Quenneville irate over offside call

[yave1964]

A day late and a dollar short with this one but wanted to get this one out here....

 

Thursday night Joel Quenneville challenged an offside against the Wild on a play in which Christ Stewart scored a nice goal on a play set up by Jason zucker, he lost the challenge and per the rule this year when losing a challenge of an offside you are assessed  a delay of game penalty which immediately led to another wild goal. Chicago went on to lose 5-2.

 

  Afterwards Quenneville was still fuming with the media.

 

  I have watched it a dozen times and it certainly looks to e offside to me but I am throwing in a link that explains the decision to allow the goal to stand and the Wild receiving a power play as well out of it, I am a bit more confused after watching the explanation (as apparently is Quenneville) but anyway here it is.

 

https://www.hockeywilderness.com/2017/10/13/16469084/joel-quenneville-didnt-like-controversial-call-5-2-loss-blackhawks-wild-zucker-stewart-offisde-goal

 

  The gist of this is that this is the first implementation of the new rule that a challenge of an offside that you lose results in a delay of game called, in this case it likely cost the Hawks dearly. Not saying the Hawks would have beaten the Wild who came to play that night and were flying but this most certainly changed the complexion of the game and will likely make most coaches think long and hard about challenging the call on the ice out of fear of turning one goal into two.

[ruxpin]

4 hours ago, yave1964 said:

The gist of this is that this is the first implementation of the new rule that a challenge of an offside that you lose results in a delay of game called

 

Happened in Philly/Nashville game on Tuesday.   This board blew up.   Not because the refs made the wrong call but because Hakstol got us a penalty making us go down 5 on 3 on a call that was clearly called correctly.

[ruxpin]

6 hours ago, yave1964 said:

I am a bit more confused after watching the explanation (as apparently is Quenneville) but anyway here it is.

 

The explanation on that site is horseshit.  The Toews stuff down low can't possibly have anything to do with that call.   It may be the dumbest logic I've ever seen (never mind, I read a lot of unnecessary statements by unnecessary groups that deal with subjects that aren't necessary.  So while dumb logic, it isn't necessarily as dumb as these unnecessary things that aren't necessary to mention).  It's still pretty dumb.

 

The only thing I can figure is that the league/officials decided Seabrook, by virtue of lying on the ice, "passed" the puck back into his end.   So the puck went into the zone from a Hawk, negating the offside.   They can hang their hat on this, technically, but it's a horrible call.

 

I don't know why the Wild explanation goes well before the play talking about crap that's not even remotely relevant and wants to end it with an idiotic "explain it to the Hawks' fans" line.   I'm not a fan of either team, but I want to punch the writer.

[hf101]

This new bogus bench rule needs to be addressed ASAP.  The League has made a horrible decision in assessing a bench minor for plays on goals that should have been reviewed.  When a reviewed play takes more than say 2 minutes for the officials to decide there should be no penalty assessed to the team asking for the review, imo.  What I've disliked in both of these bench penalties is the amount of time the officials take to "GET IT RIGHT".  The coaches on the other hand, literally have less than a minute to decide whether or not to have a review from the info their video crew provides.   The video guys likely do not have all the angles, and they are not officials and really shouldn't be expected to be one.

 

In both of these last two reviews (blackhawks and flyers) the coach got it wrong, but I don't think they were wrong in asking for the review, however, their teams shouldn't need to be assessed a 2 min penalty either.  Neither goal was a play where it was a waste of time for a review.  Maybe you could say since the Flyers were killing of back to back penalties Hackstol was looking for a little rest for his players, but I doubt that.

 

And @ruxpin The Wilderness author explanation w/r to Toews showed that the Wild did not have possession bringing the puck into the zone.  Which is the reasoning as to why the play was not offside.  ( the political comments really aren't necessary)

 

 

[ruxpin]

27 minutes ago, hf101 said:

And @ruxpin The Wilderness author explanation w/r to Toews showed that the Wild did not have possession bringing the puck into the zone.  Which is the reasoning as to why the play was not offside.  ( the political comments really aren't necessary)

 

Sorry.  Toews down in the corner on the opposite end of the ice has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that offsides call.  Or shouldn't.  If that was actually the official ruling of the NHL someone should not just be fired, they should be fired upon.  I realize Toews passed it from the offensive corner to the point.  It should not be relevant in this ruling and defies logic and misuses the rule.

 

 I think they should visit the wording of "...passes the puck back into his own defending zone."   It's being used here for something that I don't think it means.   It shouldn't be directional like "backcourt" in basketball.   If they meant directional, "passes the puck into his own defending zone" gets the job done grammatically and with proper meaning and there is no reason for the word "back."  Unless, "back" is not intended to be directional.  "Back" should mean "return" or "from where it came."   Like if Rangers players are on the attack in the zone, Giroux gets possession, takes it out of the Flyers' zone and into center ice, and then passes back to Ghost who is still in the defen(sive)ding zone, Rangers still in the Flyers' zone are not offside.

 

This is not the case here.  The puck bounces off the Hawk (Seabrook?  I don't feel like looking again) and into the zone behind Zucker.  IF they want to say it bounced off Seabrook into the zone, I guess, but that's weak. 

 

The whole thing is stretching the intent of a rule, mangling it, and reapplying it to something that was not the intent in order to produce an outcome not warranted by rule nor instance.   Thus, my original apt "unnecessary" comment/comparison.