Coaches Challenge on Offsides

[Stoner]

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

My Gary isn't clever enough to hatch a scheme like this!

[darksabre]

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.

2% seems like an underestimate if the Sabres record against the challenge so far is to be taken as somewhat normal. 

[Stoner]

Who wants to go to NYC tonight? Let's go! Let's go! Protest outside league headquarters. Who's with me?

 

Ah screw it, I'm going to bed.

[Iron Crotch]

In a league where scoring is at an all-time low, creating more opportunities for goals to be wiped off the board just doesn't make sense.

[Taro T]

What would be the benefit of eliminating them? Cost?

 

 

 

This.

 

 

More space on the ice probably.

 

& this.

 

And as long as it's a conspiracy theory, once the Linesmen are gone, then they have an excuse to ban fighting POSSIBLY helping them to reduce their LT concussion lawsuit liability.

[X. Benedict]

Grrr. 

[bcsaberks]

Who wants to go to NYC tonight? Let's go! Let's go! Protest outside league headquarters. Who's with me?

 

Ah screw it, I'm going to bed.

Pretty much. I'll email sabres and the league tomorrow. I'm taking a break from this NFL-like product until they fix it.

Plenty of good youth and college hockey to enjoy. Freakin garbage.

[Iron Crotch]

I think the offside challenge rule needs to be changed to apply only to the case where the offside guy scores the goals.  Or just get rid of the damned thing.  It seems stupid to have the game be played for 20 second with the puck changing hands multiple times, then only after the score the coach can retroactively call for an offside.  I'm just not sure why the league is trying so hard to reduce scoring even further from what is already an offensively starved game...

[Thorner]

I have officially reached temper tantrum status over this rule. 

 

I am there, too.

[dudacek]

What a kick in the teeth.

I knew it was coming back as as soon as I saw Goligoski pointing as he got out of the box.

I wonder if I would feel different if we were 3 and 0 with the rule, instead of 0 and 3 with each one a game-changer.

Every time, they got it right.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dudacek

[darksabre]

Here's what I don't get. Offsides used to be simple. You didn't enter the zone before the puck. Okay. Great. 

 

Then the NHL decided they'd let you enter the zone before the puck as long as you weren't completely in the zone before the puck. They did this to increase scoring and reduce offsides stoppages. 

 

But now they want to make sure they're getting the modified offsides right? Which does what? Reduce scoring and increase stoppages.

 

Talk about pointless. 

 

Here's a thought. How about just make offsides...offsides?

[dudacek]

How about eliminating offside altogether?

It would certainly open things up.

[Iron Crotch]

How about eliminating offside altogether?

It would certainly open things up.

 

One idea is to eliminate the blue lines and use the red line for offsides and icing.  No neutral zone!

 

Edit: makes the linesmen's job much easier - one on each side of the red line.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Potato

[Randall Flagg]

If this rule hadn't been implemented, and these exact same events had happened, assuming tonight and versus Ottawa we get into OT, we would sit tied for 3rd in the Atlantic if we had lost each game in OT, and would be in 2nd, home ice, had we won those games in OT.

[SwampD]

My only question is how the F did the refs miss it in the first place. Ennis was Offside by a mile.

[qwksndmonster]

My only question is how the F did the refs miss it in the first place. Ennis was Offside by a mile.

They seemed to miss every offsides call in the 3rd.

[WildCard]

I like the human error of sports, which is ironic considering I like the stats too. Replay blows, in every sport, plane and simple. The only single sport it may belong in is football, because it is such a static sport

[Thorner]

What a kick in the teeth.

I knew it was coming back as as soon as I saw Goligoski pointing as he got out of the box.

I wonder if I would feel different if we were 3 and 0 with the rule, instead of 0 and 3 with each one a game-changer.

Every time, they got it right.

 

I am beginning to think there is quite the difference between getting it "right, after the fact" and "right". All three were offside, but I see a lot "wrong" with this new process, enough to hesitate to call it "right", unfortunately.

[Cage]

I have officially reached temper tantrum status over this rule. 

