Sorry

[flyer4ever]

Has the NHL apologized to Colorado yet? The offside challenge review had Bettman stink all over it. Another layer of credibility gone from the NHL. Approaching soccer for corruptness. Sad. The game used to played and decided on the ice by men with honour. Now it's just corporate bull sh&t.

[Podein25]

2 hours ago, flyer4ever said:

Has the NHL apologized to Colorado yet? The offside challenge review had Bettman stink all over it. Another layer of credibility gone from the NHL. Approaching soccer for corruptness. Sad. The game used to played and decided on the ice by men with honour. Now it's just corporate bull sh&t.

 

Thread subject so Canadian, lol

 

Was it not offside? What did I miss?

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I don't see how the reversal is an issue.
 

The play was offside because Gabriel Landeskog was offside as he made his way to the bench for a line change.
In fact, when asked about it, Landeskog himself called it "a clumsy mistake"...on HIS part!
He knew it...replay showed that was the case, so I don't see how this points to "corruption".

Granted, I don't want officials and technicalities deciding games anymore than the next fan, but bottom line is, calls NEED TO GET DONE RIGHT!
And credit Sharks' head coach Pete DeBoer for being aware and eagle eyed about that and making the challenge....the CORRECT move.

I am pretty sure if anyone's home team made the same call DeBoer did, it would have been called "brilliant" and "astute"....and no corruption or conspiracy theories would have to be even mentioned.

I will agree the NHL as a whole has lots of problems on different levels, but the call on the Avs, and the official reversal was NOT one of them.

At the end of the day, the better overall team moved on...which really can't be said very much in his Bizarro playoff year.

[FD19372]

I'll simplify it. Landeskog knew it was offside because his skate was still on the ice, and it had to be called. San Jose knew it, Colorado didn't want to admit they knew it. Case closed.

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 hours ago, Podein25 said:

Thread subject so Canadian, lol

 

Was it not offside? What did I miss?

 

Out of curiosity, WHY does the NHL call that play offside?  

 

It's my understanding that a player is no longer in play once he reaches the bench (regardless of whether or not he has left the ice yet). There is a "10 foot rule" or whatever you want to call it for line changes. The player doesn't have to be off completely before the next player can come on. 

 

So why (in the interests of keeping the flow of the game) would the NHL call an offside on a player who isn't there?  The player at the bench is like a ghost: he doesn't exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that this is only an issue because the NHL moved the blue lines out several years ago, thereby allowing this to happen. 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by WordsOfWisdom

[hf101]

7 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Out of curiosity, WHY does the NHL call that play offside?  

 

It's my understanding that a player is no longer in play once he reaches the bench (regardless of whether or not he has left the ice yet). There is a "10 foot rule" or whatever you want to call it for line changes. The player doesn't have to be off completely before the next player can come on. 

 

So why (in the interests of keeping the flow of the game) would the NHL call an offside on a player who isn't there?  The player at the bench is like a ghost: he doesn't exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that this is only an issue because the NHL moved the blue lines out several years ago, thereby allowing this to happen. 

 

 

 

 

[BluPuk]

Once again I have to call "bush league" on the NHL. I agree 100% with the OP.  

[Podein25]

9 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Out of curiosity, WHY does the NHL call that play offside?  

 

It's my understanding that a player is no longer in play once he reaches the bench (regardless of whether or not he has left the ice yet). There is a "10 foot rule" or whatever you want to call it for line changes. The player doesn't have to be off completely before the next player can come on. 

 

So why (in the interests of keeping the flow of the game) would the NHL call an offside on a player who isn't there?  The player at the bench is like a ghost: he doesn't exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that this is only an issue because the NHL moved the blue lines out several years ago, thereby allowing this to happen. 

 

 

See the post by @hf101 above. I think every one of your points is wrong, lol, but who 's keeping score eh?

