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

Travis093

Travis
May 5, 2012
883
1,478
Saskatoon
How about leave it as is, but the players on the ice have to call the offside and the coaches are not allowed to indicate to the players to make the challenge or not

Edit:
I like the idea of live review with a limited amount of reviews with no slow mo
 
Last edited:

Clamshells

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Aug 11, 2009
2,485
1,289
A different kind of proposal:
Change offsides so that the team has to abandon the puck and leave the zone. No whistle. If the offside team continues to play the puck (at the judgement of the ref) It's a delay of game penalty.

The intent is to remove the incentive for players to make risky zone entries, or they will lose possession or take a bad penalty. This would drastically cut down offside stoppages and offside challenges as well, and speed up the game in more than one way.

We also need to get rid of the idea of the blue line being this strictly defined barrier between zones. If video review can't be absolutely certain that a play was offside in a matter of a minute or two, just call it as it stands on the ice. A play that was close enough to warrant extensive review should be given the benefit of the doubt that there was no offside intent, even if it may have been marginally offside.
 

Gnova

CowboysR^2
Sep 6, 2011
9,371
3,370
Jetland
The challenge should be reviewed at full speed and overturned if it was clearly offside at full speed.

There should I also be a 10 second time limit from the time of entry. Originally the challenge was put into place to stop obvious offside violations on a rush that resulted in a goal.
 

aviators99

Registered User
Apr 8, 2012
177
107
Weston, Florida, USA
Adding the penalty for non-overturned offsides challenges has already vastly reduced the number of times it's used. And according to scoutingtherefs.com, 66% of the challenges have resulted in overturning the call (this is compared to 27% for goaltender interference). So the penalty has worked. It's rare to see, because teams are only going to challenge if they already know that it was offsides, or it's a desparation move where a power play is no worse than the worst case outcome.
 

Rielly4Capn

Registered User
Apr 16, 2019
11
6
I'm fine with the offside challenge rule as it is, they get the call right 99% of the time now. The couple millimeters off the ice thing is the only thing that slows these calls down, and I believe the league has the rule right as is, the skate needs to be on the ice, else we're gonna have figure skating over the blue line, not to mention more skate blades slicing necks.
 

kmo429

Registered User
Jul 22, 2011
1,927
426
It's good in theory but as the first reply said, there will be way too much gray area.

A better idea would be just to have a timer. 1 - if the goal occurs >/= 30 seconds post zone entry than the offside cannot be challeneged. If less than 30 seconds, the team can challenge but they don't do any of this bizarre waiting around to see if the coach will challenge. Once the goal is scored, a 15 or 30 (or whatever) second timer starts and if not challenged within that time frame, they aren't able to. If you can't make a definitive call on whether or not to challenge within 10/15 seconds and 1/2 quick replays, it is close enough that in now way should it be overturned because half an inch offside is outside the spirit of the rule.
 

Dr Black

Registered User
Oct 31, 2015
482
368
Offsides are comparable to speed limits on our roads. Everyone agrees that we need speed limits. Just like we all agree that hockey needs offside.

If a traffic cop gives you a 200 dollar speeding ticket for going 1km or 1 mile over the speed limit, are you going to react by saying "oh well, the law is the law, speeding is speeding, so I deserve this fine and have to pay"? Or are you going to say "1km or 1mile over the limit does NOTHING to endanger public safety! This is such an arbitrary bunch of BS! I'm taking this to court!"? I'd say at least 99% of the public would say the latter and not the former, and try to fight the ticket in court.

Like with speed limits, people don't have a problem with the enforcement of offside. Rather they have a problem with the FANATICAL enforcement of offside via super slow-motion revies after goals.
 

Connor McConnor

Registered User
Nov 22, 2017
5,243
6,011
The offside challenge should be removed it's a complete joke of a rule. Last night Tampa almost got saved by it and we are talking half an inch that it was out by even though it had 0 impact on the play they were getting dominated on that PP.
 

