rule - TheHockeyNews

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

that might have to do with the rule that prevents you from staying in the key for more than three seconds, that its an illegal offensive strategy.

and if there is a league that the NHL should be aspiring to, its clearly indoor soccer.

Clearly


if you don't think the offisde rule was implemented to prevent cherry picking, why DO you rthink offside exist ? because it keeps people on the edge of their seats wondering ig his skate blade was on the ice or off ?

Offside is an echo of the game's creation in an atmosphere of British sporting, i.e. soccer.

 

[Dr Black]

My first and best suggestion is to scrap offside challenges altogether.

However, IF offside challenge just has to stay, here are the necessary changes that must be made to make it less objectionable.


1 If an opposing player touches the puck at any time after the entry, the challenge is null and void.

2 A time clock, where if a goal is scored more than 5 seconds off the rush, a challenge is null and void.

3 A 2-minute delay of game penalty just for challenging offside, win or lose.

4 A 5-minute major penalty for a failed challenge.

These 4 changes are the best way to minimize the rightfully hated challenges where to play is a cm offside or the skate is off the ice.

Now the apologists for this rule might ask,

"What if a play is 3 feet offside, why should they be punished for challenging that?"

Very few challenges have been for egregious offsides. Instead, this rule has been so badly exploited for an instant, momentary gain by stealing a rightfully earned goal by the opposition based on a technicality. So, therefore, if you don't like the automatic 2-minute penalty for challenging, win or lose, too bad! Should have thought of that before using the rule as a cheating mechanism.

Again, I'd prefer just to scrap it altogether.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

Make the line thinner.

 

[iCanada]

I think you make a few tweaks;

1. For an offside to be challenged it needs to have been within 15 to 30s of the goal being scored. Idea being if you got the puck in and then ground then down for two shifts the original entry is kinda moot.

2. For a goal to be repealed it needs to be egregiously offside. Say by atleast 3 to 6 inches or so. Idea being that you want to stop the cherry picking, but really... if a guy is a half inch offside, does it really change anything? Always feels silly at best watching a play over and over again for 4 minutes for a couple thou.

3. Make the blueline a plane extending up atleast a foot instead of a line. The whole foot on the ice debate is stupid. I get that we don't want guys throwing their skates in the air... but watching a play 50 times to determine if a skate is on the ice or a quarter inch off the ice is seriously stupid.

 

[LeafsNation75]

My first and best suggestion is to scrap offside challenges altogether.

However, IF offside challenge just has to stay, here are the necessary changes that must be made to make it less objectionable.


1 If an opposing player touches the puck at any time after the entry, the challenge is null and void.

2 A time clock, where if a goal is scored more than 5 seconds off the rush, a challenge is null and void.

3 A 2-minute delay of game penalty just for challenging offside, win or lose.

4 A 5-minute major penalty for a failed challenge.

These 4 changes are the best way to minimize the rightfully hated challenges where to play is a cm offside or the skate is off the ice.

Now the apologists for this rule might ask,

"What if a play is 3 feet offside, why should they be punished for challenging that?"

Very few challenges have been for egregious offsides. Instead, this rule has been so badly exploited for an instant, momentary gain by stealing a rightfully earned goal by the opposition based on a technicality. So, therefore, if you don't like the automatic 2-minute penalty for challenging, win or lose, too bad! Should have thought of that before using the rule as a cheating mechanism.

Again, I'd prefer just to scrap it altogether.

Those ideas you have sound reasonable.

 

[Avelanche]

that still means they gained an advantage getting the puck in with an offsides. IMO you either think everything should be challenged or nothing because it’s not a big deal.

 

[Jetsfan79]

I think people are over thinking this. We all know this rule exists because of the egregious Duchene offside goal years ago. Theres a very simple solution. Just like you need a distinct kicking motion to disallow a goal, the offside must be obvious and "distinct". How do you determine what's obvious? Easy. It must be noticeable in live time when reviewed.

This will fix the issue. Coaches will only challenge if a Duchene-esk offside happens. Anything "close", the onside call stands. Just like when a linesman calls icing if the race is 'close". Same principle.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Offside is an illegal gaining of the offensive zone. Unless the puck exits and re enters the offensive zone legally nothing should make it null imo.

 

[mdm815]

Just treat it like high sticking used to be done. No need to challenge. If there was a chance it was offside the team can ask the refs to review it and take a look. At that point it’s the refs discretion. Ie “hey that was close on the rush, or close on if they kept it in at the point, let me take a look” or “no coach, even if it was off it was a hair and didn’t effect the play, I’m not looking at that.”

 

[Ted Hoffman]

However, IF offside challenge just has to stay, here are the necessary changes that must be made to make it less objectionable.


1 If an opposing player touches the puck at any time after the entry, the challenge is null and void.
-- This assumes that the opposition touching the puck makes offsides invalid or otherwise makes the rest of the play acceptable; I'm not buying that. Being offsides gives the offense the ability to position itself in ways it wouldn't if the play was correctly blown dead, which can lead to a better scoring chance than that available at the time offsides occurred. No way in hell am I putting all the blame on the defense solely because they touched the puck after a missed offsides call and before a goal was scored against.

