HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Another day, another badly blown coach's offsides challenge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2017, 07:02 PM
  #401
Lemonlimey
Registered User
 
Lemonlimey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Crestone
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 560
vCash: 500
These mental gymnastics of "the league office says its ok so now we must set about finding justification ourselves" is i hope just a minority opinion in Chi-town. To redefine possession itself as whether your stick is (actually physically touching) in contact with the puck even while having already handled it (receiving a pass) for 3 strides and 2 touches, its embarrassing. Imagine this same logic applied to dribbling a basketball while stepping out of bounds. "Was the hand directly touching the ball during the exact moment the foot touched the line? if not then the player wasn't in possession to begin with have fun"


Last edited by Lemonlimey: 03-20-2017 at 07:51 PM.
Lemonlimey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:04 PM
  #402
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemonlimey View Post
Will any rational Chicago fans show up here to help restore faith in your fans? These mental gymnastics are bending time and space and i hope just a minority opinion
I'm a rational Blackhawk fan and I've showed up. What can I help you with?

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:04 PM
  #403
Community
44 is Rielly good
 
Community's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Darkest Timeline
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
I don't understand. So if a player has full control of the puck, 6 inches outside the blue line, with a teammate in the zone, and he fires the puck along the wall to in back of the goalie, that should be immediate offside?

That does eliminate the delayed offside.
He doesn't have posession when crossing the blue-line. What I'm trying to get at is that the Panik one was debated because he didn't actually touch the puck immediately, despite having posession. The Panarin offside wasn't considered offside because he had possession? when he crossed the line.

Both these plays should be offside IMO. Easy way to fix that is call it offside when the puck crosses the blueline and a player has posession of the puck.


Sorry, having difficulty conveying what I mean, hope this makes sense.

Community is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:07 PM
  #404
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Community View Post
He doesn't have posession when crossing the blue-line. What I'm trying to get at is that the Panik one was debated because he didn't actually touch the puck immediately, despite having posession. The Panarin offside wasn't considered offside because he had possession? when he crossed the line.

Both these plays should be offside IMO. Easy way to fix that is call it offside when the puck crosses the blueline and a player has posession of the puck.


Sorry, having difficulty conveying what I mean, hope this makes sense.
So instead of firing the puck along the boards to in back of the goalie, he only "fires" it 5 feet inside the blueline. Is it then immediate offside?

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:09 PM
  #405
TheForsbergShow
Registered User
 
TheForsbergShow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
I don't understand. So if a player has full control of the puck, 6 inches outside the blue line, with a teammate in the zone, and he fires the puck along the wall to in back of the goalie, that should be immediate offside?

That does eliminate the delayed offside.
I think he means more along the sense that delayed offside becomes sort of a subset on the rules of regular offside where that rule still applies.

As it stands now it can be interpreted that regular offside (moving the puck in after anther player) is no longer relevant in this situation which IMO is kind of silly. Toews was already in a offside position with the puck being brought in by another player afterwards. It shouldn't just cancel out what the purpose of offside is.

Makes little sense why in one situation it is ok to bring the puck in after by a hair and another the play is blown dead immediately. Either way, the player without the puck is in the attacking zone before the puck is. This is all contigent on it being brought in by a player, not being dumped in would it be whistled down.


Last edited by TheForsbergShow: 03-20-2017 at 07:18 PM.
TheForsbergShow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:11 PM
  #406
Community
44 is Rielly good
 
Community's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Darkest Timeline
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
So instead of firing the puck along the boards to in back of the goalie, he only "fires" it 5 feet inside the blueline. Is it then immediate offside?
I think if it seems like he has possession (as in its within his reach), than it should be called. If you don't agree, thats fine.

Community is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:16 PM
  #407
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Community View Post
I think if it seems like he has possession (as in its within his reach), than it should be called. If you don't agree, thats fine.
You understand that you are taking an objective reality and turning it into a subjective assessment, correct?