Orfieus

Registered User
Nov 2, 2012
3,500
2,017
Atlantic Canada
keep the rules, just remove some cameras. Make it so only when it is really obvious can you overturn it, otherwise it is too close to call
 

razkaz

Registered User
Oct 3, 2013
1,256
883
Bring back the red line offside and foot in crease rule.


That'll show em
 

sufferer

Registered User
Dec 6, 2017
3,710
4,458
The challenge was only implemented because the refs are f***ing blind and missed an egregiously offsides play. Leave it to the NHL to copy off one of the worst aspects of the more popular leagues.
 

Zarathustra

This is not my hat.
Nov 21, 2007
3,981
194
Salzburg
Here's the thing with this goal. Duchene is onside based on the rules. Rule 83.2 is in effect here because the defending Nashville player played the puck propelling it into his own zone. Duchene is free to play the puck as he is onside.


That's not at all what that rule says. Avs player tries to pass to Duchene and a Nashville player redirects it into the zone after Duchene is there. 83.2 only has to do with the puck re-entering the defensive zone on a deflection off of a defending player, but that deflection cannot be caused by an attacking player.

If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman.

The puck was passed by an Avs player (attacking player) and deflected into the zone by a Nashville player, after Duchene had already entered the zone. It was offside.

You're likely thinking of 83.1, but even 83.1 doesn't apply here:

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.

The puck was neither passed nor carried into the zone by a defending player, which is why Duchene was offside.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
I have to admit I'm really curious what the effect would be if offsides were removed from the game. Maybe at the lower levels you'd get people cherry picking in the offensive zone but realistically no team is going to tolerate a goofball floating in the offensive zone leaving the rest of his team trying to play 4-on-5.

It could really open up the game. I'd try it in the AHL or something just to see what the effects would be. Thing is, it would have to be a long trial, and it could impact behaviour for those players who get used to it who then get called up, but it would be difficult to sell as a change in the NHL with no real idea what would happen without actually trying it first.
 

Khelandros

Registered User
Feb 12, 2019
3,928
4,410
That's not at all what that rule says. Avs player tries to pass to Duchene and a Nashville player redirects it into the zone after Duchene is there. 83.2 only has to do with the puck re-entering the defensive zone on a deflection off of a defending player, but that deflection cannot be caused by an attacking player.



The puck was passed by an Avs player (attacking player) and deflected into the zone by a Nashville player, after Duchene had already entered the zone. It was offside.

You're likely thinking of 83.1, but even 83.1 doesn't apply here:



The puck was neither passed nor carried into the zone by a defending player, which is why Duchene was offside.

You are not correct at all. Everything you highlighted doesn't apply here and the logic you are trying to present is disproven by one line in the rule.
"If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman."
This was a clear deflection by the defending player back into the defending zone. There was no action by a Colorado player that led to the Nashville player being forced to deflect/redirect the puck into the defending zone. The Nashville player tried to intercept the pass, got half of it, causing it to go into his own zone, which led to Duchene being onside and being able to carry on with the play.

The deflection you are referencing would require contact from a Colorado player.
 

Rielly4Capn

Registered User
Apr 16, 2019
11
6
You are not correct at all. Everything you highlighted doesn't apply here and the logic you are trying to present is disproven by one line in the rule.
"If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman."
This was a clear deflection by the defending player back into the defending zone. There was no action by a Colorado player that led to the Nashville player being forced to deflect/redirect the puck into the defending zone. The Nashville player tried to intercept the pass, got half of it, causing it to go into his own zone, which led to Duchene being onside and being able to carry on with the play.

The deflection you are referencing would require contact from a Colorado player.
You realize you highlighted a rule that states in the Duchene circumstance, a delayed offside shall be signaled. And you do realize what a linesman does when an attacking player touches the puck in the offensive zone on a delayed offside.

I mean, reading isn't that hard
 

Khelandros

Registered User
Feb 12, 2019
3,928
4,410
You realize you highlighted a rule that states in the Duchene circumstance, a delayed offside shall be signaled. And you do realize what a linesman does when an attacking player touches the puck in the offensive zone on a delayed offside.

