Time to fix the offside rule

[Dewey Eye]

or, stay onside?

 

[izlez]

Get rid of all challenges and reviews in all sports. It ruins the excitement of the games.

 

[Spazkat]

I agree. Getting the call technically right is secondary to doing what's best for the flow of the game. The rule is designed to stop unfair zone entries from leading to a goal. Not subtle technicalities that had no real effect on the goal being scored. I'd say getting rid of the challenge would be best. if the offside is obvious, it'll be called

 

[Paris in Flames]

I hate what offside challenges have become and I don't think it's what the spirit of the challenge was meant for. It's the same in baseball right now. You see a boatload of challenges because a player slides safely into a base but momentum takes them off the base by 1/16th of an inch and they're called out.

Its the same in the NHL and offsides. If you need multiple angles, slow motion video and about 2 minutes to figure it out...then f*** that. They don't gain an advantage from that fraction of an inch.

 

[KingsFan7824]

or, stay onside?

Can't expect players to do something like that.

Get rid of all challenges and reviews in all sports. It ruins the excitement of the games.

Function creep.

I hate what offside challenges have become and I don't think it's what the spirit of the challenge was meant for. It's the same in baseball right now. You see a boatload of challenges because a player slides safely into a base but momentum takes them off the base by 1/16th of an inch and they're called out.

Its the same in the NHL and offsides. If you need multiple angles, slow motion video and about 2 minutes to figure it out...then **** that. They don't gain an advantage from that fraction of an inch.

Fractions of a inch are what sports are about. Any little advantage a player or team gets can change the outcome of a game.

I get that the league wants skates to remain on the ice for safety purposes, but just breaking the plane of the blue line would be more than fine in terms of offisdes. Until that's the rule though, keep your skate on the ice and on the right side of the line. If you don't, you take your chances with replay should you or your teammate score. Simple. Or, make it a 5 minute major if a coach delays the game by calling for every replay and getting it wrong. That could work too.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Rules is rules. If they absolutely have to make a change, make it so the puck must be within the neutral-zone edge of the blue line. If the puck is in the blue at all, you're onside.

 

[Number8]

The problem is where do you draw the line?(no pun intended)

It’s either black and white or it isn’t.

Oddly tonight my islanders had a huge goal taken away because of an offside challenge. The call was correct but the players back skate was off the ice just before the puck entered the zone. By the rule this was offside but it wasn’t egregious and was so minuscule that it didn’t give the islanders an advantage on the goal.

The conflict is how do you determine how much offside is too much and a clear advantage? The rule has to be black and white to be effective. I agree it can affect the flow of the game but many feel it’s better to get the call right.

I get what you are saying but isn't every rule pretty much black and white? It's the interpretation that gets grey.

There are things that impact the game happening all the time --

- a missed trip allows the attacking team to keep possession of the puck in the O zone resulting in a goal. Tripping rule is B&W but not if they miss it.
- a blown icing call (these are often the most lax) results in a faceoff in the D zone resulting in retained possession and a goal.
- last night Chara tripped Rask with his stick and Staal went to the box. Bruins scored on the PP.

The list can be endless - -and yet the League wants to micro manage multi minute reviews of a player's skate being millimeters off the ice to negate a goal that might have been scored 30 seconds after the play in question? Hell, they can't even get goalie interference right with the aid of review.

IMO, let the refs and the linesmen call the game, expect them to be good at their job, and get better refs and linesmen if some can't handle the job.

 

[POVERTY]

A friend of mine told me he stole a bag of chips once when I was 7 years old. I'm going to turn him in 50 years from now and demand he be charged with theft as a protest on the offside challenge.

 

[SI90]

I get what you are saying but isn't every rule pretty much black and white? It's the interpretation that gets grey.

There are things that impact the game happening all the time --

- a missed trip allows the attacking team to keep possession of the puck in the O zone resulting in a goal. Tripping rule is B&W but not if they miss it.
- a blown icing call (these are often the most lax) results in a faceoff in the D zone resulting in retained possession and a goal.
- last night Chara tripped Rask with his stick and Staal went to the box. Bruins scored on the PP.

The list can be endless - -and yet the League wants to micro manage multi minute reviews of a player's skate being millimeters off the ice to negate a goal that might have been scored 30 seconds after the play in question? Hell, they can't even get goalie interference right with the aid of review.

IMO, let the refs and the linesmen call the game, expect them to be good at their job, and get better refs and linesmen if some can't handle the job.

Not every rule is black and white. With offsides you have a blue line, and player, and a puck. There’s no room for interpretation. With a “slash” or a trip it’s at that refs discretion and not always conclusive.

A rule like offsides leaves no room for doubt. I agree though that the spirit of offsides isn’t to police it to an absolute centimeter.

Offsides is more for a guy getting sprung on on a stretch or outlet pass leading to a breakaway or oddman rush. If there’s defenders already in the zone and the guy is barley offside and can’t be seen by the naked eye then they should play on.