That's like changing "the puck must completely cross the goal line" to "did it seem like it should be a goal"

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:18 PM
  #408
Community
44 is Rielly good
 
Community's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Darkest Timeline
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
You understand that you are taking an objective reality and turning it into a subjective assessment, correct?

That's like changing "the puck must completely cross the goal line" to "did it seem like it should be a goal"
What the hell are you talking about... That's nothing like what I said.

Community is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:20 PM
  #409
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Everyone needs to realize that if all refs were replaced with never-fail robots with infinite vision and loaded with all the rules in the rule book and current intended interpretations (kinda like a chess engine) ... and those robots were in use during that play, the robots would not have called offside.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:23 PM
  #410
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Community View Post
I think if it seems like he has possession
This is a subjective call.

Just like when a late check occurs. It requires the ref to make a subjective interpretation of the "lateness".

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:25 PM
  #411
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
Everyone needs to realize that if all refs were replaced with never-fail robots with infinite vision and loaded with all the rules in the rule book and current intended interpretations (kinda like a chess engine) ... and those robots were in use during that play, the robots would not have called offside.
I do agree however that it is almost a miracle that human refs got this right.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:27 PM
  #412
Anglesmith
Global Moderator
Skates like a deer
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,296
vCash: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemonlimey View Post
These mental gymnastics of "NHL says its ok so now we must set about finding justification ourselves"
Can't speak for anyone else, but when I saw the play I looked up the rule and it confirmed my suspicions. Could it perhaps be the other way around? "I thought it was offside so I'm going to try to twist the rule to fit that impression and if not I'll kick and scream about how the rule is written wrong!"

Anglesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:22 PM
  #413
Nick1219
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
All I said was that there's no way Panik was "timing" his touches deliberately. Watch it at full speed and you'll see what I mean. The time that passes between the events is imperceptible, you need a slow-mo to even see it as non-simultaneous. No human being can perceive and react to events that occur in such a small fraction of time, we literally don't have the physiological tools to do that.

As for who makes judgments on offside calls, that's the linesman's job description. For several decades it was a pretty non-controversial duty, but we've "fixed" that now.



See, that's just a nonsensical way to think about the game. Possession is a state of being, not a unit of measurement.
Okay... and what I'm trying to say is that at what point in your mind do you give the athlete the benefit of the doubt and not call that offside? Did he just need to wait a split second longer before playing the puck again? Lift his stick off the ice just slightly while still fully possessing the puck?

You want to add grey area to a rule that's already black and white. If you touch the black rubber puck with your stick once it fully crosses the blue line and your teammate isn't at least touching the blue line, it's offside. People are needlessly making this more complicated then it needs to be.

Is this what review should be used for? God no. I 100% agree with you there, but by the rule book that hasn't changed recently, this is an onside play.


Ps. I've had enough of people calling me Hawks fan. I'm a Canucks fan. I despise the Hawks. Absolutely despise them.

Nick1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:41 PM
  #414
TKB
Registered User
 
TKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 759
vCash: 521
So does this interpretation mean that Panik would have been eligible to be checked on that play?

TKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:44 PM
  #415
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1219 View Post
Okay... and what I'm trying to say is that at what point in your mind do you give the athlete the benefit of the doubt and not call that offside? Did he just need to wait a split second longer before playing the puck again? Lift his stick off the ice just slightly while still fully possessing the puck?

You want to add grey area to a rule that's already black and white. If you touch the black rubber puck with your stick once it fully crosses the blue line and your teammate isn't at least touching the blue line, it's offside. People are needlessly making this more complicated then it needs to be.

Is this what review should be used for? God no. I 100% agree with you there, but by the rule book that hasn't changed recently, this is an onside play.


Ps. I've had enough of people calling me Hawks fan. I'm a Canucks fan. I despise the Hawks. Absolutely despise them.
I completely and utterly disagree. The Hawks are a very lovable team.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 10:13 PM
  #416
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 49,997
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1219 View Post
Okay... and what I'm trying to say is that at what point in your mind do you give the athlete the benefit of the doubt and not call that offside? Did he just need to wait a split second longer before playing the puck again? Lift his stick off the ice just slightly while still fully possessing the puck?
I mean... do you watch a lot of hockey? Do you have the ability to identify a possession when you see one? I can only assume so.

