The Dreaded Offside Rule ......

[Trefilov22]

Lol

 

[Honest Bender]

What if offsides is removed, but so is the redline, but you bring back the two-line pass ban. So while there isn't technically an offside, players also can't completely cherry pick as you wouldn't be able to send the puck from the defensive zone all the way into the offensive zone. This would also have the added bonus of eliminating the icing rule. 

 

If a player sent the puck from his defensive zone into the offensive zone, it would just be an automatic turnover, or the offending team could touch the puck which would trigger a whistle for two-line pass and then bring the faceoff back to the neutral zone, or even better have it in the defensive zone (where the two-line pass originated) to really penalize the play. 

 

The two most confusing rules (for new fans) are gone, and the gameplay isn't significantly different. 

[Puck_Pun]

On 10/15/2017 at 11:38 PM, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Agreed. The whole reason for having offsides was to force players to make passes and be forced to advance the puck up the ice. Without offsides, players would just lob the puck down the ice from one end to the other. Nobody would ever skate with the puck. It would be the ultimate in "dump and chase" hockey.  

 

Yeah, offside is pretty integral to how the game is played, and getting rid of it would fundamentally change tactics and plays in a way that I wouldn't enjoy. It bugs the hell out of me the amount of time spent rocking footage back and forth (they should at least up the frame rates on those cameras...) and making the line a plane as mentioned earlier and frequently in other threads would really go towards making this rule so much less tedious. But ultimately I support its existence if not the execution.

 

 

On 10/16/2017 at 6:34 AM, AJgoal said:

Oh, yeah. A time limit on when the offside occurred. Please. 10-15 seconds prior to the goal maximum.

 

I don't see a problem with this idea, it'll really cut back on the challenges.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, Honest Bender said:

This would also have the added bonus of eliminating the icing rule. 

 

I don't see how this is relevant.   Why wouldn't there be an icing rule?   Because the redline is gone?  So I can just shoot the puck down the ice from anywhere with no negative consequence?   The icing rule is there to avoid the sheer boredom of three hours of teams chasing the puck back to their own end.

 

No thank you.   To any of it.

[Puck_Pun]

5 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I don't see how this is relevant.   Why wouldn't there be an icing rule?   Because the redline is gone?  So I can just shoot the puck down the ice from anywhere with no negative consequence?   The icing rule is there to avoid the sheer boredom of three hours of teams chasing the puck back to their own end.

 

No thank you.   To any of it.

 

I think the idea is that if you shoot from the defensive zone to the attacking zone the puck would travel through two blue lines and be in violation of the two line rule, which would effectively replace the icing rule. That said I'm not a fan of that happening.

[Honest Bender]

1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

 

I don't see how this is relevant.   Why wouldn't there be an icing rule?   

 

There wouldn't be icing because the team that shot the puck all the way down the ice wouldn't be able to touch it because that would constitute a two-line pass. So calling icing would be redundant. And now there's no footrace down the ice, which reduces injury chances (yes, they already addressed this a bit with no-touch icing).

 

But the best part of it, is that it eliminates the stoppages of play that we currently have due to icing. And it also cuts out one of the more confusing rules for new fans. 

 

It's all just fun speculation though, there's no way this would ever be introduced into the game unless we took a time machine back  to  the 1800's and tried to get it implemented from the start.

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, Puck_Pun said:

 

I think the idea is that if you shoot from the defensive zone to the attacking zone the puck would travel through two blue lines and be in violation of the two line rule, which would effectively replace the icing rule. That said I'm not a fan of that happening.

 

Well, no. The two line pass meant that a player couldn't receive the puck if he had preceded it across the red line and it was passed from the defensive zone. If it was timed in such a way as the player crossed the red line after the puck, the pass was not illegal. So it would not eliminate icing if all players were still on their side of the red line when the puck was played out.

[Honest Bender]

11 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Well, no. The two line pass meant that a player couldn't receive the puck if he had preceded it across the red line and it was passed from the defensive zone. If it was timed in such a way as the player crossed the red line after the puck, the pass was not illegal. So it would not eliminate icing if all players were still on their side of the red line when the puck was played out.

 

But I took the red line out, so the new two-line pass rule is if it crosses both blue lines.

 

After reading again, I see what you mean. It would have to be made illegal to touch the puck at all if it crosses both blue lines, regardless of when the players cross.

[ruxpin]

45 minutes ago, Honest Bender said:

There wouldn't be icing because the team that shot the puck all the way down the ice wouldn't be able to touch it because that would constitute a two-line pass. So calling icing would be redundant. And now there's no footrace down the ice, which reduces injury chances (yes, they already addressed this a bit with no-touch icing).

But that's my problem. If I'm trapped in my zone, I simply shoot it all the way down. I don't have to worry about touching it. I go get my change and go forecheck. This is why there's icing. 

 

As a fan, I have zero interest in watching teams have to go all the way back to retrieve the puck like they do now on the power play. 

 

Keep it exactly as it's been but either kill replay for offsides altogether or limit it to a 10 or 15 second review and institute ice to infinity plane. 

[ruxpin]

53 minutes ago, Honest Bender said:

But the best part of it, is that it eliminates the stoppages of play that we currently have due to icing. And it also cuts out one of the more confusing rules for new fans. 