 

[Neuf]

Either human error is part of the game or it isn't.

One of those puts high expectations on the refs, the other makes you wonder why we have them at all instead of cameras everywhere.

 

[Number8]

Not every rule is black and white. With offsides you have a blue line, and player, and a puck. There’s no room for interpretation. With a “slash” or a trip it’s at that refs discretion and not always conclusive.

A rule like offsides leaves no room for doubt. I agree though that the spirit of offsides isn’t to police it to an absolute centimeter.

Offsides is more for a guy getting sprung on on a stretch or outlet pass leading to a breakaway or oddman rush. If there’s defenders already in the zone and the guy is barley offside and can’t be seen by the naked eye then they should play on.

Fair point -- what you think is a trip may not mesh with what I think is a trip.

I agree that offsides is black and white -- just the game happens so fast it can then be open to interpretation making it essentially the same as other rules with less black and white rigidity.

I suppose I can get with reviewing the bang bang play where a guy crosses the line and blasts a shot by the goalie. If he is offsides immediately before shot maybe.

But going back and reviewing an entry that happened 30 seconds earlier is the height of foolishness IMO.

 

[FerrisRox]

It really angered me in the finals a few years ago with Nash, and now I see it happen where a player's toe is over the line by an eight of an inch, and 16 minutes after they enter the zone, they score - but it is wiped out because of the BS offsides.

I have two ideas/proposals to fix this abomination of a rule:

1-if the offensive team scores a goal within 10 seconds of entering the zone, then that goal can be overturned; after that the goal cannot be and will count as a good goal.

2-if the encroaching team scores immediately on its oncoming rush, then the goal can be overturned. If the puck gets passed around and the defensive team is able to set up and defend, then the goal cannot be.

I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has a better one, but this rule is one of THE stupidest things in hockey right now, and with the officiating hitting bottom this year overall, it needs to be fixed soon.

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[TheSituation]

I get what you are saying but isn't every rule pretty much black and white? It's the interpretation that gets grey.

There are things that impact the game happening all the time --

- a missed trip allows the attacking team to keep possession of the puck in the O zone resulting in a goal. Tripping rule is B&W but not if they miss it.
- a blown icing call (these are often the most lax) results in a faceoff in the D zone resulting in retained possession and a goal.
- last night Chara tripped Rask with his stick and Staal went to the box. Bruins scored on the PP.

The list can be endless - -and yet the League wants to micro manage multi minute reviews of a player's skate being millimeters off the ice to negate a goal that might have been scored 30 seconds after the play in question? Hell, they can't even get goalie interference right with the aid of review.

IMO, let the refs and the linesmen call the game, expect them to be good at their job, and get better refs and linesmen if some can't handle the job.

No, if you're offside, you're offside. It's not a grey rule, and shouldn't be. My issue is with how an entire zone possession can be invalidated by an overturned call.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

The logical thing to do seems to be that if the defending team gains possession of the puck and fails to clear it that takes away the ability to challenge an off side call. Putting a set time on it could create other problems. Or just get rid of it entirely I'd be fine.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Also I am wondering if anyone can help me with something I have always found really weird about hockey. Why is the blue line part of the zone when you have gained entry....but when you are attempting to gain entry the line isnt part of the zone? Is there a logical explanation for that? Because I feel like just making the blue line part of the zone at all times would cut down on a lot of this.

 

[TGWL]

1-if the offensive team scores a goal within 10 seconds of entering the zone, then that goal can be overturned; after that the goal cannot be and will count as a good goal.

They need to change something for sure but I don't like this idea. I can see looking at the clock and now matching it to see if it's really 10 seconds, or 10.2 sections.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I like both your suggestions. I'll add some more.

1 Eliminate that insidious technicality that the back skate has to be on the ice. Rather the back skate just could not break the plane of the blue line before the puck.

2 Give a team a 5 minute major for delay of game if they are wrong. The 2-minute penalty isn't deterring teams from using this as a cheating tactic by calling for a forensic analysis on a close entry.

3 Have a neutral off ice official initiate challenges and NOT coaches. The caveat here is that this neutral official is under strict orders to only challenge more obvious egregious missed offsides. If this neutral official has the discretion to challenge any close entry, we would be no further ahead.

These 3 suggestions along with the suggestion of a 10 or 5 second time period after zone entry would definitely help. Anything is better than what we have now. Although the IDEAL solution is to abolish this abomination of a rule altogether. But these tweaks would be better than nothing.

Second idea is terrible- punishing teams for the NHL's error (creating the challenge).

The other two are good ideas. Coaches challenges should not exist.

 

[sandysan]

I think that the offiside is an outdated rule and shouldn't exist. It's the primary culprit when it comes to making trap viable / beneficial.

I honestly would replace it with 2 line pass. That helps with the stretch pass-type plays that Offside wants to prevent, but completely removes "keeping the puck in the zone"-type stuff which honestly just helps the defending team unnecessarily. This change would increase goal-scoring. Three-line pass would also work as an alternative but I feel like that might be a bit much.

so this is what you want ? there are ALREADY players who only play a 90 foot game, you want to reduce this to a 30 foot game ?