All this stuff about "How many inches does the stick need to be from the puck before it's not a possession, hmmmmmmmmmmmm Mr. Fraser???" is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody thinks about hockey this way. It's not friggin' football, you don't get the chain links out to determine possessions. You look at that play and use your human brain to determine whether something is a hockey play, and if the player disagrees then he gets his 3 seconds to cry about it and move on. Then you play the rest of the game enjoying yourself instead of consulting your legal library to try and win a semantic point against the rest of the hockey world.

Quote:
People are needlessly making this more complicated then it needs to be.
I can only laugh when I read something like this. 30 years of blood-curdlingly subjective officiating produced exactly zero controversy about this rule.

Less than two full seasons of offside challenges based on the misguided goal of getting everything objectively perfect, and now we are seriously talking about rewriting the rules and replacing camera systems, because otherwise we'll have to be ready to hold our microscopes up to the TV at any second to check and see if there was a micrometer of contact between stick and puck on every zone entry. But yeah, that's a much less complicated standard to uphold.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 10:16 PM
  #417
Chrisinroch
Registered User
 
Chrisinroch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vouvray
Country: United States
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
Delayed offsides is merely intended to increase the flow of the game and eliminate unnecessary whistles. It is not intended to give the attacking team an advantage.

Chrisinroch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 10:46 PM
  #418
stampedingviking
Registered User
 
stampedingviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Basingstoke
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
The question of possession is completely irrelevant. The only question is when did Panik actually touch the puck once it was in the zone.
If he didn't have possession of the puck, he was attempting to get possession, therefore the play was offside.

If he had possession, the play was offside.

Stripeys got it wrong.

stampedingviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 08:05 AM
  #419
izlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1219 View Post
Okay... and what I'm trying to say is that at what point in your mind do you give the athlete the benefit of the doubt and not call that offside? Did he just need to wait a split second longer before playing the puck again? Lift his stick off the ice just slightly while still fully possessing the puck?

You want to add grey area to a rule that's already black and white. If you touch the black rubber puck with your stick once it fully crosses the blue line and your teammate isn't at least touching the blue line, it's offside. People are needlessly making this more complicated then it needs to be.

Is this what review should be used for? God no. I 100% agree with you there, but by the rule book that hasn't changed recently, this is an onside play.


Ps. I've had enough of people calling me Hawks fan. I'm a Canucks fan. I despise the Hawks. Absolutely despise them.
Perfect post. Could not agree more. I am also not a hawks fan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I mean... do you watch a lot of hockey? Do you have the ability to identify a possession when you see one? I can only assume so.

All this stuff about "How many inches does the stick need to be from the puck before it's not a possession, hmmmmmmmmmmmm Mr. Fraser???" is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody thinks about hockey this way. It's not friggin' football, you don't get the chain links out to determine possessions. You look at that play and use your human brain to determine whether something is a hockey play, and if the player disagrees then he gets his 3 seconds to cry about it and move on. Then you play the rest of the game enjoying yourself instead of consulting your legal library to try and win a semantic point against the rest of the hockey world.
Do you watch a lot of hockey? Do you realize that between "stick handling with possession" and "purposefully not touching the puck while waiting for your teammate to tag up" there is a spectrum of a million different combinations of "stick 3 inches away and waiting .5 extra seconds" and "stick 10 inches away and waiting .25 extra seconds" and you're trying to introduce some crazy rule that makes a linesman judge what's going on in a players mind instead of just calling it offside if it's touched offside

izlez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:18 AM
  #420
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 49,997
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by izlez View Post
Do you watch a lot of hockey? Do you realize that between "stick handling with possession" and "purposefully not touching the puck while waiting for your teammate to tag up" there is a spectrum of a million different combinations of "stick 3 inches away and waiting .5 extra seconds" and "stick 10 inches away and waiting .25 extra seconds" and you're trying to introduce some crazy rule that makes a linesman judge what's going on in a players mind instead of just calling it offside if it's touched offside
I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous way to think about this game.