 

The 10' rule you refer to, if it exists, is for line changes and is relevant to the question of too many men, but offside is offside. I'm not sure why the COL bench wasn't physically grabbing him to get him into the bench. It's always been the rule in any hockey game I've ever been a part of. He has to get over the boards there.

[AJgoal]

And the "10 foot rule" is negated if the player leaving the ice plays the puck after his replacement gets on the ice, or if the replacement plays the puck before the player he is replacing exits the ice surface. If a player is offside on the ice, they are offside. Landeskog was on the ice, in the attacking zone. There's no grey area or conspiracy here.

[Podein25]

20 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

And the "10 foot rule" is negated if the player leaving the ice plays the puck after his replacement gets on the ice, or if the replacement plays the puck before the player he is replacing exits the ice surface. If a player is offside on the ice, they are offside. Landeskog was on the ice, in the attacking zone. There's no grey area or conspiracy here.

 

The reaction from some parts to this play is so weird. Of all of the gaffes, missed calls, bad calls, lame calls, make-up calls, loony calls - let's be honest here, NHL reffing is an absolute horrorshow and should be taken out back and put down - that offside call is as simple as it gets. He's standing on the ice inside the blue line.  Send weed (the good stuff, the 25+% THC stuff) if you want me to see that any differently. 

[AJgoal]

Just now, Podein25 said:

 

The reaction from some parts to this play is so weird. Of all of the gaffes, missed calls, bad calls, lame calls, make-up calls, loony calls - let's be honest here, NHL reffing is an absolute horrorshow and should be taken out back and put down - that offside call is as simple as it gets. He's standing on the ice inside the blue line.  Send weed (the good stuff, the 25+% THC stuff) if you want me to see that any differently. 

 

How about the stuff I found being cultivated on a contaminated site? Guaranteed that's got some "special ingredients."

[Podein25]

1 minute ago, AJgoal said:

 

How about the stuff I found being cultivated on a contaminated site? Guaranteed that's got some "special ingredients."

 

Lol, how bad could it be? When you say "found" what exactly do you mean? Are you a cop? DEA? Oh geez, I've said too much already, lol...

[AJgoal]

20 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Lol, how bad could it be? When you say "found" what exactly do you mean? Are you a cop? DEA? Oh geez, I've said too much already, lol...

 

I'm an environmental scientist. I'll tell you the story next time I'm up in Manitoba.

[Podein25]

17 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

I'm an environmental scientist. I'll tell you the story next time I'm up in Manitoba.

 

Perfect. I can take you to the pasture and we can frolic with the sheep!

[AJgoal]

7 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Perfect. I can take you to the pasture and we can frolic with the sheep!

....

[Podein25]

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

....

 

Ok, well there's other things to do in the 'Peg man!

[WordsOfWisdom]

7 hours ago, Podein25 said:

See the post by @hf101 above. I think every one of your points is wrong, lol, but who 's keeping score eh?

 

LOL. 

 

7 hours ago, Podein25 said:

The 10' rule you refer to, if it exists, is for line changes and is relevant to the question of too many men, but offside is offside. I'm not sure why the COL bench wasn't physically grabbing him to get him into the bench. It's always been the rule in any hockey game I've ever been a part of. He has to get over the boards there.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning what the current rule is. My point is that the current rule should be changed.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, AJgoal said:

And the "10 foot rule" is negated if the player leaving the ice plays the puck after his replacement gets on the ice, or if the replacement plays the puck before the player he is replacing exits the ice surface. If a player is offside on the ice, they are offside. Landeskog was on the ice, in the attacking zone. There's no grey area or conspiracy here.

 

I don't dispute that. The replay clearly shows it. All I'm saying is, you couldn't put yourself offside on a line change ten years ago because the blue lines weren't there. Unless I'm mistaken, the benches were entirely within the center ice area.

 

So due to an NHL rule change to increase the size of the zones, this unusual situation can occur where a player who isn't active on the ice is now able to be offside.  To me, I think once he reaches the bench (close enough that his substitute can come on) then he shouldn't be considered part of any offside. He isn't an active player on the ice. Him being AT the player's bench about to go off should be considered as good as him sitting ON the bench.  My two cents. 

