HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Olympics: The Offside Goal (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=744627)

The Joker 03-01-2010 02:06 PM

The Offside Goal
 
Since from what I heard CTV didn't show anything. As you can see his back skate isn't even close to touching the ice so he's about two or three feet offside.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8297/offsidew.jpg

BruinsBtn 03-01-2010 02:07 PM

where's the puck?

Edt: watched the NBC replay at it's impossible to tell for sure. It looks like his back skate is off the ice, but if he's dragging it, then it's all good.

Buggsy 03-01-2010 02:08 PM

i see........nothing

DungeonK 03-01-2010 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker (Post 24203007)
Since from what I heard CTV didn't show anything. As you can see his back skate isn't even close to touching the ice so he's about two or three feet offside.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8297/offsidew.jpg

...You mean less than a foot.

Plus if I remember correctly he didn't even touch the puck on that play.

The Joker 03-01-2010 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DungeonK (Post 24203089)
...You mean less than a foot.

Plus if I remember correctly he didn't even touch the puck on that play.

His front foot is way more than a foot over the blue line.

The puck is about an inch across the blue line.

3074326 03-01-2010 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker (Post 24203105)
His front foot is way more than a foot over the blue line.

The puck is about an inch across the blue line.

Who cares about his front foot?

xtr3m 03-01-2010 02:12 PM

It often seemed like offsides and too many men are not penalties in Olympic hockey. The referring was that bad.

NyQuil 03-01-2010 02:12 PM

Meh, this kind of stuff happens.

The Joker 03-01-2010 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3074326 (Post 24203122)
Who cares about his front foot?

That's the only foot touching the ice..

RewBicks 03-01-2010 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3074326 (Post 24203122)
Who cares about his front foot?

His back foot was in the air. They showed it on NBC - the play was definitely offside, even their commentators acknowledge as much.

Nordique 03-01-2010 02:15 PM

The video replay is more accurate...he in fact was offsides though not by much(not near as much as that picture would suggest). The problem with that picture, as others pointed out, is that you can't see the puck, so it really tells us nothing. Check youtube and you might find the video of the same play.

As someone else pointed out, he did not touch the puck on that play. This doesn't excuse an offsides but it does add some context around the play.

IMO it was no big deal, a very close call that went the U.S.'s that happened to result in a goal. Every game has a handful of close calls that video replay shows us were in fact blown calls. How about the too many men on the ice missed call, when the canadian players back skate dragging across the ice as he stepped into the bench, blocked the clearing attempt by the U.S. That missed call had a much more substantial effect on the puck than the off wing being a few inches offsides on a play he didn't even factor into.

It was a great game, imo the officiating was good, not perfect, but good.

dystemper 03-01-2010 02:16 PM

i don't even know why this is a thread.

the refs and linesmen did an absolutely fantastic job. they called the most flagrant penalties and let both teams play a hard-hitting, north american style game. all of them were a non-factor in the best possible way. and only a retard could think otherwise.

mccreary showed why he is the best in the business and why both teams wanted him to be a referee.

i've seen threads whining about "canadian referees" -- what these keyboard warriors don't know is that both teams are given a heads up on who is officiating the game and can file a dispute in case they disagree with a decision and nominate their own choices.

3074326 03-01-2010 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RewBicks (Post 24203182)
His back foot was in the air. They showed it on NBC - the play was definitely offside, even their commentators acknowledge as much.

Ah, ignore my post then.

ToursLepantoVienna 03-01-2010 02:27 PM

OP: you're technically, albeit pedantically, correct, but this thread is irrelevant. It smacks of sour grapes from the winner. Why bother?

Grabovski 03-01-2010 02:29 PM

We still won so WHO CARES?

cbjerrisgaard 03-01-2010 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MapleLeafs38 (Post 24203538)
We still won so WHO CARES?