I mean, reading isn't that hard

I guess reading isn't that hard, it must be the comprehension part.
 

Zarathustra

This is not my hat.
Nov 21, 2007
3,981
194
Salzburg
You are not correct at all. Everything you highlighted doesn't apply here and the logic you are trying to present is disproven by one line in the rule.
"If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman."
This was a clear deflection by the defending player back into the defending zone. There was no action by a Colorado player that led to the Nashville player being forced to deflect/redirect the puck into the defending zone. The Nashville player tried to intercept the pass, got half of it, causing it to go into his own zone, which led to Duchene being onside and being able to carry on with the play.

The deflection you are referencing would require contact from a Colorado player.


First of all, you're missing the key word "back." As in "returns." Which I even bolded for you, and you even repeated here. 83.2 only refers to a puck leaving, and then returning to the defensive zone.

You're also ignoring the first part of the rule, that explains that the puck must originate in the defending zone in the first place.

When a defending player propels the puck out of his defending zone and the puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck

This puck was not shot out of the defensive zone, rebounded and bounced back into the defensive zone. It was shot out of the defensive zone, and deflected into the offensive zone.


This was a clear deflection by the defending player back into the defending zone.

No, it wasn't. The puck wasn't in the defensive zone in the first place, so it cannot go "back" where it didn't originate. It originated in Nashville's offensive zone.


I guess reading isn't that hard, it must be the comprehension part.

Do you seriously think that you can have someone stand in your offensive zone the entire time and it will be onside as long as you deflect it in off an opposing player? The rule is very clear. But since you agree that comprehension is the hard part, I bolded the words that you are ostensibly overlooking.
 
Last edited:

Falco Lombardi

Registered User
Nov 17, 2011
23,176
8,467
St. Louis, MO
Two things:

1. The blue line becomes a plane that your body just has to break

2. Goals that come 15 seconds or later after the offsides are not eligible for review
 

coopooter

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
929
776
The ref gets 10 seconds to review the play. If it’s blatantly offsides you can make the call in a second. If it’s so close that you can’t tell and have to go frame by frame on multiple camera angles who cares. The rule is there to prevent cherry picking. Instead we are spending 10 min trying to decide if a player is 1/100 of a second offside. Who cares then. It’s not in the spirit of the rule
 

mdm815

Registered User
Dec 22, 2005
1,261
799
pa
It seems like the easiest solution based on most responses (at least in my opinion) is to review zone entries in real time only but using all available angles, and check keep ins the same way.

Another alternative i would propose is allow teams to ask refs to review. They check real time footage and then decide if it’s worth a check w Toronto. If so then go ahead and check. No challenge, just requests similar to other calls from pre-challenge days.
 

supsens

Registered User
Oct 6, 2013
6,577
2,000
Two things:

1. The blue line becomes a plane that your body just has to break

2. Goals that come 15 seconds or later after the offsides are not eligible for review

So you can gain the zone illegally if you keep it pinned in, rag or keep the puck? That makes no sense.

As for the topic they make the rule black and white because not everyone sees 'close enough" the same. One inch, couple inches same thing right? Well what one is ok what one isnt? 3 inches or 6. And on and on.
As the saying goes you have to draw the line somewhere
 

Falco Lombardi

Registered User
Nov 17, 2011
23,176
8,467
St. Louis, MO
So you can gain the zone illegally if you keep it pinned in, rag or keep the puck? That makes no sense.

As for the topic they make the rule black and white because not everyone sees 'close enough" the same. One inch, couple inches same thing right? Well what one is ok what one isnt? 3 inches or 6. And on and on.
As the saying goes you have to draw the line somewhere

If you gain the zone illegally to that blatant level you're inferring, they'll have called offsides.

If it's to the point where reviewing for offsides and it's beyond that point, the play wasn't affected by the fraction of an inch of offsides to merit removing the goal.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->