|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 9, 2019 9:31:35 GMT -4
They still needed another goal to win even if that counted. What I dont like about the offside challenge is it's only reviewable if a goal is scored to reverse a non-call. What about all the times dingus blows the whistle and calls an offside and I can prove he was wrong by video and it took away my odd man break? If you cant review or replace a lost scoring chance due to error why are we reversing a goal when the opposite occurs and linesman missed that it was offside. And in some cases a goal 90 seconds after the zone entry that has absolutely nothing to do with the eventual goal. Yet if they missed a high stick or hand pass that is clearly on video they're not allowed to see if that should also be blown dead.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 9, 2019 9:34:07 GMT -4
They still needed another goal to win even if that counted. What I dont like about the offside challenge is it's only reviewable if a goal is scored to reverse a non-call. What about all the times dingus blows the whistle and calls an offside and I can prove he was wrong by video and it took away my odd man break? If you cant review or replace a lost scoring chance due to error why are we reversing a goal when the opposite occurs and linesman missed that it was offside. True, it was no guarantee the Avs would have won anyways. Offside review is really going to bite the NHL in the ass at some point like the toe in the crease BS from 1999. Did that bite them in the ass though? I'd argue zero business was lost so outside of a few bitter Buffalo fans...how did it actually bite them? People say it did...and I probably once thought it did as well...but 20 years later Buffalo is the same market it was then essentially and the game is healthier then ever so hard to see where they were stinging at any point from that goal.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 9, 2019 9:41:57 GMT -4
The offside rule is a joke now - picture this, game winning goal scored at home by a team for the Cup, pandemonium ensues and then gets called back after a 10 minute review because a player is shown offside by a tenth of a millimeter when the play is zoomed in. Just hope it happens to a team I hate I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 9, 2019 10:53:46 GMT -4
The offside rule is a joke now - picture this, game winning goal scored at home by a team for the Cup, pandemonium ensues and then gets called back after a 10 minute review because a player is shown offside by a tenth of a millimeter when the play is zoomed in. Just hope it happens to a team I hate I guess. That's the risk of any video review. Bigger issue might be the contact on a goalie call. As a Leafs fan who watches ~80% of their games I can say that after these last 2-3 seasons I have no idea what the standard is for goalie interference. Offside is at least black or white...might be small 1/10000th of a millimeter but still black and white...interference is subjective to the person watching the replay. So you can a big team like SJ who plays a lot around the net and they score a series winning goal but a Pavelski touched the goalie in the process...whether it's actually a goal is never 100% in agreement. One thing with the offside calls...I don't think i've ever seen one called back that was not offside. But we can review 50 goal reviews about contact and find no agreement and one of us be pissed about every single decision...that's where review takes away from the sport.
|
|
|
Post by bois on May 9, 2019 10:57:18 GMT -4
The better team won the game but I agree with the outrage..... the goal should have counted in my opinion... the notion that coaching staffs can check their video from the bench or pressbox and review a play because someone had a foot in the air as they entered a zone or someone was in the process of a line change but not at all involved in the actual play (as last night) is ridiculous to me.... especially when you also consider last week Boston had a goal scored after a puck hit the mesh and fell in front of the net but couldn't challenge it because for some reason that isn't reviewable
Just let the refs decide the regular calls...... review the actual goal to ensure puck crosses the line legally..... and take the power out of the teams coaching staffs and their electronics
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 9, 2019 11:21:59 GMT -4
The better team won the game but I agree with the outrage..... the goal should have counted in my opinion... the notion that coaching staffs can check their video from the bench or pressbox and review a play because someone had a foot in the air as they entered a zone or someone was in the process of a line change but not at all involved in the actual play (as last night) is ridiculous to me.... especially when you also consider last week Boston had a goal scored after a puck hit the mesh and fell in front of the net but couldn't challenge it because for some reason that isn't reviewable Just let the refs decide the regular calls...... review the actual goal to ensure puck crosses the line legally..... and take the power out of the teams coaching staffs and their electronics Agreed. No matter how you slice it you need human input into the enforcing the rules of an NHL game so accept the small errors that come with it and do it like we did for 100+ years without near the frustration we see now. I'm on board that last nights offside goal if not called offside at the time should have been a goal. And accept that if once a decade someone scores on a blatant offside that its no different then any other missed call that takes place throughout a sporting event.
|
|
|
Post by downthemiddle on May 9, 2019 14:19:52 GMT -4
The offside rule is a joke now - picture this, game winning goal scored at home by a team for the Cup, pandemonium ensues and then gets called back after a 10 minute review because a player is shown offside by a tenth of a millimeter when the play is zoomed in. Just hope it happens to a team I hate I guess. Not for offside, but this exact situation did happen in the women's world's final this year.
