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.