Time to fix the offside rule

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Gotta say it's interesting how many times the Pens have successfully challenged offsides calls. I know there was no disincentive to challenge before, but it feels like they often see that quarter inch between skate and blueline.
I don't know who their video guy is off the top of my head, but he needs a raise. Sullivan has a damn good percentage of successful reviews.
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
What if the offside challenge can only be used in the event a player scores within 2-3 seconds of a goal being scored? That way it addresses things like the egregious Duchene goal where he received a pass after entering the zone, but not dumb things like a few millimeters of a skate blade in blurry frames 5-15 seconds before a goal who may or may not have been part of the play. Furthermore, it stays within the spirit of the rule which is to prevent camping as a previous poster mentioned. However, to do that, you'd have to have puck tracking technology which tracks the puck entering the zone and the puck entering the net. No blurry frame by frame against a timer evaluation kind of crap. Pure objective tracking info.

So in essence, the offside challenge would turn into something like, "Offside happened in excess of the 3 second threshold, call on the ice stands, we have a good goal." or "After review, offside occurred within 3 seconds of the goal, no goal."?

Refs still call offside as they currently do. The threshold is only in events of challenge.
 

umma gumma

Registered User
Apr 8, 2005
3,623
2,143
I've said it before; it should be treated like the shot clock in basketball. AND if at any point the other team gains possession you can't review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RareDangles

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
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.
I don't understand your confusion. Whether the puck is entering the zone or exiting the zone it must cross entirely over the blue line. It makes sense to me.

If I'm standing in the middle of a doorway, between the bathroom and the living room with one foot in each room, I'm not in one room or the other. But, if my body is completely through the doorway with both feet in the bathroom, then I have exited the living room (neutral zone) and entered into the bathroom(O-Zone), or vice versa. That's kind of how I see the blue line.
 

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
30,944
30,723
Dartmouth,NS
I don't understand your confusion. Whether the puck is entering the zone or exiting the zone it must cross entirely over the blue line. It makes sense to me.

If I'm standing in the middle of a doorway, between the bathroom and the living room with one foot in each room, I'm not in one room or the other. But, if my body is completely through the doorway with both feet in the bathroom, then I have exited the living room (neutral zone) and entered into the bathroom(O-Zone), or vice versa. That's kind of how I see the blue line.
What I'm saying is logically they should decide whether or not the blue line is part of the offensive zone. I get what you are saying but I feel like just making the blue line part of the offensive zone would 1) just make more sense and 2) cut down on the offside problems a bit atleast
 

Braunbaer

Registered User
May 21, 2012
3,752
1,101
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

The reason they invented the challenge is because the obvious offside isn't always called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
What I'm saying is logically they should decide whether or not the blue line is part of the offensive zone. I get what you are saying but I feel like just making the blue line part of the offensive zone would 1) just make more sense and 2) cut down on the offside problems a bit atleast
I think the logic with the blue line is just that it has to be crossed completely one way or the other.

I think it could be a good idea if they switched it to the NFL Touchdown rule where the puck simply has to break the plane of the blue line constitutes entry, but the way it is makes sense to me. It's part of whichever zone the puck is in at the time.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about what the actual players want. If the players want to change the blue rule then I'm about it, but if they want to keep it the way it is now then I'm not going to say it should be different. They're the ones actually dealing with it.
 

ES

Registered User
Feb 14, 2004
4,152
821
Finland
Regarding time between offside and goal, I would love to see following:

4 minutes to go, team A is leading 4-2. Team B enters the offensive zone in offside unseen by officials. They hold a possession for a minute and score. The goal is overturned thanks to coach's challenge and then team B scores another goal, this time legally, quicker than the original goal.
 

PatriceBergeronFan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2011
59,139
36,522
USA
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.

If we want the game to follow the rule book in totality the game would be ruined. Why nitpick one aspect?
 

Bocephus86

Registered User
Mar 2, 2011
6,166
3,664
Boston
If they want to retain the challenge, I propose a hybrid compromise with the OP. A call cannot be overturned (goal overturned) if one of the below has occurred after the offsides:

1. 10 seconds have passed
2. 4 passes have been completed by the offensive team
3. The defense had control of the puck

Remember: Blatant offsides will still get caught 99.99% of the time at the time. These close ones that wipe out a goal 20 seconds later are stupid.

I think the whole challenge should be done away with though. I'm generally against reviews in most cases; less reviews are better (I understand on goals, or TDs in the NFL). I am fine with human error in reffing, it's part of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nystromshairstylist

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
If we want the game to follow the rule book in totality the game would be ruined. Why nitpick one aspect?
I don't make the rules. This is something that they've decided that they wanted to target, and it's something that I happen to agree with. Offside is offside is offside. If the offside was called the right way when it occurred then the goal would have never happened.
 

ybnvs

Registered User
Mar 20, 2014
2,095
3,621
Technicalities are why sports are so great.