|
|
|
Post by juliansteed on May 9, 2019 16:54:24 GMT -4
What break? The Avalanches had a guy offside and 6 guys on the ice as they scored. Landeskog wasn't involved with the play, bullshit call. The puck had cleared the zone as well, bullshit call. Offside has always been offside whether the player that's offside was involved in the play or not. The right call was (eventually) made. Now if your problem is with the NHL picking and choosing when to allow officials the opportunity to use video review, that's another matter. But there was nothing BS about the call itself. I don't expect this to change but it's too bad all doors for the bench weren't in the neutral zone.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 9, 2019 18:47:14 GMT -4
What break? The Avalanches had a guy offside and 6 guys on the ice as they scored. Landeskog wasn't involved with the play, bullshit call. The puck had cleared the zone as well, bullshit call. An offside is an offside. Plus, when you come off the ice, if the guy who jumps on for you is involved in the play before you're off, it's a penalty. Colorado had 5 guys in the play and he wasn't off. No bullshit about it.
|
|
|
Post by bois on May 10, 2019 8:35:08 GMT -4
Landeskog wasn't involved with the play, bullshit call. The puck had cleared the zone as well, bullshit call. An offside is an offside. Plus, when you come off the ice, if the guy who jumps on for you is involved in the play before you're off, it's a penalty. Colorado had 5 guys in the play and he wasn't off. No bullshit about it. not a black and white situation i'm willing to bet every dollar i have or will ever earn that there are hundreds of times where a player is not technically off the ice when someone is involved in the play and nothing gets called.. it's usually only called when the puck happens to be around the area where the change is occurring i didn't really notice the differences in the rinks in terms of bench doors being inside the zone.... until coaches corner last night (sidenote man Don is getting worse.... he literally cant string a thought together at all anymore)... the St Louis rink versus the San Jose one is a ridiculous difference for example maybe having a little box marked by the bench doors is the right idea... if player is indie that box and puck is nowhere near it... let play go.... think outside the box by adding a box hahaha p.s. that Boston defense that you said was awful...... looks very much like they gonna maybe win a cup or at least get to a final
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 10, 2019 9:18:26 GMT -4
Landeskog wasn't involved with the play, bullshit call. The puck had cleared the zone as well, bullshit call. An offside is an offside. Plus, when you come off the ice, if the guy who jumps on for you is involved in the play before you're off, it's a penalty. Colorado had 5 guys in the play and he wasn't off. No bullshit about it. And somehow if this situation happened to the Habs your tune would be a complete 180.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 10, 2019 10:58:33 GMT -4
An offside is an offside. Plus, when you come off the ice, if the guy who jumps on for you is involved in the play before you're off, it's a penalty. Colorado had 5 guys in the play and he wasn't off. No bullshit about it. And somehow if this situation happened to the Habs your tune would be a complete 180. Typical Billy playing dumb because he's a fan of the result of the call and is completely unable to be impartial. Saying "it's bullshit" and coming back with "but it WAS offside!" means you're missing the point of what was bullshit. It's that in round 2 in a game 7 we're even reviewing a goal because of an offside call. Some people view the entire process surrounding that as bullshit. It can be a "legal" play by the rule book and the rule still be "bullshit" to a huge group of fans no different then the foot in the crease.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 10, 2019 11:42:49 GMT -4
And somehow if this situation happened to the Habs your tune would be a complete 180. Typical Billy playing dumb because he's a fan of the result of the call and is completely unable to be impartial. Saying "it's bullshit" and coming back with "but it WAS offside!" means you're missing the point of what was bullshit. It's that in round 2 in a game 7 we're even reviewing a goal because of an offside call. Some people view the entire process surrounding that as bullshit. It can be a "legal" play by the rule book and the rule still be "bullshit" to a huge group of fans no different then the foot in the crease. You can argue that they should not review offsides, that's a separate discussion, but based on the current rules, that was an easy call.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 10, 2019 11:52:55 GMT -4
Typical Billy playing dumb because he's a fan of the result of the call and is completely unable to be impartial. Saying "it's bullshit" and coming back with "but it WAS offside!" means you're missing the point of what was bullshit. It's that in round 2 in a game 7 we're even reviewing a goal because of an offside call. Some people view the entire process surrounding that as bullshit. It can be a "legal" play by the rule book and the rule still be "bullshit" to a huge group of fans no different then the foot in the crease. You can argue that they should not review offsides, that's a separate discussion, but based on the current rules, that was an easy call. Too bad they can't enforce all the easy calls in the same manner as they have seemed to make easy calls looks very difficult throughout the post-season
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 10, 2019 12:54:10 GMT -4
You can argue that they should not review offsides, that's a separate discussion, but based on the current rules, that was an easy call. Too bad they can't enforce all the easy calls in the same manner as they have seemed to make easy calls looks very difficult throughout the post-season Nobody talks about it now because the Canes won anyways but the Caps got away with a puck over the glass call in OT in Game 7 which didn't get the review by the officials it should have .... looked like an easy call to me but obviously too hard to call.
|
|