A skate raised 1cm above the blueline, while technically offside, had absolutely no bearing on whether that goal was scored.
If that offsides not being called leads to a pass or shot that leads to a goal, it does have a bearing. That being said, I still 100% agree that it's being used by coaches as a "What the hell, why not? Let's just give it a shot." The best idea I've ever heard to tidy this up is what @wunderbar suggested: getting a challenge wrong leads to a minor penalty for Delay of Game. I'd be 100% fine with that.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I think the offsides rule is ultimately good, but that its enforcement and definition is too strict. The point of the offsides rule is to give the defending team an advantage by preventing the opposing team from setting up in their zone. A 'close' offsides does not accomplish that. IMO the offsides rule should be adjusted to only take effect in situations where the defending team isn't getting an advantage any longer. It should require much more egregious attacker presence before a play can be called offsides.
See I don't like this because than you're just moving the blue line and making it a new, subjective, invisible line. If the blue line is not the blue line where is the "line" in which they'll call offside? 1 foot over? 18 inches? Will it be different every day? (yes). Will different officials call that differently? (yes).
We need to take the subjectivity out of these decisions, not create more.
Let's just be happy that we have a definitive line for offsides. Imagine if it was like futbol (spelling to differentiate American Football) where the line for offsides is entirely dependent on where the last defender is as soon as the ball is kicked. Americans can't seem to grasp that concept, so people would lose their shit if this was applied to hockey.
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I think the offsides rule is ultimately good, but that its enforcement and definition is too strict. The point of the offsides rule is to give the defending team an advantage by preventing the opposing team from setting up in their zone. A 'close' offsides does not accomplish that. IMO the offsides rule should be adjusted to only take effect in situations where the defending team isn't getting an advantage any longer. It should require much more egregious attacker presence before a play can be called offsides.
See I don't like this because than you're just moving the blue line and making it a new, subjective, invisible line. If the blue line is not the blue line where is the "line" in which they'll call offside? 1 foot over? 18 inches? Will it be different every day? (yes). Will different officials call that differently? (yes).
We need to take the subjectivity out of these decisions, not create more.
my idea: if we *have* to have challenges about offsides is that the refs get one look at the replay. if it isn't obvious enough from a single look, then it couldn't possibly have had any real impact on the play and whatever the call on the ice was stands. leave the option in to fix obvious mistakes by the linesmen, but don't be ridiculous about it.
I think the offsides rule is ultimately good, but that its enforcement and definition is too strict. The point of the offsides rule is to give the defending team an advantage by preventing the opposing team from setting up in their zone. A 'close' offsides does not accomplish that. IMO the offsides rule should be adjusted to only take effect in situations where the defending team isn't getting an advantage any longer. It should require much more egregious attacker presence before a play can be called offsides.
See I don't like this because than you're just moving the blue line and making it a new, subjective, invisible line. If the blue line is not the blue line where is the "line" in which they'll call offside? 1 foot over? 18 inches? Will it be different every day? (yes). Will different officials call that differently? (yes).
We need to take the subjectivity out of these decisions, not create more.
my idea: if we *have* to have challenges about offsides is that the refs get one look at the replay. if it isn't obvious enough from a single look, then it couldn't possibly have had any real impact on the play and whatever the call on the ice was stands. leave the option in to fix obvious mistakes by the linesmen, but don't be ridiculous about it.
Am I wrong that Toronto is making all the calls on replays/challenges during the playoffs? So, ultimately, the refs on the ice are just looking at the replay to confirm what they saw at full speed was, indeed, correct.
I agree with the sentiment about this, and something should be at least discussed re: offsides. That being said, specific to the call in question, PIT immediately challenged, so their own crew believed there was a reason to do so. It's going to be argued for eternity whether this was used as a timeout for PIT so they could regroup.
Also, tell me if I'm wrong, but do you not lose your timeout for the game if you get a challenge wrong? Because I remember the announcers mentioning that later in the game. (i.e. "PIT got the offsides call right, so they still have their timeout to use if they need it here") If that's the case, then, yes, the "League" has recognized that coaches will use the review as a de facto timeout.
Am I wrong that Toronto is making all the calls on replays/challenges during the playoffs? So, ultimately, the refs on the ice are just looking at the replay to confirm what they saw at full speed was, indeed, correct.
I agree with the sentiment about this, and something should be at least discussed re: offsides. That being said, specific to the call in question, PIT immediately challenged, so their own crew believed there was a reason to do so. It's going to be argued for eternity whether this was used as a timeout for PIT so they could regroup.
Also, tell me if I'm wrong, but do you not lose your timeout for the game if you get a challenge wrong? Because I remember the announcers mentioning that later in the game. (i.e. "PIT got the offsides call right, so they still have their timeout to use if they need it here") If that's the case, then, yes, the "League" has recognized that coaches will use the review as a de facto timeout.
there are two types of reviews. A Coach's challenge and an official review.
Coaches can challenge two things. One is goaltender interference, the other is offside. If a coach loses that review, they lose their timeout. If they do not have a timeout, they cannot challenge a play. On a coach's challenge, the on ice officials make the final call. For goalie inerference, the referees do, for offside, the linesmen do. They talk to Toronto, but at the end the guys on the ice make the call.