I was fine before officials review, I am fine with it now. The biggest problem is not the temporal aspect, its the stupid " if your foot is not on the ice, then it's not outside the zone so its offside". Just go to the plane extending from the blue line upwards. any part of your body is on the other side, its not offside which still allows for the purpose of the blue line, to prevent guys from cherry picking all night.

 

[Number8]

No, if you're offside, you're offside. It's not a grey rule, and shouldn't be. My issue is with how an entire zone possession can be invalidated by an overturned call.

I agree it's "black and white".

Practical realities sometimes make it a grey rule though. Speed of play, blocked vision, human error.

The question is, how far do you go to try and correct for the challenges listed above? Sounds like I'm with you here -- having an entire zone possession and subsequent goal negated for a "mistake" made 35 seconds ago is silly.

Hell, without a video replay a referee can screw up a field goal ruling in a football game. Rule is crystal clear black and white, but referee was standing in awkward position and got his line of vision screwed up and makes a bad call. All of a sudden something black and white becomes very grey indeed. Humans.

 

[TooManyHumans]

I really don't have a problem with the rule as it stands. The only change I might make is to say that the player's skate does not need to be on the ice to count for being onsides. But I am fine keeping it how it is. With the risk of a penalty for a failed challenge the "challenge and hope for the best" approach really isn't feasible anymore. You have to know it is going to be overturned to challenge. If you know it is going to be overturned then it is is an offsides that should be called correctly. Stay onside if you don't want to risk a goal being overturned.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I say nuke it all together. I'll take 4 or 5 eggrigious Matt Duchene offsides for what 70-80+ goals taken away because of a nanometer offside.

 

[Dondini]

Get rid of the challenge.

As we can see by the replays the margins are almost always so small that it has no effect on the game. The linesman are actually ridiculously good at their jobs. Plus linesman don’t call icings if your within a foot or two of the redline. And everyone knows that it’s just apart of the game. The challenge is soooooo dumb. Like you can’t challenge if one of your players gets speared behind the play and the ref honestly missed it but if he did catch it, it would most likely result in a 5 and a game and thats actually a play that affects the game but we can challenge to see if a skate was 3mm off the ice on a zone entry. Seems ridiculous

 

[Claypool]

I don't think anyone legitimately believes it's a good rule. In fact, they had to make another new rule so coaches would stop abusing it rather than just removing it all together.

 

[Brock Radunske]

It really angered me in the finals a few years ago with Nash, and now I see it happen where a player's toe is over the line by an eight of an inch, and 16 minutes after they enter the zone, they score - but it is wiped out because of the BS offsides.

I have two ideas/proposals to fix this abomination of a rule:

1-if the offensive team scores a goal within 10 seconds of entering the zone, then that goal can be overturned; after that the goal cannot be and will count as a good goal.

2-if the encroaching team scores immediately on its oncoming rush, then the goal can be overturned. If the puck gets passed around and the defensive team is able to set up and defend, then the goal cannot be.

I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has a better one, but this rule is one of THE stupidest things in hockey right now, and with the officiating hitting bottom this year overall, it needs to be fixed soon.

You have my vote.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

It really angered me in the finals a few years ago with Nash, and now I see it happen where a player's toe is over the line by an eight of an inch, and 16 minutes after they enter the zone, they score - but it is wiped out because of the BS offsides.

I have two ideas/proposals to fix this abomination of a rule:

1-if the offensive team scores a goal within 10 seconds of entering the zone, then that goal can be overturned; after that the goal cannot be and will count as a good goal.

2-if the encroaching team scores immediately on its oncoming rush, then the goal can be overturned. If the puck gets passed around and the defensive team is able to set up and defend, then the goal cannot be.

I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has a better one, but this rule is one of THE stupidest things in hockey right now, and with the officiating hitting bottom this year overall, it needs to be fixed soon.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

If the proper call is made in the end, it's worth it. If a play had been called the right way in the first place the ensuing offensive zone possession wouldn't have ever occurred. I honestly couldn't care less if the attacking team enters the zone, stays in the zone for 19 minutes, and then scores a goal and it gets overturned for the entry being off-side. Without the initial illegal entry into the zone the play wouldn't have happened. The off-side brings the game back to where it SHOULD have been if the correct call had been made.


Both of your proposals would only add more subjectivity. With #1, what if the puck is entering the zone close to the 10-second mark? You'd have to review the timing of the offensive zone entry before you can determine if you are able to review the off-side to see if a legal goal was scored.

With #2, what exactly constitutes the defensive team "Being able to set up and defend"? One player in defending position? Two players? The entire team? How many passes = the puck "getting passed around"? One pass? Two passes? Again, you'd have to review the play to see if the defending team 'was able to set up and defend' to see if you're able to review for off-side.