Coaches Challenge on Offsides

[X. Benedict]

Offsides is offsides, no need to start categorizing it. 

 

Length of time of reviews and the "flow of the game" arguments continue to be the most bogus arguments against the replay system.

 

They seem like pretty legit arguments to me. They take time and break flow.

Keep in mind this isn't about replay or the Sabres -this is about a Coaches challenge.

Goals still go to Toronto to be checked. The Coach's challenge is the issue.

[SwampD]

They seem like pretty legit arguments to me. They take time and break flow.

Keep in mind this isn't about replay or the Sabres -this is about a Coaches challenge.

Goals still go to Toronto to be checked. The Coach's challenge is the issue.

How is it any more time than when the go to the booth to review any other goal? That happens all the time.

 

 

And I don't understand the "Have them challenge it right away" notion. What does that mean? Do people want coaches to be able to stop play? That's insane. In no way do I want a coach to have the ability to stop the game because he "thinks" he sees an offside. And if you mean at the first stoppage, it's irrelevant anyway. Once play resumes, any goal that happens after the offside would not be review-able anyway.

Edited November 14, 2015 by SwampD

[X. Benedict]

How is it any more time than when the go to the booth to review any other goal? That happens all the time.

 

 

And I don't understand the "Have them challenge it right away" notion. What does that mean? Do people want coaches to be able to stop play? That's insane. In no way do I want a coach to have the ability to stop the game because he "thinks" he sees an offside. And if you mean at the first stoppage, it's irrelevant anyway. Once play resumes, any goal that happens after the offside would not be review-able anyway.

The coaches challenge is checked on ice for some reason.

[Claude_Verret]

Let's take it the other way then, let coaches challenge called offsides that were really onside. If proven correct on the challenge....penalty shot!

[SwampD]

The coaches challenge is checked on ice for some reason.

That is curious, but does it take any more time than an actual booth review?

Edited November 14, 2015 by SwampD

[GoPre]

I know it's been already been said, but addition of this rule is hurting the game. Slowly evolving into an NFL style of play or presentation. If it wasn't for the Bills, the NFL would be dead to me. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Thanes16

[Taro T]

Offsides is offsides, no need to start categorizing it. 

 

If the Sabres lose a game I want to now that the goal was legit. If they lose and replay shows later the play was offsides I would be pissed. The NHL's coaches challenge is replay done right.  I wish the NFL would expand their coaches challenge system. 

So, you wouldn't mind if the Sabres lost a game on a bad call as long as it only takes 30-60 seconds to review? 

 

Length of time of reviews and the "flow of the game" arguments continue to be the most bogus arguments against the replay system.

 

It's not truly about the length of time. It's about whether it is clearcut or not. How many times do we see the NFL come back w/ 'the call stands' rather than 'the call is confirmed?' Just because it's reviewed / reviewable doesn't mean the review will resolve anything.

 

By placing a time limit on it, we're allowing the ref (in the case of coaches challenges) to say 'it's not clear enough whether the play was offsides or not, so the call will stand.' Without that, we're telling the ref he has to see something that might not be there. If the offsides isn't clearcut, then lt that bit of humanity that is in the game remain. The linesman who's seen 100,000's of these in his career thought it was onsides; barring clear evidence he's wrong - trust him.

 

I'd like to see the calls be correct. But when the play is close enough, it pretty much becomes a coin flip whether the review will be correct. Once you're getting there, just let the original call stand.

 

And if it truly was a glaringly bad call that cost a team a game, then investigate the crew for being on the take.

 

1 minute is a long time. If the ref can't see clear evidence his coworker screwed up in that time then don't throw him under the bus. (2 minutes is a very long time. Maybe run w/ that.)

[Stoner]

I've asked before and not gotten an answer. I can't find anything online. Do we know for sure that the NHL uses the NFL standard of "incontrovertible visual evidence otherwise the initial call stands"? Or do Toronto/the ref look at the call from "scratch" (preponderance of evidence) as if they are making the original call?

[MattPie]

Really? You are going to cost effectively come up with an elecronic detection system to identify when all players of the attacking side that DON'T have the puck do not have any portion of either skate on the blueline / in the neutral zone prior to the puck completely crossing the blueline while also allowing for the puck carrier to proceed into the zone ahead of the puck providing he has control of the puck.

 

I would very much like to see that system.

 

A combination of cameras and manual observation could be used relatively inexpensively but truly doubt an effective & cost effective fully electronic system can be developed at present. Would be cool if it could.

 

The simplest method would probably be to track the puck crossing the line (not that hard to do) and fire off a set of cameras (or grab stills from video feeds) and send them to the war room in Toronto can then signal the on-ice folks if the play was offsides in the event of a goal. You could make the argument that the war room should blow the play dead whether a goal was scored or not, or maybe even signal the linesman to call the play offsides and he can blow it dead if it makes sense (the attacking team is still in possession).