All other types of reviews (i.e. did the puck go in, was it kicked in, etc) are all initiated by the league office in Toronto, and the final decisions there are made by the people in Toronto.
Pekke Rinne has fallen off sharply in this series. I hope the Predators can pull it together at home.
I don't think it can be understated here that he's also playing, by a pretty significant margin, the best offensive team in the league. For all that they have played below-average in these first two games, their striking ability is unparalleled in the league right now.
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
I admittedly haven't watched a ton of Nashville, but Rinne strikes me as a goalie who lives and dies by his defense - he's solid, but doesnt have the "stand on your head" games, and Nashville's defense is usually so strong that what shots he faces are rarely tough ones.
If the defense breaks down, he doesn't do as well.
Meanwhile, Murray can stand on his head, so the Pens live through their defense not being great due to injuries and what have you.
Jake Guentzel is now only 3 goals away from eclipsing Dino Ciccarelli for most goals by a rookie in the playoffs. And that's after playing an entire 7-game series without a goal.
I'm nearly certain that Ciccarelli did it on fewer games/rounds, but Guentzel's still having an amazing postseason.
Re: Defense, I don't have the time to look back on the games, but is Pittsburgh playing an offensive strategy that is pushing the Nashville defense into/on top of Rinne, that could be part of the reason for the multiple own-goals?
Also, guys like Troy Aikman and [all of baseball color commentary] should take note on how Eddie Olczyk is commenting this series. He's pointing out the subtle strategy changes (i.e. PIT dumping pucks into the corners so Rinne can't play them; the rotations both teams use when their Defenses pinch in) and clearly explaining them. It's to the point, for me, that I'm starting to finally see the larger picture of how those changes are affecting overall gameplay.
Man, I don't normally complain about this stuff, but Malkin was hit in the face, while on the ground, after the play was dead, in front of two refs, and no call? Seriously?
Posts
See I don't like this because than you're just moving the blue line and making it a new, subjective, invisible line. If the blue line is not the blue line where is the "line" in which they'll call offside? 1 foot over? 18 inches? Will it be different every day? (yes). Will different officials call that differently? (yes).
We need to take the subjectivity out of these decisions, not create more.
my idea: if we *have* to have challenges about offsides is that the refs get one look at the replay. if it isn't obvious enough from a single look, then it couldn't possibly have had any real impact on the play and whatever the call on the ice was stands. leave the option in to fix obvious mistakes by the linesmen, but don't be ridiculous about it.
I agree with the sentiment about this, and something should be at least discussed re: offsides. That being said, specific to the call in question, PIT immediately challenged, so their own crew believed there was a reason to do so. It's going to be argued for eternity whether this was used as a timeout for PIT so they could regroup.
Also, tell me if I'm wrong, but do you not lose your timeout for the game if you get a challenge wrong? Because I remember the announcers mentioning that later in the game. (i.e. "PIT got the offsides call right, so they still have their timeout to use if they need it here") If that's the case, then, yes, the "League" has recognized that coaches will use the review as a de facto timeout.
there are two types of reviews. A Coach's challenge and an official review.
Coaches can challenge two things. One is goaltender interference, the other is offside. If a coach loses that review, they lose their timeout. If they do not have a timeout, they cannot challenge a play. On a coach's challenge, the on ice officials make the final call. For goalie inerference, the referees do, for offside, the linesmen do. They talk to Toronto, but at the end the guys on the ice make the call.
All other types of reviews (i.e. did the puck go in, was it kicked in, etc) are all initiated by the league office in Toronto, and the final decisions there are made by the people in Toronto.
More the way he went down after the slapshot to the ankle.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
it feels like every team in the playoffs this year has done this good game/shit game thing
it's weird and boring
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
Also, that escalated quickly
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
I don't think it can be understated here that he's also playing, by a pretty significant margin, the best offensive team in the league. For all that they have played below-average in these first two games, their striking ability is unparalleled in the league right now.
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
If the defense breaks down, he doesn't do as well.
Meanwhile, Murray can stand on his head, so the Pens live through their defense not being great due to injuries and what have you.
It's funny, cause he, like the rest of the team, was awful in game one.
I don't think he's had back to back sub .900 games in the playoffs. Every time he has a bad game he bounces back impressivly
I'm nearly certain that Ciccarelli did it on fewer games/rounds, but Guentzel's still having an amazing postseason.
Re: Defense, I don't have the time to look back on the games, but is Pittsburgh playing an offensive strategy that is pushing the Nashville defense into/on top of Rinne, that could be part of the reason for the multiple own-goals?
Also, guys like Troy Aikman and [all of baseball color commentary] should take note on how Eddie Olczyk is commenting this series. He's pointing out the subtle strategy changes (i.e. PIT dumping pucks into the corners so Rinne can't play them; the rotations both teams use when their Defenses pinch in) and clearly explaining them. It's to the point, for me, that I'm starting to finally see the larger picture of how those changes are affecting overall gameplay.
Guentzel is at 12 goals in 21 games. Shooting 29%. An improvement from his regular season 20% shooting.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Update: game has taken a left turn.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
/Insert Sullivan joke here
(sorry, had to do it)
We're a fun town.