 

[Podein25]

12 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning what the current rule is. My point is that the current rule should be changed.

 

 

Oh. My mistake. Sorry!

[WordsOfWisdom]

7 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Oh. My mistake. Sorry!

 

No prob!    

 

I'm trying to find a picture showing the player benches and the blue lines before and after the rule change. Can't find one anywhere. So frustrating! My hypothesis is that the player benches were 100% within the center ice area. So this type of offside only became possible when the NHL moved the blue lines in 2005-06. 

 

 

[Podein25]

37 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

No prob!    

 

I'm trying to find a picture showing the player benches and the blue lines before and after the rule change. Can't find one anywhere. So frustrating! My hypothesis is that the player benches were 100% within the center ice area. So this type of offside only became possible when the NHL moved the blue lines in 2005-06. 

 

 

 

Huh. Well good luck with the research. Keep us posted.

[ruxpin]

14 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

Huh. Well good luck with the research. Keep us posted.

This made me laugh uncontrollably. 

 

 

I don't think they can go to a rule where the player changing doesn't count for the offsides, though I'm sympathetic to the argument. 

 

They are so rigid with the offsides that we now lose 10 or 15 minutes of our lives from  "was the last millimeter of the skate blade touching the line or not?"  Riveting entertainment.  If they're going to be that legalistic to that degree in that  instance, I can't imagine their ever going with "well, he was heading toward the bench." 

 

And by the way, I don't know that I agree completely with the "gotta get it right" mantra. I think that hand has been greatly overplayed. 

 

For me, the toe/no toe thing has long ago crossed the Rubicon on sanity.  Did it appreciably change the play in any way? Especially on the plays they have to put an excess of a minute back on the clock because someone's toe was a fraction of a millimeter off an hour ago. 

 

They took a left turn at the corner of Common Sense Boulevard and Insanity Lane and have ended up in Stupidas Hellville.

Edited May 11, 2019 by ruxpin

[Podein25]

3 hours ago, ruxpin said:

This made me laugh uncontrollably. 

 

 

I don't think they can go to a rule where the player changing doesn't count for the offsides, though I'm sympathetic to the argument. 

 

They are so rigid with the offsides that we now lose 10 or 15 minutes of our lives from  "was the last millimeter of the skate blade touching the line or not?"  Riveting entertainment.  If they're going to be that legalistic to that degree in that  instance, I can't imagine their ever going with "well, he was heading toward the bench." 

 

And by the way, I don't know that I agree completely with the "gotta get it right" mantra. I think that hand has been greatly overplayed. 

 

For me, the toe/no toe thing has long ago crossed the Rubicon on sanity.  Did it appreciably change the play in any way? Especially on the plays they have to put an excess of a minute back on the clock because someone's toe was a fraction of a millimeter off an hour ago. 

 

They took a left turn at the corner of Common Sense Boulevard and Insanity Lane and have ended up in Stupidas Hellville.

 

Agree 100% with that post rux

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I don't think they can go to a rule where the player changing doesn't count for the offsides, though I'm sympathetic to the argument. 

 

This is my pet peeve of the past 24 hours. Does anyone have a photo of an NHL rink showing the player benches and blue lines prior to the year 2004?  Apparently Google doesn't. 

 

If this same play had occurred prior to 2004, then there's no way the player could have been offside by standing next to the player's bench. The NHL f__ked up here on this one.   

 

So in the absence of any photographic evidence whatsoever, I'm just going to say that the entire player's bench was in center ice and that no portion of the player's bench was in the offensive/defensive zone prior to the rule change involving the location of the blue lines.   

Edited May 11, 2019 by WordsOfWisdom

[WordsOfWisdom]

18 hours ago, Podein25 said:

Huh. Well good luck with the research. Keep us posted.

 

I don't know if you were high, tired, completely disinterested, or all of the above when you wrote that lol.