 

When this happened back in the first game on Kane's goal (Girgensons was offside).  Tim Murray weighed in and wasn't upset, claiming it was the correct call.  Yo GMTM, you need to change your view on this and become an advocate for getting rid of this crazy technicality of a rule.  Its cost your team three goals and possibly two losses!!  This is NOT hockey!

 

I'm just looking at the article on this in the BN this morning... this is the exact same thing that happened in the first game. 

"It’s disappointing after the fact, but it’s a major downer when it happens. The roaring crowd went silent. The pumped-up Sabres suddenly had air let out. They tried to focus on continuing their power play and getting the goal back, but they never really challenged again."

 

They're being way too kind to this abomination of a rule.  When you read this it shows that the COST of this infraction is far greater than just erasing a goal.  Its changing the entire momentum of the game

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cage

[wallybarthman]

I think we Sabres fans are very sensitive on this topic as we had two instances in our history where a goal was allowed that should have been (99 vs the Stars) and a goal that wasn't a goal allowed to stand (2000 vs Philly) when it went through the side of the net.  So far, it seems that the NHL is only capable of screwing the Sabres over - getting it wrong when it works against us and taking our goals away from us.  

 

The irony is I like the rule.  I remember one instance in the 98 run (I think against Washington in the playoffs) where a Capitals player didn't tag up - didn't even come close to it actually and scored.  In that case, it wasn't a discretionary call - the linesman just plain missed it.  All of our "offsides" this season were so close you can see why the linesman ruled the play on sides because the player's forward momentum carried them into the zone as the puck entered the zone.  All three you've needed instant replay AND slow motion to make the "correct" call.  

 

If you watch it at full speed, it's inconclusive (which is what the linesman essentially ruled) and therefore shouldn't be overturned.  I know we can't make a rule of not using slow motion for reviewing offsides (and we certainly wouldn't want that rule for goals) but I think it's a valid point that slow motion provides something that the human eye can't and is it worth it for an offsides call that in real time is about .1 second tops.  

[GoPre]

Crazy thing is Rob Ray seemed to support it last night. Joking around about what were players "true" stats back in the day. He never mentioned anything negative about the rule. Granted, I was in and out of the room when he spoke of it, so maybe I did miss something. This is a new tactic for all coaches to use after a goal is scored. Immediately talk to the boys upstairs and see if there is a chance of the play being reversed due to offsides. Used to brag how hockey is fastest moving sport. How it can literally go minutes w/out stoppage in play. Now that's all beginning to fade away. Way to go any and all involved w/ the addition of this ridiculous coaches challenge. 

[That Aud Smell]

Robi on GR moments ago. Simon quoted Bylsma as saying last night, in effect, it was disappointing, sure, but better to get it right. Robi agreed.

 

Seems like hockey people are more inclined to want correct calls; purity and integrity.

 

Fans? I think we're more inclined to accept some occasional missed calls for the sake of a more entertaining game.

 

The NHL is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[SwampD]

Robi on GR moments ago. Simon quoted Bylsma as saying last night, in effect, it was disappointing, sure, but better to get it right. Robi agreed.

 

Seems like hockey people are more inclined to want correct calls; purity and integrity.

 

Fans? I think we're more inclined to accept some occasional missed calls for the sake of a more entertaining game.

 

The NHL is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I don't think entertainment has anything to do with it. I think that fans are more inclined to accept some occasional calls as long as it is their team who benefits from them.

[wjag]

Crazy thing is Rob Ray seemed to support it last night. Joking around about what were players "true" stats back in the day. He never mentioned anything negative about the rule. Granted, I was in and out of the room when he spoke of it, so maybe I did miss something. This is a new tactic for all coaches to use after a goal is scored. Immediately talk to the boys upstairs and see if there is a chance of the play being reversed due to offsides. Used to brag how hockey is fastest moving sport. How it can literally go minutes w/out stoppage in play. Now that's all beginning to fade away. Way to go any and all involved w/ the addition of this ridiculous coaches challenge. 

 

 

It's not just the Sabres..  Talk to Ovi

 

I like the rule.  It just hasn't worked out for the Sabres yet..  It will and all of you will be turning your swords into plowshares

Edited November 18, 2015 by wjag

[North Buffalo]

I don't like the ability of coaches to challenge offsides, goals are one thing... Offside challenges seem as others have stated ruins flow.