2016 NHL Playoffs, Rite of Spring: "You thought God was an architect"

[OnWis97]

19 hours ago, the admiral said:

I like Marleau, but Joe Thornton has become a darling of the worst hockey fans.

Maybe Kitt meant Pavelski.

[Kramerica Industries]

30 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

While you are right that the Tampa off sides did not provide a competitive advantage, that's an impossible line to draw.  I don't think the officials had a choice.  Sure, they swallow their whistles for the last 12 minutes of the game (sometimes deciding games by trying too hard not to decide the game), but reviewable plays of a black-and-white rule make it hard to just say "eh, let's let common sense prevail."

 

So I'd be really curious to see how the rule could change.  If they can change it for the better and not create bad unintended consequences that would be impressive.

 

Maybe one solution could be to make it non-reviewable (since most off-sides not caught by officials are probably not advantage-creating)...but then people would still be freaking out that the goal was allosed.  Damned if they do; damned it they don't.

 

Due to the utterly impossible nature of deciphering offside in real-time with 100% veracity, perhaps the best thing that could've been done was to allow a relatively minor problem (that is, the fact that we can all immediately recite the egrigious errors indicates that they happen pretty damn rarely, no?) to remain a relatively minor problem, instead of creating a rules circus around all of it, something that is, frankly, insulting to viewers of the sport when they think they've seen an entirely legal goal being scored, only to be shown a replay where the slightest, most irrelevant discrepancy, has annulled everything that followed it.

 

I mean, again, we remember Matt Duchene, and we remember Danny Briere scoring rather obvious offside goals. How many other particularly obvious mistakes can any of us remember, as far as offside is concerned, in the last several years? And, if anyone actually tries to respond to that last question...don't insult my intelligence by questioning what "obvious" means; I cited Duchene and Briere, so it's pretty clear what kind of bar I'm setting.

[Sport]

The purpose of the blue line is to prevent egregious cherry-picking. As long as a guy isn’t doing that then I think the linesman should let them continue as long as they make an effort to remain onsides.

 

I’m in favor of getting rid of the coach’s challenge. The worst part of football is that we can’t trust that any scoring play will stand. I really don’t want that to happen to hockey. Oh your team gave up a goal because a guy was a centimeter offsides? Sorry, that centimeter didn’t provide him any advantage and they would’ve scored anyway. We have linesman for a reason and I’m okay with making it a judgment call. If the linesman, in real time, decides “yeah, you’re good keep playing” then I’m okay with that. I mean, the Matt Duchene thing that created this happens once a decade. It’s not frequent enough of a problem to dramatically alter the way games are officiated.

 

All I know is it’s really going to suck when an all-time historic Stanley Cup winning goal is wiped off the board on one of these reviews because a guy’s foot was in the air behind the line. I’m not comfortable with taking the Stanley Cup away on an infraction that minor that had nothing to do with the goal. That’s what I’m worried about.

 

edit: What Kramerica said

[Brass]

#HockeyIsBoringBecause is currently trending right now, primarily by people who have never seen a hockey game before.

[OnWis97]

4 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

Due to the utterly impossible nature of deciphering offside in real-time with 100% veracity, perhaps the best thing that could've been done was to allow a relatively minor problem (that is, the fact that we can all immediately recite the egrigious errors indicates that they happen pretty damn rarely, no?) to remain a relatively minor problem, instead of creating a rules circus around all of it, something that is, frankly, insulting to viewers of the sport when they think they've seen an entirely legal goal being scored, only to be shown a replay where the slightest, most irrelevant discrepancy, has annulled everything that followed it.

 

I mean, again, we remember Matt Duchene, and we remember Danny Briere scoring rather obvious offside goals. How many other particularly obvious mistakes can any of us remember, as far as offside is concerned, in the last several years? And, if anyone actually tries to respond to that last question...don't insult my intelligence by questioning what "obvious" means; I cited Duchene and Briere, so it's pretty clear what kind of bar I'm setting.

If by that you mean don't have it be reviewable, then I don't dispute that.  

But if you mean that the officials should have said "meh, close enough" then I am not buying it.  Because it is reviewable, their hands are tied.  Drawing "common sense" lines is difficult.  

 

If this leads to a rule change, it'll be fascinating to see whether/how they can make common sense prevail but still eliminate cherry-picking.  

I remember how much I HATED the two-line pass rule, but maybe they should bring it back and just dump the "puck across the blue line first."  (I am sure that idea will be shot down in seconds...probabaly would allow for cherry-picking).