2 A time clock, where if a goal is scored more than 5 seconds off the rush, a challenge is null and void.
-- This is like saying "violating the rules is excusable, depending on how long it goes and the circumstances in which it happens." This also ignores that a missed offsides can happen on a failed hold at the blueline, a dump-in, a routine entry that's not a rush, and other situations. [Unless you're strictly limiting your 5-second idea to "if the offensive team comes in on a 'rush'" which requires that term to be defined in an objective way - but given the rest of your ideas, I'm going to venture a guess and say that you're just going to say "after more than 5 seconds of a missed offsides, whatever goes."] Either way, it shows ignorance of the circumstances that can follow after a missed offsides that leads to legitimate chances to score that occasionally will succeed.

3 A 2-minute delay of game penalty just for challenging offside, win or lose.
-- This is saying "we're going to let you challenge the play, but even if you're right we're punishing you for it and for denying the other team a goal they should have had." The real message here is, "if the officials blow calling offsides and the puck ultimately ends up in the back of your net, shut your f***ing mouth because the other team should get that goal, and if you do open your trap we're sticking it to you for trying to get things right like they should have been in the first place." That's beyond terrible.

4 A 5-minute major penalty for a failed challenge. I would say that this is one of the most brutal [among other adjectives] ideas I've ever seen here, but let's illustrate just how dumb this one is.

-- Acts that can draw major penalties, per Table 5 of the NHL Rule Book: boarding, butt-ending, charging, checking from behind, clipping, cross-checking, elbowing, fighting, head-butting, hooking, interference, kneeing, slashing, spearing.

-- Acts that are automatic majors if called: fighting, actually head-butting someone, actually butt-ending someone, actually spearing someone. [Not included, but an automatic match penalty if called: kicking another player, slew-footing.]

Acts that are nothing like the above in terms of recklessness, intent to injure, or potential harm to players and officials: ....... challenging a goal for offsides and being wrong.


These 4 changes are the best way to minimize the rightfully hated challenges where to play is a cm offside or the skate is off the ice. No, it's not - unless you mean "best way to get teams to never challenge at all while leaving in the belief that teams can challenge and be treated fairly."

Now the apologists for this rule might ask, Nice subtle touch on the labeling here - anyone who disagrees here is an apologist, instead of someone who's trying to ensure the rule book is fairly applied where objective criteria exist.

"What if a play is 3 feet offside, why should they be punished for challenging that?"

Very few challenges have been for egregious offsides. I'll let you guess why - but I'll also point out that your "good" ideas above would still punish teams challenging offsides when it was egregious, because ... well, you explain it well in this next sentence. Instead, this rule has been so badly exploited for an instant, momentary gain by stealing a rightfully earned goal by the opposition based on a technicality. Wait, being offsides is a technicality? It's a fundamental tenant of the game. Teams are stealing a rightfully earned goal by the opposition? The goal wouldn't exist if offsides were called correctly in the first place. A goal in some situations changes the entire approach of the game for both teams; however, you want to reward the offense for having broken the rule and not been caught while punishing the defense for validly pointing out a rule was broken. If it's only a technicality, why even have offsides in the first place then? Hell, why have rules against too many men, positioning of all players on the faceoff, and so on? It's pretty easy to call those technicalities too, right? I mean, they're inconvenient and calling those correctly sometimes prevents teams from scoring goals - but who cares about playing by the rules, right? So, therefore, if you don't like the automatic 2-minute penalty for challenging, win or lose, too bad! Should have thought of that before using the rule as a cheating mechanism. "Well, if you're offsides you're breaking the rules - but it's a technicality, so it's OK. But If you notice the other team is offsides on a play that leads to them scoring, ... that's where the real cheating is, those goddamn people who notice someone else is breaking a rule. Breaking the rules isn't cheating, catching someone who broke the rules is cheating!

Wow. Just ......... wow.

Again, I'd prefer just to scrap it altogether.

Comments in red.

 

[Windy River]

It’s a bad idea. Ferrero would be right at home here.

 

[BigZ65]

I think people are over thinking this. We all know this rule exists because of the egregious Duchene offside goal years ago. Theres a very simple solution. Just like you need a distinct kicking motion to disallow a goal, the offside must be obvious and "distinct". How do you determine what's obvious? Easy. It must be noticeable in live time when reviewed.

This will fix the issue. Coaches will only challenge if a Duchene-esk offside happens. Anything "close", the onside call stands. Just like when a linesman calls icing if the race is 'close". Same principle.

That principle should be applied to all replay reviews in sports. Run it in real-time from whatever camera angles you have, but no slow-motion. Also limit the replays to maybe twice per angle. At that point the call is obvious and if it isn't, the call on the ice/court/field stands.