FTW

/thread

IRON JELLY* 03-01-2010 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordique (Post 24203215)
The video replay is more accurate...he in fact was offsides though not by much(not near as much as that picture would suggest). The problem with that picture, as others pointed out, is that you can't see the puck, so it really tells us nothing. Check youtube and you might find the video of the same play.

As someone else pointed out, he did not touch the puck on that play. This doesn't excuse an offsides but it does add some context around the play.

IMO it was no big deal, a very close call that went the U.S.'s that happened to result in a goal. Every game has a handful of close calls that video replay shows us were in fact blown calls. How about the too many men on the ice missed call, when the canadian players back skate dragging across the ice as he stepped into the bench, blocked the clearing attempt by the U.S. That missed call had a much more substantial effect on the puck than the off wing being a few inches offsides on a play he didn't even factor into.

It was a great game, imo the officiating was good, not perfect, but good.

Well, there was also a missed call when the Americans had too many men on the ice with 2:30 left in the 3rd period. It was pretty blatant, too.

But yeah, aside from some little things, the reffing was good for a change :)

ILuvLucic* 03-01-2010 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3074326 (Post 24203479)
Ah, ignore my post then.

Yeah we ignored it because it is irrelevant. If your back foot is not on the ice, your front foot is the one that counts. And in this case his front foot was offside. Is it that hard to comprehend, I understood that even before becoming an official.

The Man in White 03-01-2010 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordique (Post 24203215)
The video replay is more accurate...he in fact was offsides though not by much(not near as much as that picture would suggest). The problem with that picture, as others pointed out, is that you can't see the puck, so it really tells us nothing. Check youtube and you might find the video of the same play.

As someone else pointed out, he did not touch the puck on that play. This doesn't excuse an offsides but it does add some context around the play.

IMO it was no big deal, a very close call that went the U.S.'s that happened to result in a goal. Every game has a handful of close calls that video replay shows us were in fact blown calls. How about the too many men on the ice missed call, when the canadian players back skate dragging across the ice as he stepped into the bench, blocked the clearing attempt by the U.S. That missed call had a much more substantial effect on the puck than the off wing being a few inches offsides on a play he didn't even factor into.

It was a great game, imo the officiating was good, not perfect, but good.

Hahaha I saw that and was wondering why it wasn't called.

Preisst 03-01-2010 02:39 PM

I called it when it was live that it was offside. Whatever, it happens. I do wonder how much we'd be hearing about it if the team that lost the game got burnt by an offside goal. Think about it.

In any event it's not as if the referees pulled a "Stacey Livingstone" out there. I'm sure the more avid hockey fans around here remember that fiasco.

Wraparounds 03-01-2010 02:39 PM

To whoever mentioned something about Brown's back skate not touching the ice:

That doesn't matter. As a USA Hockey Referee, I know that the lines extend vertically ad infinitum. As long as his skate is in the plane of the blue line, it's not offsides.

tarheelhockey 03-01-2010 02:41 PM

IMO it's petty to say a goal shouldn't count because of a close offside call. Refs are not robots, and the call was close enough not to have any effect on the goal.

BruinsBtn 03-01-2010 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR Fan in PGH (Post 24203733)
To whoever mentioned something about Brown's back skate not touching the ice:

That doesn't matter. As a USA Hockey Referee, I know that the lines extend vertically ad infinitum. As long as his skate is in the plane of the blue line, it's not offsides.

You better check your rule book. The skate needs to be on the ice.

Mr Lahey* 03-01-2010 02:44 PM

Honestly, I m glad they scored.

Winning on a goal is much more entertaining than winning by holding a lead.

Cory Trevor 03-01-2010 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawno (Post 24203672)
Well, there was also a missed call when the Americans had too many men on the ice with 2:30 left in the 3rd period. It was pretty blatant, too.

But yeah, aside from some little things, the reffing was good for a change :)

The reffing was pretty clean in this game. There's a million little things that could have been called. It was a fairly called game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.