[The_Admiral]

6 minutes ago, Brass said:

#HockeyIsBoringBecause is currently trending right now, primarily by people who have never seen a hockey game before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kill yourself

[Brass]

Great. One of those Twitter accounts that is so hacky that it's impossible to decipher is the person is serious or a "comedian."

[The_Admiral]

I want to plaster that dude's stupid goddamn faux-surprised grimace all over everything like the Baseball Crank.

[The_Admiral]

[chcarlson23]

#HockeyisBoringBecause there's no exciting moments...

 

 

 

 

 

[Brass]

59 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I want to plaster that dude's stupid goddamn faux-surprised grimace all over everything like the Baseball Crank.

 

Just make sure you let everyone know it's the REAL JK Callaway, and not some imposter gimmick.

[Kramerica Industries]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

The purpose of the blue line is to prevent egregious cherry-picking. As long as a guy isn’t doing that then I think the linesman should let them continue as long as they make an effort to remain onsides.

 

I’m in favor of getting rid of the coach’s challenge. The worst part of football is that we can’t trust that any scoring play will stand. I really don’t want that to happen to hockey. Oh your team gave up a goal because a guy was a centimeter offsides? Sorry, that centimeter didn’t provide him any advantage and they would’ve scored anyway. We have linesman for a reason and I’m okay with making it a judgment call. If the linesman, in real time, decides “yeah, you’re good keep playing” then I’m okay with that. I mean, the Matt Duchene thing that created this happens once a decade. It’s not frequent enough of a problem to dramatically alter the way games are officiated.

 

All I know is it’s really going to suck when an all-time historic Stanley Cup winning goal is wiped off the board on one of these reviews because a guy’s foot was in the air behind the line. I’m not comfortable with taking the Stanley Cup away on an infraction that minor that had nothing to do with the goal. That’s what I’m worried about.

 

edit: What Kramerica said

 

Or, potentially, the Prince of Wales trophy preceding it. It kinda sucks when you know you're one of the biggest guinea pigs in an experiment that has clearly not gone the way it was intended to go (or, at least, a fan of the guinea pig in question).

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

If by that you mean don't have it be reviewable, then I don't dispute that.  

But if you mean that the officials should have said "meh, close enough" then I am not buying it.  Because it is reviewable, their hands are tied.  Drawing "common sense" lines is difficult.  

 

The former, not the latter. Begrudge it as I did a couple weeks back when Drouin's Game 6 opener was annulled on the offside call, the fact is that, based on the current rule, it was the right call. The linesman reviewing that absolutely had their hands tied in a situation like that. We probably should keep the linesman in mind when discussing this; they probably hate this as much as anyone because, for a sport played on ice with players moving on skates, it is utterly impossible to be correct on every single onside/offside call that is made. Even worse, if a play is incorrectly ruled offside and the whistle is blown, there is absolutely no recourse that can be provided, of course; in fact, this might be impossible to discern, but I almost wonder if more linesman "let the play go" this year, knowing that a review could erase what happened if it truly was offside. I guess that's a possibility, although I have no clue to what possible extent.

 

If the NHL wants to do this properly, then, through whatever means, technology needs to be involved that would discern if a play is offside immediately or not, so that we can get rid of all this nonsense where goals get erased on seemingly nothing. I would still attest that, in the case of the Lightning/Penguins Game 6, that the Lightning did not play well enough to win that night, and that the offside goal can't be blamed for everything. I say that, of course, as a Tampa fan. However, if that goal stands, if it's 1-0 about five minutes in with a rocking building, who knows how the rest of the game unfolds? The right call of a terrible rule was made, unfortunately. So it goes. It's easy to be bitter about that, but that doesn't solve anything. Just hope that this rule doesn't pop up again in this Final series, and it is then amended in the offseason so that the nonsense that robbed Drouin of a goal, robbed Victor Hedman of a goal in the first game of the first round against Detroit, robbed St. Louis of a couple goals this playoff year, and several times in the regular season as well (in addition to other playoff goals that I'm forgetting about) never happens again.

[The_Admiral]

Of course there are times when players are offside and the goal should be washed out, but this ticky-tack Zapruder-film-on-a-smartphone crap has been a blemish on the league this year.

[ElwoodCuse]

8 goals were overturned in this year's playoffs because of a coaches challenge for offside. And no one here can tell us what any of the other 7 are, because it's a good use of technology to call the rule correctly but a couple of people are just being whiny babies because a team they don't like won a challenge. Challenges aren't changing, the offside rule isn't changing, deal with it.

 

What REALLY needs to change is that "puck over the glass" need to be punished the same as icing, not as a 2-minute minor.

