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
03-19-2017, 08:55 PM
  #101
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kingslayer View Post
The puck was 5 feet over before Toews was even close to the line.
Yes, that's true. But that's not the rule. Learn the rule before complaining.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 08:56 PM
  #102
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
 
syz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,095
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joutsen05 View Post
Avs fan here, and also coincidentally a linesman. Not a pro, but I work junior leagues so I'm not a complete bum.

Believe it or not , it is inconclusive. When the puck comes across the blue line, Toews is absolutely illegally in the zone, but Panik IS NOT TOUCHING THE PUCK. For this brief time period, it is a delayed offside, and *technically* the linesman should have signalled as such, but it was really quick. It is absolutely no different than if Panik had shot the puck in while Toews was in the zone (a delayed offside scenario you are all familiar with).

Once Panik touches the puck again, Toews skate is much closer to the blue line. It looks like his skateblade *may* be touching the outer edge of the blue line, but alas it is INCONCLUSIVE.

The Avs meltdown that followed was a complete embarrassment.

For those of you saying the linesman should be decked by Wideman, give your head a shake, it is petty and immature to say those things.

And for the record I believe they blew the call in the Minnesota game a while back

syz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 08:57 PM
  #103
Eowin
Registered User
 
Eowin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I now understand the refs decision, but it's an interpretation of the offside rule I was not aware of.

Hard to tell if the refs were right, but you can certainly make an argument that it is inconclusive and the call on the ice needs to stand.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 08:57 PM
  #104
Kunta Kinte
Registered User
 
Kunta Kinte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Laurentides
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Thats disgusting.

Heads should fall for that. It aint even a close call..

Kunta Kinte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 08:58 PM
  #105
Marner
The future
 
Marner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 575
vCash: 500
wow lol nhl

Marner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 08:59 PM
  #106
The Kingslayer
Registered User
 
The Kingslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Siem Reap, Cambodia
Country: Cambodia
Posts: 35,257
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
Yes, that's true. But that's not the rule. Learn the rule before complaining.
Panik was in full control of the puck. DOnt be a homer. You know it and everyone else knows it. Im sure you thought that Wild play was offside aswell when you guys got screwed over amirite? Yah.

The Kingslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:01 PM
  #107
clydesdale line
Registered User
 
clydesdale line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 6,218
vCash: 500
Even Hawks fans are in agreement with this one. Avs fans have every right to be pissed off. Although, I think they're good with it lottery wise. This might be a makeup call from the Minnesota game.

clydesdale line is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:01 PM
  #108
theaub
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,338
vCash: 50
I don't get how Panik wouldn't be in control of the puck here but Panarin was in control last night.

One of the two has to be wrong.

theaub is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:02 PM
  #109
Joutsen05
Registered User
 
Joutsen05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syz View Post
How are you in possession if you aren't touching the puck ?

Possession isn't defined as some abitrary time period during which the puck is "close to you" or something. Panik was mid stick handle, the puck was physically not touching his blade, for that small time period he was not in possession or control of the puck

common example: a player can enter the zone before the puck if he has possession. If he is not touching the puck in that instant, he is deemed to not have control, and it is offside

Joutsen05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:02 PM
  #110
chet1926
Registered User
 
chet1926's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 6,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joutsen05 View Post
Avs fan here, and also coincidentally a linesman. Not a pro, but I work junior leagues so I'm not a complete bum.

Believe it or not , it is inconclusive. When the puck comes across the blue line, Toews is absolutely illegally in the zone, but Panik IS NOT TOUCHING THE PUCK. For this brief time period, it is a delayed offside, and *technically* the linesman should have signalled as such, but it was really quick. It is absolutely no different than if Panik had shot the puck in while Toews was in the zone (a delayed offside scenario you are all familiar with).

Once Panik touches the puck again, Toews skate is much closer to the blue line. It looks like his skateblade *may* be touching the outer edge of the blue line, but alas it is INCONCLUSIVE.

The Avs meltdown that followed was a complete embarrassment.

For those of you saying the linesman should be decked by Wideman, give your head a shake, it is petty and immature to say those things.

And for the record I believe they blew the call in the Minnesota game a while back
I'm sorry but if your a linesman and you honestly think that it was inconclusive that the skater was in control of the puck, you need to quit. The guy is stick handling looking down at the puck, I don't how much more in control of the puck you can be. The skater had control of the puck for a good 5 strides in the neutral zone before crossing into the attacking zone.

If the interpretation of in control is having the puck on your stick the second you cross the line then no one is ever in control while crossing the line.

chet1926 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:02 PM
  #111
Eowin
Registered User
 
Eowin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kingslayer View Post
Panik was in full control of the puck. DOnt be a homer. You know it and everyone else knows it. Im sure you thought that Wild play was offside aswell when you guys got screwed over amirite? Yah.
For this interpretation, "in control of the puck" is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the puck is actually touching the stick.

I grant, it is complicated, but the call seems correct.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:03 PM
  #112
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
 
syz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,095
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joutsen05 View Post
How are you in possession if you aren't touching the puck ?

Possession isn't defined as some abitrary time period during which the puck is "close to you" or something. Panik was mid stick handle, the puck was physically not touching his blade, for that small time period he was not in possession or control of the puck

common example: a player can enter the zone before the puck if he has possession. If he is not touching the puck in that instant, he is deemed to not have control, and it is offside
By this logic I would be onside literally every time I pushed the puck across the blue line to myself and lifted my stick off the ice as it crossed, regardless of where my teammates were.

