**** Official 2021-2022 NHL Thread ****

[Bearcat]

[DaFace]

As I've read more about it, it's pretty clear to me that the offsides call was correct - it's just odd that so few fans knew how the rule works. Most of the time on offsides reviews, they're looking at the team entering the zone, and in that situation, the puck crossing pretty much instantly creates an offside situation since it's highly unlikely the team would then pull back across the blue line to tag up.

However, the rule really is that it doesn't become offsides until it's TOUCHED in the offensive zone. (That's why delayed offsides is a thing.) It doesn't matter if the puck is in a player's possession or not - if the puck isn't touched until after everyone team tags up, it's not offside. And yes, there are plenty of precedents out there for this.

You learn something new every day I suppose.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by DaFace

As I've read more about it, it's pretty clear to me that the offsides call was correct - it's just odd that so few fans knew how the rule works. Most of the time on offsides reviews, they're looking at the team entering the zone, and in that situation, the puck crossing pretty much instantly creates an offside situation since it's highly unlikely the team would then pull back across the blue line to tag up.

However, the rule really is that it doesn't become offsides until it's TOUCHED in the offensive zone. (That's why delayed offsides is a thing.) It doesn't matter if the puck is in a player's possession or not - if the puck isn't touched until after everyone team tags up, it's not offside. And yes, there are plenty of precedents out there for this.

You learn something new every day I suppose.

If Makar purposely held his stick up a fraction of a second too make it look like he is waiting to touch it once his teammates tags up , there is less confusion. It is hard to tell he if he was or it just a fluke /mid stickhandle situation by definition it wasn’t offside whether he meant to do it ir not.

[Shoes]

Originally Posted by DaFace

As I've read more about it, it's pretty clear to me that the offsides call was correct - it's just odd that so few fans knew how the rule works. Most of the time on offsides reviews, they're looking at the team entering the zone, and in that situation, the puck crossing pretty much instantly creates an offside situation since it's highly unlikely the team would then pull back across the blue line to tag up.

However, the rule really is that it doesn't become offsides until it's TOUCHED in the offensive zone. (That's why delayed offsides is a thing.) It doesn't matter if the puck is in a player's possession or not - if the puck isn't touched until after everyone team tags up, it's not offside. And yes, there are plenty of precedents out there for this.

You learn something new every day I suppose.

I mean sure you can interpret the rule this way but it opens up pandora's box in regards to any future offside review in the future where they have to determine if the puck is actually touching the player's stick or if there is a any space between the stick and puck.

In my opinion the goal shouldn't have counted, if Makar had purposely lifted his stick mid air, looked at the player tagging up and then put his stick down and touched the puck then I have no issues with the call but he is clearly just hoping that the offside player touches up in time while bringing the puck in.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Shoes

I mean sure you can interpret the rule this way but it opens up pandora's box in regards to any future offside review in the future where they have to determine if the puck is actually touching the player's stick or if there is a any space between the stick and puck.

In my opinion the goal shouldn't have counted, if Makar had purposely lifted his stick mid air, looked at the player tagging up and then put his stick down and touched the puck then I have no issues with the call but he is clearly just hoping that the offside player touches up in time while bringing the puck in.

Sure, but how is that any different than trying to determine whether there's a millimeter of space between the blue line and the puck? (And in this case, there was clearly like 4" of space between Makar's stick and the puck, so it doesn't seem particularly ambiguous to me.) Your suggested rule would add a ton of grey area to the situation, which would make things dramatically worse IMO.

The big thing I think people are getting hung up on is that possession doesn't matter here. It's purely "Did Makar touch the puck over the blue line before Nichushkin tagged up?"

[Shoes]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Sure, but how is that any different than trying to determine whether there's a millimeter of space between the blue line and the puck? (And in this case, there was clearly like 4" of space between Makar's stick and the puck, so it doesn't seem particularly ambiguous to me.) Your suggested rule would add a ton of grey area to the situation, which would make things dramatically worse IMO.

The big thing I think people are getting hung up on is that possession doesn't matter here. It's purely "Did Makar touch the puck over the blue line before Nichushkin tagged up?"

Can you remember another instance on an offside review where they are determining if the puck is actually touching the blade of the stick of the player carrying the puck? Every offside review I’ve seen is essentially if the puck is in before the player, if you go a step further with “conclusive evidence” and you enforce the rule of if the puck is actually making contact with the blade of the puck carrier, you turn offside reviews into even further of a mess.

Kind of a phony phrase but I just think the “spirit” of the rule that you are referring to shouldn’t apply to this instance. I think how that rule was written was specifically when a player makes an effort to show that he is purposely not touching the puck to buy a second for his teammate to tag up and become onside.

[Shoes]

Essentially what you are saying is that all further offside reviews, we need the capability without any doubt to determine if that puck is on Makar’s stick or not.

NHL better invest in some more and better cameras if that’s the case.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Shoes

Can you remember another instance on an offside review where they are determining if the puck is actually touching the blade of the stick of the player carrying the puck? Every offside review I’ve seen is essentially if the puck is in before the player, if you go a step further with “conclusive evidence” and you enforce the rule of if the puck is actually making contact with the blade of the puck carrier, you turn offside reviews into even further of a mess.

