Ongoing NHL thread - Part III

[BUD]

GOAL 6-5 Wings

 

[BUD]

6-5 Wings

 

[beantownmaniac]

Nice win Wings fans. Very entertaining game on national tv.

 

[BUD]

Nice win Wings fans. Very entertaining game on national tv.

Good high scoring game, on national tv.. Good game Bruins fans

 

[Dacks]

Coach's offside challenges are just SO awful. Get rid of that as a challengeable call, please.

I realized one reason I hate that challenge - it's a one way road. If the linesman misses an offside and you score, no matter how much later, the goal is disallowed. But if the linesman mistakenly calls an offside, on a two on one let's say, it's not like you can challenge and redo the two on one to see if you would have scored.

I can understand reviewing a play that immediately precedes a goal - and by immediately I mean milliseconds - but going back to the zone entry is too much.

 

[pixburgher66]

I realized one reason I hate that challenge - it's a one way road. If the linesman misses an offside and you score, no matter how much later, the goal is disallowed. But if the linesman mistakenly calls an offside, on a two on one let's say, it's not like you can challenge and redo the two on one to see if you would have scored.

I can understand reviewing a play that immediately precedes a goal - and by immediately I mean milliseconds - but going back to the zone entry is too much.

Amen to that. We shouldn't be slowing something down to 1/10th speed and zooming in to figure this stuff out. Not sure there's any middle ground with this either, just remove it as challengable.

 

[dash]

Worst case scenario - Team scores the Stanley Cup winning goal and fans/players go nuts, opposing coach challenges believing the play was offside 45 seconds earlier and the challenge is upheld.

 

[Wingingit]

Worst case scenario - Team scores the Stanley Cup winning goal and fans/players go nuts, opposing coach challenges believing the play was offside 45 seconds earlier and the challenge is upheld.

Worst case scenario (truly) would be to lose a Stanley Cup because the opposing team was blatantly off sides and the refs missed the call. A team doesn't lose if they are called off sides, the game will continue, fair competition will go on.

 

[elocomotive]

Worst case scenario (truly) would be to lose a Stanley Cup because the opposing team was blatantly off sides and the refs missed the call. A team doesn't lose if they are called off sides, the game will continue, fair competition will go on.

Disagree. I can accept at high speed that an offsides call would get missed and it isn't a critical part of the play because in most cases the defense and goalie still have an opportunity to stop the other team.

Here's a sport equivalent. A football team is driving and at the 20-yard line of their opponents. On first down, they throw an 8-yard pass ruled a catch and don't challenge it even though the players foot was out of bounds. They run for 5 yards on the next play and score a TD on the play after that. A team then challenges the 8-yard pass and the refs uphold it and it goes back to the 20-yard line.

There is a time shifting element here that is uncomfortable. We want review on plays like a goal where the play (1) JUST happened and (2) where the mistake by the ref gave the players no chance to correct it. If a goalie is interfered with, the defensive team clearly had no last chance to make the play and it comes right after a natural stop in play. If an offsides occurred, a team clearly still had a chance to stop the goal and it does NOT come from a natural stop in play - the team may have had the puck in the zone for a minute or longer after the missed call.

It's a dumb rule. And it's one I've seen go my team's way and the other team's way a couple times this year, and in both cases, I didn't feel good about the result.

Get rid of it. There is a difference between mandating accountability from the refs and mandating perfection. The former is an achievable goal and reasonable efforts should be made to ensure it. The latter is simply not possible and we shouldn't craft rules in the pursuit of impossible objectives.

 

[Comeds]

Maybe a solution would be for teams to earn "Offsides in the bank".

 

[Wingingit]

Disagree. I can accept at high speed that an offsides call would get missed and it isn't a critical part of the play because in most cases the defense and goalie still have an opportunity to stop the other team.

Here's a sport equivalent. A football team is driving and at the 20-yard line of their opponents. On first down, they throw an 8-yard pass ruled a catch and don't challenge it even though the players foot was out of bounds. They run for 5 yards on the next play and score a TD on the play after that. A team then challenges the 8-yard pass and the refs uphold it and it goes back to the 20-yard line.

There is a time shifting element here that is uncomfortable. We want review on plays like a goal where the play (1) JUST happened and (2) where the mistake by the ref gave the players no chance to correct it. If a goalie is interfered with, the defensive team clearly had no last chance to make the play and it comes right after a natural stop in play. If an offsides occurred, a team clearly still had a chance to stop the goal and it does NOT come from a natural stop in play - the team may have had the puck in the zone for a minute or longer after the missed call.

It's a dumb rule. And it's one I've seen go my team's way and the other team's way a couple times this year, and in both cases, I didn't feel good about the result.

