Was Taylor Hall offside or what?

[severian]

No bashing anybody. I just want to know why he was ruled offside on the coaches challenge. Was the correct call made?

Click to read more...

 

[joe dirte]

No bashing anybody. I just want to know why he was ruled offside on the coaches challenge. Was the correct call made?

looks like it to me.

 

[Snippit]

Saburz suck!

But as far as I can tell it looked onside.

 

[severian]

Saburz suck!

But as far as I can tell it looked onside.

I mean the standings are what they are. At least Eichel is finally playing well and they have a great shot at Dahlin.

 

[FerklundCGY]

With no video to show the play, I can confidently say that the play is "inconclusive"

 

[Blender]

Since they don't define "control" in the rulebook, flipping the puck from one side of yourself to the other seems like control to me.

Beyond that, they never showed a conclusive shot of the puck crossing the line after his back skate was off the ice. The ice level blue line angle was incredibly close, and the puck was obscured by his leg. I have no idea how they overturned a no offside and good goal call on the ice when they are supposed to have conclusive evidence to do so.

Here's the goal. Unfortunately it doesn't include the ice level shot.

 

[Snippit]

I mean the standings are what they are. At least Eichel is finally playing well and they have a great shot at Dahlin.

Oh I don't disagree.

Just mocking the immaturity of a select few Devils fans for attacking the team (as opposed to the referees) cause a call didn't go their way lol.

 

[SharkInABoloTie]

I would say that according to the ridiculous wording of the rules and the interpretation by the refs, he was over the blue line before the puck crossed, and the refs decided he did not have possession. I think the reviewing of offsides is out of control and the game wasn't meant to be decided my millimeters and video reviews. The rule needs to be changed

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

"Upon further review.....wait. I don't see anything"

 

[severian]

Oh I don't disagree.

Just mocking the immaturity of a select few Devils fans for attacking the team (as opposed to the referees) cause a call didn't go their way lol.

I'm still yet to see a view that conclusively shows that Hall was offside. Really having a hard time understanding how the call on the ice was overturned.

 

[Jauffre]

This is pay-back for The Trap

 

[severian]

This is pay-back for The Trap

I'll live with losing a regular season game in December against Buffalo in exchange for 3 cups.

 

[Sojourn]

Since they don't define "control" in the rulebook, flipping the puck from one side of yourself to the other seems like control to me.

Beyond that, they never showed a conclusive shot of the puck crossing the line after his back skate was off the ice. The ice level blue line angle was incredibly close, and the puck was obscured by his leg. I have no idea how they overturned a no offside and good goal call on the ice when they are supposed to have conclusive evidence to do so.

Here's the goal. Unfortunately it doesn't include the ice level shot.

If he had clearly possessed the puck prior to that little flip, I'd agree.

In this case, I don't think you can say he had possession just because his stick touched it, which is basically what you'd have to say. There wasn't enough evidence he had control.

 

[Dessert Nights]

I think it was predetermined.

 

[severian]

If he had clearly possessed the puck prior to that little flip, I'd agree.

In this case, I don't think you can say he had possession just because his stick touched it, which is basically what you'd have to say. There wasn't enough evidence he had control.

But it was ruled onside on the ice. Where was there enough evidence to conclusively show the he did not have control? Does anyone even know what the NHL's standard is on these reviews?

 

[joe dirte]

If he had clearly possessed the puck prior to that little flip, I'd agree.

In this case, I don't think you can say he had possession just because his stick touched it, which is basically what you'd have to say. There wasn't enough evidence he had control.

my recollection is that the rulebook doesn't just say control either. I think it says FULL control. you effectively have to have it on the blade of your stick. pretty much puckhandling.

I could be wrong on that though.

 

[Sojourn]

But it was ruled onside on the ice. Where was there enough evidence to conclusively show the he did not have control? Does anyone even know what the NHL's standard is on these reviews?

I think you're applying the "conclusive" argument here like you would if he needed to prove the puck was across a line, or in the goal. I'm not sure that applies here. If the official doesn't think a single touch on the puck is enough to claim possession/control, I suspect that's all he need.

Now, if the puck wasn't conclusively across the line before Hall, then I think you're on to something, but for control I don't think it applies.

 

[Blender]

my recollection is that the rulebook doesn't just say control either. I think it says FULL control. you effectively have to have it on the blade of your stick. pretty much puckhandling.

I could be wrong on that though.

All it says is "actually controlling the puck" and "provided he had possession and control of the puck".

83.1
Off-side
- Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.
The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick. However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

 

[Sojourn]

my recollection is that the rulebook doesn't just say control either. I think it says FULL control. you effectively have to have it on the blade of your stick. pretty much puckhandling.

I could be wrong on that though.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's going to be pretty subjective anyway. On one hand you could argue that they are NHL players, so maybe there are instances where you can assume control. It's just, I'm not sure a single touch is really enough. If he had even had a back and forth on his stick prior to making the flip, I think there is a chance it's onside.

I could be completely off on what the linesman was looking for, but that's my feeling. I just don't think he had handled the puck enough for the official to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Buffaloed]

Do the officials love their jobs so much that they'd overturn a good goal to send a game into OT during the holiday season?

 

[Blender]

I don't see how this is conclusive that his back skate is off the ice.

 

[boredmale]

 

[Emperoreddy]

Do the officials love their jobs so much that they'd overturn a good goal to send a game into OT during the holiday season?

Yes apparently. Honestly this is the type of minutia that the league doesn’t need.

Millimeters and vague definitions of possession shouldn’t be negating high skill plays. Especially in a league that claims they crave more goals.

It is stuff like this that is wrecking the NFL. What is a catch? What isn’t? Let’s bring the game to a hault for 5 minutes to argue about it.

I think a call like this, with the tech and angles we have and the vague reading of the rules becomes just subjective so just let the call on the ice stand. I don’t think we can give a conclusive, objective, answer on plays like this with what we have.

There is a place for replay in sports, but it has gotten out of control in all sports the last few years. Until you can get me that Super tennis tech to measure offsides with pinpoint accuracy I really don’t want to be watching reviews over millimeters.

 

[joe dirte]

I don't see how this is conclusive that his back skate is off the ice.

conclusive or not, do you think he was offside? I mean look at that, watch the play, doesn't it look offside to you?

 

[Blender]

conclusive or not, do you think he was offside? I mean look at that, watch the play, doesn't it look offside to you?

No. It was called good on the ice, and they need to be certain to overturn that.