[ninersdd]

11 hours ago, the admiral said:

Of course there are times when players are offside and the goal should be washed out, but this ticky-tack Zapruder-film-on-a-smartphone crap has been a blemish on the league this year.

You used to judge goals on the cell phone-Goalline Bling

[Cosmic]

4 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said:

What REALLY needs to change is that "puck over the glass" need to be punished the same as icing, not as a 2-minute minor.

Any time a player gets tired, they can fling the puck into the 12th row?  No, thank you.

[Sport]

6 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said:

8 goals were overturned in this year's playoffs because of a coaches challenge for offside. And no one here can tell us what any of the other 7 are, because it's a good use of technology to call the rule correctly but a couple of people are just being whiny babies because a team they don't like won a challenge. Challenges aren't changing, the offside rule isn't changing, deal with it.

 

And you're only defending it because it took away a goal your team gave up. That works both ways. I've thoroughly bitched about each one of those 8 goals and the Drouin thing was the tipping point because it was the most important goal that was erased. I'd say the same thing if the Penguins had been on the receiving end, though admittedly not as loudly. If there was no challenge you wouldn't have even noticed Drouin being offsides because it didn't impact the play at all. It was a cheap way to steal a goal that would've stood for 99% of hockey history. 

 

How many goals would we have lost throughout history if there'd been a coach's challenge? A lot of them, it turns out. How many of those goals were truly decided by the guy being wildly offsides? None of them. It wasn't an issue. The challenge has created a bigger problem than the problem it was designed to solve. 

 

We need to keep the human element in sports lest we end up like the NFL. Things that should be left to officials: balls and strikes, hockey offsides, basketball fouls, soccer offsides, holding in football. 

 

Quote

 

What REALLY needs to change is that "puck over the glass" need to be punished the same as icing, not as a 2-minute minor.

Agree here. That rule was put in so the league could have more powerplays in 2006. I'd also put this at the officials discretion. If a guy does it on purpose then give him a penalty, but it's never on purpose. It also unintentionally created this thing that never happened before - puck goes over the glass, all 12 guys on the ice and half the arena point to the sky like the refs don't know where the puck went. This habit will probably never go away. 

[Kramerica Industries]

7 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said:

8 goals were overturned in this year's playoffs because of a coaches challenge for offside. And no one here can tell us what any of the other 7 are, because it's a good use of technology to call the rule correctly but a couple of people are just being whiny babies because a team they don't like won a challenge. Challenges aren't changing, the offside rule isn't changing, deal with it.

 

What REALLY needs to change is that "puck over the glass" need to be punished the same as icing, not as a 2-minute minor.

 

Then you aren't bothering to actually read the posts here, then. 

17 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

[...] and it is then amended in the offseason so that the nonsense that robbed Drouin of a goal, robbed Victor Hedman of a goal in the first game of the first round against Detroit, robbed St. Louis of a couple goals this playoff year, and several times in the regular season as well (in addition to other playoff goals that I'm forgetting about) never happens again.

 

That's three other goals I cited, off the top of my head alone, in the last post I made. Pardon that, at the moment, I'm not recalling the other four annulled goals. Mind you that three of the four goals in question that I mentioned would have given the team the lead in the 3rd period, as well. 

 

It's perfectly fine if you don't follow my Twitter account (it's highly advisable, actually, to not follow it), but I like to think I've been pretty steadfast in my disapproval for the offsides rule enactment. In fact...and cripes does this particular one sting to see in there (which, given the date, had to be in response to the annulled Victor Hedman goal that I mentioned; 4/13 was the first day of this playoff season).

 

EDIT: For craps and giggles...

 

tl;dw - 2015-16 NHL season -- apparently, every goal before this year came due to a missed off-side whistle.

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said:

8 goals were overturned in this year's playoffs because of a coaches challenge for offside. And no one here can tell us what any of the other 7 are, because it's a good use of technology to call the rule correctly but a couple of people are just being whiny babies because a team they don't like won a challenge. Challenges aren't changing, the offside rule isn't changing, deal with it.

 

I'm dealing with it fine, thanks, and I'm glad that pivotal goals for St. Louis and Tampa Bay were washed out in this postseason, but I'd prefer it be up to the war room than refs with these little tablets, if only for appearances' sake. 

 

10 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said:

What REALLY needs to change is that "puck over the glass" need to be punished the same as icing, not as a 2-minute minor.

No, because then guys would clear the puck clean over the glass all the time and that would suck, so YOU deal with THAT, boom

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

No, because then guys would clear the puck clean over the glass all the time and that would suck, so YOU deal with THAT, boom

I've always considered the clearing of the glass rule to not only be for the sake of the game, but crowd safety, too.