Kind of a phony phrase but I just think the “spirit” of the rule that you are referring to shouldn’t apply to this instance. I think how that rule was written was specifically when a player makes an effort to show that he is purposely not touching the puck to buy a second for his teammate to tag up and become onside.

Can I personally remember seeing it before? No. But if you peruse discussions about it around the web, there are plenty. Here's an explainer about the rules (that's been around for a while).

PSA: this one’s for the country that invented hockey lol #GoAvsGo #FindAWay pic.twitter.com/jmvsAX4oGO

— Adrian Hernandez (@AdoHernandez27) June 1, 2022

And examples of previous reviews:

THIS WAS DEEMED ONSIDE. WHAT. #Blackhawks pic.twitter.com/8FCfAmFdN1

— Cristiano Simonetta (@CMS_74_) March 20, 2017

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Shoes

Essentially what you are saying is that all further offside reviews, we need the capability without any doubt to determine if that puck is on Makar’s stick or not.

NHL better invest in some more and better cameras if that’s the case.

They have them and used them.

From this angle, it’s the right call. pic.twitter.com/h3whgUDKBO

— Jesse Montano (@jessemontano_) June 1, 2022

[Shoes]

The Bruins replay above is a perfect example of how I think the rule should be applied. You can see that the player is purposely not touching the puck after it enters the offensive zone to buy another second for his teammate to tag up. The puck carrier returns to handling the puck when he thinks his teammate tagged up.

There is no intent from Makar when he enters the zone to stop his puck handling- he is just advancing the puck and is hoping the timing is correct. What you’re left with is that the officials have to determine if the puck is contacting his stick. I can’t tell from the photo above, can you?

You must understand by now the point I’m making, just tell me what you think.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Shoes

The Bruins replay above is a perfect example of how I think the rule should be applied. You can see that the player is purposely not touching the puck after it enters the offensive zone to buy another second for his teammate to tag up. The puck carrier returns to handling the puck when he thinks his teammate tagged up.

There is no intent from Makar when he enters the zone to stop his puck handling- he is just advancing the puck and is hoping the timing is correct. What you’re left with is that the officials have to determine if the puck is contacting his stick. I can’t tell from the photo above, can you?

You must understand by now the point I’m making, just tell me what you think.

I guess I just don't agree that we should have a rule that requires the refs to gauge the player's intent. To me, "Did he touch it?" is super clear. "Did he purposefully intend to not touch it?" would be a mess to evaluate.

Again, it's 100% clear that he didn't touch it if you look at the clip I posted. That's not really part of the debate.

[Shoes]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I guess I just don't agree that we should have a rule that requires the refs to gauge the player's intent. To me, "Did he touch it?" is super clear. "Did he purposefully intend to not touch it?" would be a mess to evaluate.

Again, it's 100% clear that he didn't touch it if you look at the clip I posted. That's not really part of the debate.

From the second angle you posted I can’t determine when Nichuskin officially tags up- it’s a convoluted mess. I can see what you are inferring though that by absolute luck the puck isn’t touching Makar’s blade when he enters the zone.

In my opinion the “tag-up” offside and the “delayed” offside rules should be written the same. If a player is deemed to have possession when entering the zone- it’s offside. This would still allow players the ability to lift their stick for a second or two to wait for players to tag up if they wanted, but in this instance eliminates the play where it is pure fluke that the puck isn’t touching a players stick when he enters the zone.

Agree to disagree here and looking forward to game 2.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Shoes

From the second angle you posted I can’t determine when Nichuskin officially tags up- it’s a convoluted mess. I can see what you are inferring though that by absolute luck the puck isn’t touching Makar’s blade when he enters the zone.

In my opinion the “tag-up” offside and the “delayed” offside rules should be written the same. If a player is deemed to have possession when entering the zone- it’s offside. This would still allow players the ability to lift their stick for a second or two to wait for players to tag up if they wanted, but in this instance eliminates the play where it is pure fluke that the puck isn’t touching a players stick when he enters the zone.

Agree to disagree here and looking forward to game 2.

To be fair, the rules WERE exactly the same until a couple of years ago when they change it to ALLOW a player to enter "offsides" if they were the one who possessed the puck (e.g., if they're skating backwards). Prior to that, possession wasn't a part of the offsides rules at all. In other words, this situation has always been legal - it's the other type of offsides that has recently changed.

[Bearcat]

Googled Kuemper to see where that's at and here's a dandy of a headline...

Keeler: Darcy Kuemper vs. Pavel Francouz is the NHL’s version of Drew Lock vs. Teddy Bridgewater. Based on Avalanche-Oilers Game 1, neither guy will get Front Range fans where they want to go.

[DaFace]

Didn't even have to look to know that's a Denver Post article.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Didn't even have to look to know that's a Denver Post article.

I can imagine the light bulb going on over their head.... why have we only been throwing one local franchise under the bus in a single article? What if we cross-clickbait to capture some Broncos readers, too?!