Get rid of it. There is a difference between mandating accountability from the refs and mandating perfection. The former is an achievable goal and reasonable efforts should be made to ensure it. The latter is simply not possible and we shouldn't craft rules in the pursuit of impossible objectives.

So if a player is driving down ice and is a clear 1/2 step over the blue line offsides, then turns in on the defenseman, putting him ahead of the defensemen, picks up a pass and scores and the linesman misses the infraction, it should be a good goal? Wrong!

A challenge on a play has to happen right after, not a play later as you're football equivalency might suggest. Does the NFL actually call back plays like that? Honestly I don't no I haven't watched a game in twenty plus years? (side question certainly not the subject on hand)

The game, more the NHL should be striding towards perfection in game calls, nothing is more important than that for the refs. If technology assists so be-it.

When I see a play go against my team and it's a clear infraction, I personally might not like-it, but it's the proper call.

 

[elocomotive]

So if a player is driving down ice and is a clear 1/2 step over the blue line offsides, then turns in on the defenseman, putting him ahead of the defensemen, picks up a pass and scores and the linesman misses the infraction, it should be a good goal? Wrong!

How often is a guy 1/2 a step offsides and they miss it. That's pretty rare and I'm not sure I've ever even seen that.. The plays we are talking about are usually an inch or two and often nearly impossible to tell even on instant replay. They examined a replay in one of the Caps' games and took 6 minutes they had to watch it so often - that's longer than the overtime period itself!

Striving towards improvement? Fine. The NHL has more refs on the ice, review of goals on instant replay, and a more sensible discipline policy than years ago. I think it's clear they've done that. Striving toward perfection? That's where I think it goes a little off the rails because that is impossible in a system where you depend on human eyes, at high speed, and where subjectivity and intent sometimes have to be interpreted. If you want better called games, the crafting of rules to remove the subjectivity would be a much bigger improvement than the current offsides review shenanigans.

If your season or playoffs depended on an offsides call, then your team didn't do enough to put itself in position in the first place. The rule is absurd and you can't go back in time to make calls where many subsequent actions happened. I hate everything about this rule and people who demand perfection, in my opinion, don't operate in the real world where perfection (at least where human management of activities is concerned) is an impossibility.

 

[dash]

More commercial chatter between Simpson and Hughson during HNIC:

 

[forty_three]

Worst case scenario - Team scores the Stanley Cup winning goal and fans/players go nuts, opposing coach challenges believing the play was offside 45 seconds earlier and the challenge is upheld.

As long as it's Lindy Ruff losing the challenge, I am okay with it.

 

[pixburgher66]

How often is a guy 1/2 a step offsides and they miss it. That's pretty rare and I'm not sure I've ever even seen that.. The plays we are talking about are usually an inch or two and often nearly impossible to tell even on instant replay. They examined a replay in one of the Caps' games and took 6 minutes they had to watch it so often - that's longer than the overtime period itself!

Striving towards improvement? Fine. The NHL has more refs on the ice, review of goals on instant replay, and a more sensible discipline policy than years ago. I think it's clear they've done that. Striving toward perfection? That's where I think it goes a little off the rails because that is impossible in a system where you depend on human eyes, at high speed, and where subjectivity and intent sometimes have to be interpreted. If you want better called games, the crafting of rules to remove the subjectivity would be a much bigger improvement than the current offsides review shenanigans.

If your season or playoffs depended on an offsides call, then your team didn't do enough to put itself in position in the first place. The rule is absurd and you can't go back in time to make calls where many subsequent actions happened. I hate everything about this rule and people who demand perfection, in my opinion, don't operate in the real world where perfection (at least where human management of activities is concerned) is an impossibility.

You hurt me.

 

[elocomotive]

View attachment 89021

You hurt me.Y

I don't understand the pic because I don't know which team is entering the zone or what then happened such that it mattered.

 

[dash]

I don't understand the pic because I don't know which team is entering the zone or what then happened such that it mattered.

That would be Danny Briere of the Flyers being a little early crossing the blueline, eloco.

 

[Comeds]

That would be Danny Briere of the Flyers being a little early crossing the blueline, eloco.

Its actually an optical allusion though. The camera isn't directly on the blue line so that combined with the angle the light reflects from the ice, and Briere's height makes it look like a bad call. S'all good though.
PJ Stock talked about the physics of that on a recent Stock Exchange.

 

[dash]

By the way, comeds, I would like to thank your wife's team for putting a cork on the McJesus adoration for at least a couple of days.

 

[Comeds]

By the way, comeds, I would like to thank your wife's team for putting a cork on the McJesus adoration for at least a couple of days.

That game was a tough watch too, well more accurately a tough listen. It's all they talked about for most of the game.