Widening the Blue Line

[Butch 19]

why not get rid of the blue line and use the Football(soccer) Offside rules?

if anything, soccer needs a blue line / offside line.

 

[missingchicklet]

why not get rid of the blue line and use the Football(soccer) Offside rules?

There is no way on earth refs could manage that in hockey. How would refs be able to stay even with the players to make the call a la the linesmen in soccer?

 

[Sniper99]

Is there really any reason to stop cherry picking other than "because"? Would cherrypicking suddenly be prevalent, with forwards taking themselves out of the play in hopes of receiving a low-percentage 165-foot pass?

Answer: of course not.

I couldnt agree more. I think the cherry picking excuses are pretty weak.

 

[embryoniccrusadah]

This. I honestly think it is a pointless change. Blue line could be 8 feet wide and people would still get called offsides by 1 cm.

Well Im mostly aiming to decrease the amount of offsides and the associated challenges/callbacks, not to eliminate them completely. If the whole rink was a blue line, this would never happen, and if the line was 1cm thick, it would likely happen more often. Just less, not none.

 

[Machinehead]

Why don't we just get rid of the challenge?

 

[Mubiki]

Naw.

As long as you have defined ends, you will have close calls. Besides, they struggle to get it right now; last thing we need is another change.

 

[Regnes]

Wouldn't solve anything. Players will always be trained to play it as tight as possible.

 

[Bones Malone]

Just change the review rule for offside to "If conclusive evidence can't be observed in 60 seconds or less then the call on the ice stands."

Review was put in to catch mistakes, not split hairs. If it takes more than 60 seconds to determine someone was offside, they are splitting hairs.

 

[Guardian17]

Wasn't the blueline already widened in 2005?

I think they tried it in the AHL.

 

[StoneHands]

I'm not sure how making the line 5 feet wide would make it any difference than if it were 5 inches wide. There is still the determining edge which at the end of the day is all that matters and that's where it comes down to centimeters or even milometers at times.

What I would like to see is the blue line becomes a sort of "free zone" but only in reviews. When I say this I mean if the puck is on the blue line and a players skate is in the offensive zone, the play is onside in a review situation. This would give more validity to the call on the ice and it would basically have to be an egregiously missed call to overturn it. I'm tired of seeing goals called back because of an inch that really doesn't impact the pay. It just slows the game down. Kind of like in the NFL when a coach challenges the spot on the field. Sometimes after review it's pretty clear that the ball is maybe 6 inches off of where it should have been spotted but they won't overturn it unless it's a significant difference or it would have resulted in a first down. Refs should still make the call based on the current criteria of the puck crossing the determining edge of the blue line before a players skate but this way it would give a little bit of lenience on a call that in 99.9% of situations wouldn't change the result of the play.

Another suggestion if that doesn't work would be that if any part of the puck is in the offensive zone when a player enters the zone, that would be considered onside in review. Again, the ref should still make the call based on the determining edge but it gives them a couple inches of leeway when making the call so a team really can't challenge it and win unless it was very clearly offside.

It probably needs some tweaking but I'm personally just tired of seeing goals just to see that they were taken back because a guy that never touched the puck was offside by a CM 10 seconds earlier.

 

[Jarey Curry]

And the pp becomes more decisive

 

[Syrinx]

This will not stop guys being off by 10 CM. They will always get as close to the line as they can without going over. That is not going to change.

I still love the idea of wider blue lines. It makes both the attacking zone and neutral zone larger. That would create more offense without any significant changes to anything.

 

[Chootoi]

I think they tried it in the AHL.

correct. They widened the blue lines and center line from 1 ft to 3 ft

 

[embryoniccrusadah]

I think they tried it in the AHL.

Did it have any noticeable affect?? And did they bring the rule in for the reasons I suggested or was it implemented for other reasons?

 

[Hackett]

if anything, soccer needs a blue line / offside line.

Speaking of football, I've caught some of the futsal world cup, and it's great. It has no offsides, and it really shows off the footwork/skill that these guys have. I haven't seen any cherry picking either.

As for the NHL, I think bobby Smith came up with this wide blue line idea many years ago. I'm not opposed to it, but I question it's effectiveness.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Certainly wouldn't hurt. But I'm also of the belief that offside should be called more loosely.

 

[lomiller1]

I think it's frustrating because the rule was made to prevent players from cherry picking, which obviously makes sense. But when someone's offsides by half an inch, does that really give the attacking team an advantage? But I actually like that, I think that would be a good thing to implement.

This. The idea that this needs to be called perfectly and subject to video review is misguided. The intended result of the rule is still accomplished even if a player turns out to be just slightly off side so there is no reason to disrupt games to review video.

 

[Shmuffalo]

I definitely like the idea