Please be the linesman in my games.

syz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:04 PM
  #113
Semyon Says
grocery stick
 
Semyon Says's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: downtown poundtown
Posts: 9,270
vCash: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joutsen05 View Post
How are you in possession if you aren't touching the puck ?

Possession isn't defined as some abitrary time period during which the puck is "close to you" or something. Panik was mid stick handle, the puck was physically not touching his blade, for that small time period he was not in possession or control of the puck

common example: a player can enter the zone before the puck if he has possession. If he is not touching the puck in that instant, he is deemed to not have control, and it is offside
are you saying that a player stick handling a puck is, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession.

Semyon Says is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:05 PM
  #114
Hemmerfan4eva
Registered User
 
Hemmerfan4eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 279
vCash: 500
No doubt that was offside......You have to really stretch the rules interpretation​ to come to any other conclusion.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm annoyed that the NHL doubled down rather than admit the mistake.

Hemmerfan4eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:05 PM
  #115
Blitzago
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet1926 View Post
I'm sorry but if your a linesman and you honestly think that it was inconclusive that the skater was in control of the puck, you need to quit. The guy is stick handling looking down at the puck, I don't how much more in control of the puck you can be. The skater had control of the puck for a good 5 strides in the neutral zone before crossing into the attacking zone.

If the interpretation of in control is having the puck on your stick the second you cross the line then no one is ever in control while crossing the line.
Who cares what he was doing in the Neutral zone, do you understand how delayed offsides work?

Blitzago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:05 PM
  #116
Eowin
Registered User
 
Eowin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syz View Post
By this logic I would be onside literally every time I pushed the puck across the blue line to myself and lifted my stick off the ice as it crossed, regardless of where my teammates were.

Please be the linesman in my games.
The only question seems to be did Panik's stick actually touch the puck before Toews tagged-up.

Eowin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:05 PM
  #117
theaub
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,338
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joutsen05 View Post
How are you in possession if you aren't touching the puck ?

Possession isn't defined as some abitrary time period during which the puck is "close to you" or something. Panik was mid stick handle, the puck was physically not touching his blade, for that small time period he was not in possession or control of the puck

common example: a player can enter the zone before the puck if he has possession. If he is not touching the puck in that instant, he is deemed to not have control, and it is offside
By that standard, should the below goal have counted?

https://www.nhl.com/news/coachs-chal...gs/c-287594690

I don't see how that can count as possession and control, but it wouldn't in the Panik play tonight.

There is just a whole lot of inconsistency and its going to eventually show up in a Game 7 and then this stupid challenge will disappear.

theaub is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:06 PM
  #118
Blitzago
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syz View Post
By this logic I would be onside literally every time I pushed the puck across the blue line to myself and lifted my stick off the ice as it crossed, regardless of where my teammates were.

Please be the linesman in my games.
He never touched the puck inside the blueline until toews had tagged up...

Blitzago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:06 PM
  #119
Ubi Sunt
Hater/Loser
 
Ubi Sunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,871
vCash: 500
Toews's intangibles were touching the blue line the whole time

Ubi Sunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:07 PM
  #120
Jonas1235
Registered User
 
Jonas1235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,994
vCash: 500
did 19 not check up when the player bringing the puck into the zone bobbled it?

Jonas1235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:07 PM
  #121
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 34,516
vCash: 500
Bush league gonna bush league.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:07 PM
  #122
Hemmerfan4eva
Registered User
 
Hemmerfan4eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semyon Says View Post
are you saying that a player stick handling a puck is, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession, in possession, not in posession.
Exactly. Normally they define possession and control fairly loosely for onside entries.....All of the sudden it's now only when touching the stick?? If nothing else we need consistency.

Hemmerfan4eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:09 PM
  #123
Semyon Says
grocery stick
 
Semyon Says's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: downtown poundtown
Posts: 9,270
vCash: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaub View Post
By that standard, should the below goal have counted?

https://www.nhl.com/news/coachs-chal...gs/c-287594690

I don't see how that can count as possession and control, but it wouldn't in the Panik play tonight.

There is just a whole lot of inconsistency and its going to eventually show up in a Game 7 and then this stupid challenge will disappear.
if you say panik didn't have possession, than this goal absolutely would be offside.


FIGURE IT OUT NHL.

I'm all for reviews and taking time if they get the call right, but there is literally no point if the duff it consistently.

Semyon Says is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:10 PM
  #124
Semyon Says
grocery stick
 
Semyon Says's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: downtown poundtown
Posts: 9,270
vCash: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Sunt View Post
Toews's intangibles were touching the blue line the whole time
vaild point. top 100.
#ThingsMalkinCantDo

close thread.

Semyon Says is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2017, 09:12 PM
  #125
Blitzago
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semyon Says View Post
if you say panik didn't have possession, than this goal absolutely would be offside.


FIGURE IT OUT NHL.

I'm all for reviews and taking time if they get the call right, but there is literally no point if the duff it consistently.
Those are nothing alike, in that detroit play he carried it over, and had no one requires to tag up.

Is this so hard to understand?

Blitzago 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 08:50 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.