Referees make judgment calls about intent all the time during a hockey game. It happens constantly. Think about a potential icing call where a defenseman drags his feet and the linesman waves it off. Do you think the linesman is sitting there saying "hmmmmm the puck is moving at 14 mph and the defenseman is 8.6 feet away yet he's only taking .75 strides per second *punches numbers into calculator* which falls below the minimum threshold for intent"... no, he looks at it and says "not even trying to play the puck". This happens constantly during a hockey game, and it's really not that hard to live with.

When it comes to something like stickhandling during an offside, there's a clear and visible difference between a forehand-backhand shift, as compared to deliberately letting the puck coast for a while so your guy can get onside. Anyone who watches hockey regularly, and certainly any NHL official, can easily perceive that difference. And if they blow it, it's such an irrelevant detail that literally nobody in the world will care...

... UNTIL the rules give coaches the power to make a huge issue out of it, and potentially change the outcome of games because of it. THEN it's an issue, but not until then.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:26 AM
  #421
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,856
vCash: 500
Why are you guys going on about possession? It's about whether or not panik touched the puck while toews was in an offside position. That is unclear at best, therefore good non over turn.

Renbarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:55 AM
  #422
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Why are you guys going on about possession? It's about whether or not panik touched the puck while toews was in an offside position. That is unclear at best, therefore good non over turn.
I don't know such things, but previously cited in this thread is the following rule:
"If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the
attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a
loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own
zone, OR who is about to make physical contact with the defending
puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation."
As the argument I crafted previously, the argument is that Panik was trying to gain possession of a loose puck ... like with any dump in. If so, apparently offside should have been ruled. Unfortunately, the rule book seems silent on the concept of "continuing to control a controlled puck." Of course, without touching the puck itself. I will concede, and even argue, that from the moment Panik pushes the puck into the zone, he was attempting to either "control" or "regain control".

The rule book has a hole, a flaw. The rules didn't seem to consider the exact situation we are dealing with here.

Like the play in the previous game with Panarin, what to do when something happens that the rule book didn't consider?

IHMO,
1) let the play stand as called
2) Immediately call a press conference and explain the issue and let everybody know how that exact play is to be interpreted from this point forward.
3) As quickly as possible amend the rule book to account for this scenario.

The fact that these 2 plays happened to the same team in back-to-back games means that the Hawks should be considered the Stanley Cup champions for '16/'17.


Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:11 AM
  #423
Paranoid Android
mug mug mug
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
"attempts to gain possession of a loose puck" - I wouldn't consider this play as a loose puck. Don't think it is relevant in this scenario. The first bullet point "any member of the attacking team touches the puck" is all you need.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:16 AM
  #424
Eowin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
"attempts to gain possession of a loose puck" - I wouldn't consider this play as a loose puck. Don't think it is relevant in this scenario. The first bullet point "any member of the attacking team touches the puck" is all you need.
FWIW, in my opinion, I agree, Panik was not trying to "regain possession of a loose puck" (as with any normal dump in on a delayed offside). From where I sit, he was "continuing to control a controlled puck". Without touching it, of course.

The problem is the rules don't seem to consider that scenario.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:21 AM
  #425
Paranoid Android
mug mug mug
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eowin View Post
FWIW, in my opinion, I agree, Panik was not trying to "regain possession of a loose puck" (as with any normal dump in on a delayed offside). From where I sit, he was "continuing to control a controlled puck". Without touching it, of course.

The problem is the rules don't seem to consider that scenario.
True. Just like the Arvidsson off-side review a few weeks ago. The rulebook doesn't explicitly define what happens when both feet are in the air.

I'd have to imagine the officials have a non-published set of notes that go into more detail since so much of the rulebook is open to interpretation. Or at the very least have off-season meetings to discuss these interpretations so everyone is on the same page.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.