With the inclusion of replays, it is imperative to keep the game as precise as possible.

If it's offsides, it's offsides. None of this, "only if it's visible to the naked eye" nonsense. Are you kidding me? You want human error and team biases to have influence over deciding factors in a game?

Dismissed.
 

Dewey Eye

Registered User
Apr 28, 2014
187
89
the crux of this entire argument is counter intuitive. You would be hard pressed in any part of life to find a rule/law whereby the enforcement body says, "Yeah, you broke the rule, but not that badly. It's cool"

isnt that what we are arguing about here? the frustration of having a goal called back because the forward is only A LITTLE offisides?

he's offsides.

Sucks if you thought your team had a goal and it got called back. it is a gutshot. Every team has had it happen to them, but let's not try to mask the fact you are just salty about losing a goal by saying things like, "flow of the game" and all that crap. if my team got screwed by an illegal goal, i want the goal overturned. I dont give a crap about the "human element" or "flow of the game".

the only caveat I would add and could see as a reasonable adjustment to the rule is if like stated earlier in the thread, the plane of the blue line should extend upward like a football goaline. if you or your foot is behind or above any part of the line (whether touching or not), i could see making that onsides
 

Suntouchable13

Registered User
Dec 20, 2003
43,031
18,047
Toronto, ON
I don't make the rules. This is something that they've decided that they wanted to target, and it's something that I happen to agree with. Offside is offside is offside. If the offside was called the right way when it occurred then the goal would have never happened.

But if you have to magnify a replay 10X then maybe the play should be left alone?
 

Territory

Registered User
Jan 31, 2014
6,366
623
Toronto
Its awful. I hate offside challenges more than anything.

The players don't know they went offside if it wasn't called in real time so they keep playing. It's not fair to them. How is it fair that they play 30 seconds more score a nice goal and it gets called back because a players skate was a millimeter offside... There either has to be a time limit on how long after the offside a goal should count (like 5-10 seconds so only offside rush goals get overturned) or just completely abolish offside reviews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nystromshairstylist

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,613
13,260
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
Last night during empty net time, Tom Wilson battled for a loose puck, crossed the line without the puck, then got hooked, then collected the puck, and scored an ENG. Philly challenged, and the goal was disallowed (properly according to the rule), but the hook was upheld and the Caps got a PP out of it, and then Oshie scored an ENG at 5v5. The point being, Tom Wilson is really good at hockey!
 

Dr Black

Registered User
Oct 31, 2015
482
368
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.
Obviously, if the league initiated the challenges, the team would not be penalized. So suggestion 3 (a neutral office official initiated challenges instead of a coach) would cancel out suggestion 2 (give teams a 5 minute major for delay of game for failed challenges). I thought that would go without saying.
 

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,937
Vancouver, BC
I think the rule is fine. Just need to speeed up the review. If you’re offside the goal is not a good goal and shouldn’t count. It doesn’t matter how far back the offside happened if the puck is still in the offensive zone.
 

Chips

Registered User
Aug 19, 2015
8,309
7,053
Easiest to me is to simply eliminate the offside review. Otherwise good goals are wiped off due to a negligible inch or two, or because a player lifted his stick a second too soon far far more than linesman used to miss a player a foot+ into the zone...

If it’s small enough that the linesman didn’t see it it’s probably negligible to the impact of the game, and basically just a technicality in the review. A collosal waste of time the reviews are.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,828
23,185
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.

It just needs to be treated like the line of scrimmage in football for a QB. Have part of your skate even with the plane of the blue line. The suggestion about replays only being in real time is a good suggestion too. Zooming in 8000% and seeing individual pixels is nonsense.
 

Harry Kakalovich

Registered User
Sep 26, 2002
6,215
4,295
Montreal
I don't know - it really bothers me when a goal is scored when it should have been whistled offside. I find it changes the whole flow of the play when a player is offside and scoring chances often happen because everyone is a little off kilter because it seemed offsides. I would keep the challenge. If the play was offside, the goal shouldn't count.
 

Seanaconda

Registered User
May 6, 2016
9,546
3,318
What I'm saying is logically they should decide whether or not the blue line is part of the offensive zone. I get what you are saying but I feel like just making the blue line part of the offensive zone would 1) just make more sense and 2) cut down on the offside problems a bit atleast
Why ? It would just be a different spot the linesmen are looking at . Gives you more ice having it switch both ways
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->