[Taro T]

The simplest method would probably be to track the puck crossing the line (not that hard to do) and fire off a set of cameras (or grab stills from video feeds) and send them to the war room in Toronto can then signal the on-ice folks if the play was offsides in the event of a goal. You could make the argument that the war room should blow the play dead whether a goal was scored or not, or maybe even signal the linesman to call the play offsides and he can blow it dead if it makes sense (the attacking team is still in possession).

That would not "electronically detect offsides." Your system uses people to make the determination of offsides. Pi proposed taking people out of the equation and that would seem to be very expensive at present.

[Stoner]

The ceremony for linesman Driscoll's 1,500th game brought to the surface another reason I hate reviewing offsides. Linesmen are awesome. I've always been impressed by the work they do, quietly. They don't deserve this scrutiny and shaming. Maybe they miss a few here and there. They are scarcer than hens teeth. Leave them alone. So what if a goal follows a blown call? IT HAD NO DIRECT BEARING ON THE GOAL!!!!!!!

 

!

 

!!

Edited November 16, 2015 by pASabreFan

[pi2000]

That would not "electronically detect offsides." Your system uses people to make the determination of offsides. Pi proposed taking people out of the equation and that would seem to be very expensive at present.

 

Right, a fully electronic system, while possible, would be prohibitively expensive at this present time.    A less expensive method would be a system similar to the HawkEye in tennis.    Keep the same challenge rule in tact, but use the hawkeye system for speeding up the review.     Hawkeye uses cameras positioned at the top of the stadium to triangulate the exact position of the ball.    Could this work in hockey?  Maybe?   It would like be a much cheaper solution than planting chips in pucks with trackpads under the ice, etc...   

[MattPie]

That would not "electronically detect offsides." Your system uses people to make the determination of offsides. Pi proposed taking people out of the equation and that would seem to be very expensive at present.

 

You're correct, I was just thinking of automating the info gathering so it would happen faster.

 

Right, a fully electronic system, while possible, would be prohibitively expensive at this present time.    A less expensive method would be a system similar to the HawkEye in tennis.    Keep the same challenge rule in tact, but use the hawkeye system for speeding up the review.     Hawkeye uses cameras positioned at the top of the stadium to triangulate the exact position of the ball.    Could this work in hockey?  Maybe?   It would like be a much cheaper solution than planting chips in pucks with trackpads under the ice, etc...   

 

I think a black puck being pushed with sticks with 14 people skating around is a more difficult thing to track than a bright green ball with almost nothing else in the field of play, and only momentarily being in contact with anything. The chip and sensor would seem easy to me in comparison. :)

[darksabre]

I have officially reached temper tantrum status over this rule. 

[WildCard]

I have officially reached temper tantrum status over this rule. 

That's about as good a way I can describe my own feelings. Beyond angry and with nothing to do against it, I just want to throw things at Bettman and yell at him

 

 

So, would a petition actually work for this? I think the replay is here to stay though

[Randall Flagg]

My girlfriend is worried that she did something to upset me. you NHL.

[Stoner]

Me too. I just made caka and I am gonna throw it.

[WildCard]

My girlfriend is worried that she did something to upset me. ###### you NHL.

Roll with it...

[Taro T]

So, purely playing devil's advocate here. Any possibility the league planned for the offsides review to call back this many goals, showing how often the Linesmen do screw up what on its surface seems a rather straight forward call, and using it as a precursor to get rid of the on-ice Linesmen?

 

I'd doubt it. As it assumes the league can "plan" but, hey, aren't conspiracy theories fun?

[JJFIVEOH]

I think the rule on this should be, you call for a review as soon as it happens. When play stops review it. Don't have some dumb butt idea of calling it only after a goal is scored. Swamp where I have my biggest disagreement with you is either it's an offside review or not. If Ennis in this case doesn't score, they never would have reviewed it, play would have gone on as if nothing happened.

 

Call for an offside review immediately or live with the consequences. That technology exists today, heck they've used a push button on Jeopardy for years.

 

A team could use this negatively just to stop a scoring opportunity late in a close game. Would never work.

[Stoner]

Are we missing something here? Did Rob say something to the effect that 2% of goals shouldn't have counted last year? Is that interference and offside? I can't understand how the offside issue was so egregrious that we needed this abomination.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Let's be real.... The league, is not that smart

[WildCard]

So, purely playing devil's advocate here. Any possibility the league planned for the offsides review to call back this many goals, showing how often the Linesmen do screw up what on its surface seems a rather straight forward call, and using it as a precursor to get rid of the on-ice Linesmen?

 

I'd doubt it. As it assumes the league can "plan" but, hey, aren't conspiracy theories fun?

What would be the benefit of eliminating them? Cost? 

[Stoner]

Roll with it...

That was my thought. Make her feel guilty. Then ask for a porterhouse.

[darksabre]

What would be the benefit of eliminating them? Cost? 

More space on the ice probably.