hf101 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 In last night's game against the Ducks Charlie Coyle made a great play and scored a beaut of a breakaway goal. But was it onside? After a coaches challenge the goal was claimed a good goal by the NHL. Quote After reviewing all available replays and consulting with NHL Hockey Operations staff, the Linesman determined that Coyle had possession and control of the puck as he entered the attacking zone, even though his skates preceded the puck over the blue line. According to Rule 83.1, “a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered ‘off-side,’ provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.” Therefore the original call stands – good goal Minnesota Wild. Did he actually have control of the puck as he crossed the blue line as his stick was up in the air? via twitter @DimFilipovic here is the video: http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=44851 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I say yes. Having control does not mean you have to have your stick on the puck. As I understand the rule, you can skate backwards over the blue line if you are in control of the puck and you will be on-side. I suppose that could have changed though..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It looks very close on this view but it looked clean from the other side camera they gave. I would call it a good goal. Not enough evidence to reverse it at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Well, guys... Looking at it from a COMPLETELY objective point of view as a fan of a team that had lost 5 in a row and looked pitiful trying to score during that stretch...........HELL YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Yeah, I think that's a good goal and a good non-offsides call. I think he had possession by the typically accepted definition. They could have gone with a much more narrow--and, I think, nitpicky--definition and called it offsides. And that could have been justified in isolation, but I think it would have been contradictory with other on/offsides calls. Good goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.