Why is the easiest rule so confusing? You can't shoot it all the way down the ice from the defensive side of the red line. You can waive a stoppage if you beat the opponent to the puck. It's that simple. 

 

And this is to prevent shear boredom due to described above. 

 

It's a simple rule for a good reason. Please don't take the icing away. 

[Puck_Pun]

Speaking as someone who was very recently a new fan I can testify that it was incredibly easy to get my head around that particular rule

[ruxpin]

16 minutes ago, Puck_Pun said:

Speaking as someone who was very recently a new fan I can testify that it was incredibly easy to get my head around that particular rule

Yeah. I think we're creating a lot of negative impact to fix something that is NOT a problem. 

[ruxpin]

22 hours ago, AJgoal said:

 

Well, no. The two line pass meant that a player couldn't receive the puck if he had preceded it across the red line and it was passed from the defensive zone. If it was timed in such a way as the player crossed the red line after the puck, the pass was not illegal. So it would not eliminate icing if all players were still on their side of the red line when the puck was played out.

And of course none of this has anything to do with icing!  Icing is about the OPPOSING team touching up on the puck. Flyer shoots it from his side of the red line and a Ranger touches it first behind the goal line, that is what constitutes an icing. 

 

The two line pass thing in no way makes the icing redundant or even less needed. 

[AJgoal]

Just now, ruxpin said:

And of course none of this has anything to do with icing!  Icing is about the OPPOSING team touching up on the puck. Flyer shoots it from his side of the red line and a Ranger touches it first behind the goal line, that is what constitutes an icing. 

 

The two line pass thing in no way makes the icing redundant or even less needed. 

Yeah, now that I think about it, I got nothing. At best, it means icing can't be waved off.

[Algdun]

No offsides would change the game to "river hockey" wouldn't it?  throwing the puck from one end to the other... guys floating constantly down near opponents goal while you played 4 on 4 at the other end?  Not for me.

[Algdun]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:32 PM, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

I am in the camp with those who DON'T want offsides removed because I too agree that it would fundamentally change the game too much.

However, perhaps a bit of retooling on it.

 

Keep the off sides rule in and have it work for the purpose it always has...and that is to make teams gain each zone.

Now, where it seems games get bogged down is in minutiae regarding where exactly a skate is, or how much of a puck has crossed the line....etc....

 

How about we borrow something from baseball and use the ol "neighborhood play".

 

In baseball, when trying to complete two outs in a single play (double play for the non baseball inclined), the second baseman or short stop, though technically is supposed to touch the bag before releasing his throw, is allowed, by the officials to sort of be "around it", reasonably close, so that the fielder can quickly record the out and relay his throw over to 1st....in the case of baseball, this is also done ot lessen the chance of the fielder getting killed by a sliding baserunner.

 

Apply that to hockey where even if the puck isn't COMPLETELY over the blue line and maybe most of the skate of a teammate is already across the blue line before the puck fully goes over the blue line.....leave it as a legal zone entry!

 

The puck and skates are entering the zone at about the same time (the neighborhood)...does it really matter whether a skate was just ahead of the puck or that there wasn't  a complete showing of white ice behind the puck before the other guy entered the zone?  It was all within reason...let it go.

The play is happening fast and getting sidetracked by ticky tack BS like "but the puck still had 1cm that wasn't over the line" or "but the teammates skate was 1 cm over the line already before the puck went over" is just killing play flow.

 

I realize that what I am saying means the refs will have to use quick and decisive judgement on plays (yea, yea, I know..NHL officiating, but cmon, at SOME POINT these guys are just gonna have to get their schtick together anyways!), but I think in the grand scheme of things, it keeps the flow going in games, the lawyer-like technicality crap can go away, and offense is maintained.

 

As for clearing the zone, yes, if the puck is cleared by the defense, then ALL offensive players must clear the zone and re-enter...all skates at least touching the blue line can count as a clear, so again, we aren't looking for slivers of white ice between skate and lines.

 

Pucks lobbed in the air?

Then, as someone suggested, have the 'plane' extend into inifinity upward..meaning that the blue line is the blue line on the ice, but also all the way up to the rafters.

 

Keep the coaches challenge for offsides (but only one per game per coach), keeping in mind that only BLATANT offsides will be upheld...the "neighborhood play" will NOT help contesting coaches.

This should cut down the number of times a ref is 'wrong', so therefore, the actual challenges themselves, while still being an option for a coach, wouldn't be used as much.

 

If for some reason, the coach is correct, any goals that happened after that would be disallowed. Again, this shouldn't happen very often.

If the coach is WRONG however and the offside was NOT blatant, though due to the 'neighborhood play' a foot may have been in ahead of the puck, then that coach's team can be assessed a two minute delay of game. Again, this should NOT happen often.

 

My take.

Basically keeping the offsides with intelligent enforcement of it, keeping the game the way it is supposed to be, giving offenses a bit more latitude, yet still giving defenses a shot when it comes to clearing.

I like your point, but would be wary of 1. the uneven officiating we already see getting further out of range, 2. Coaches/GM's screaming about their version of "in the neighborhood" being right and ref's version wrong.   Makes sense in baseball as a player safety issue, though. 

[Trefilov22]

Blah humbug