Offsides Review Rule

[Johnnysuede71]

Hello fellow Kings Fans,

Loooooong time reader and follower of this site but this is my very first time posting. One of the best parts of my day is coming on here and catching up on fan reaction to a team I have been following passionately for 35 years. (I even have a Kings tattoo). Thanks to Rinkrat and Hipcheck and all of the other folks who have kept this site alive out of our mutual adoration of our beloved team. That said I can't imagine posting too often...but something has been bothering me lately and after lasts night's deflating gut-punch of a loss to an obviously inferior team I simply had to vent about my dislike of the offside review rule.

My take: If people or technology are constantly monitoring whether plays are offside or not then why not just stop play immediately? The sole purpose of this rule is to overturn a goal...period...even when that goal is scored sometimes 30-45 second after the 'infraction' as was the case in last nights debacle. I think it really flies in the face of the spirit of the game and the fact that at such high speeds human error will always be a component and should be expected as part of the game. Some nerds sitting in a room below the arena waiting for a goal to be scored and then rewinding it to make sure it wasn't offsides is an embarrassment to the game in my opinion. I might be able to understand it if the missed offside call led DIRECTLY to a goal like on a breakaway or an outnumbered attack....but in these instances....almost a minute of time spent in the offensive zone later...getting the goal called back seems almost petulant...for lack of a better word.

I'm not just whining because my team got the short end of the stick last night. I know the Kings have benefitted from this rule as well in the past. I just think it's flat out wrong and bad for the game.

Welcome your thoughts and thanks for having me! GKG (Looking like a hell of a team this year!)

Johnnysuede

 

[EB924]

I think it's a tough situation for the league. The reason replays were introduced is because of big missed off-sides calls that led to goals. Fans were rightly annoyed that the calls were missed that were literally the difference between winning and losing.

That being said, it really does suck the fun out of the game when a big goal is scored and then we get a delay because a video replay team can pinpoint tiny off-sides infractions that were missed. Waiting around for the refs to watch a video review is not good entertainment and it seems kind of silly that a goal that happened almost a minute later would be called back.

For better or worse we now live in a world where everything is captured on video, from many different angels, and every coach or fan can scrutinize every single missed call in a game almost instantly. The NHL, and every other pro sports league, has had to adjust to this new world.

Maybe once this AI revolution thing pans out, and we hopefully aren't being held captive by our robot overlords, we'll have super robot linesmen who never miss an off-sides call.

 

[kingnut]

Kopi was nowhere near onside...

 

[DryKing]

It would be nice to see a time limit implemented, especially in situations like last night where they had to put ~90 seconds back on the board after the goal was overturned. Really seems like we are getting away from what the spirit of the rule was put in place to do: correct missed offside calls when the off-sides leads directly to a goal. Once a minute goes by, it's hard to argue that the off-sides was the reason for the goal (though it was a contributing factor).

 

[Johnnysuede71]

Kopi was nowhere near onside...

All the more reason for A) the linesman to get the call right or B) for the 'watchers' to wave the play off immediately. If a goal isn't scored it's still an infraction and shouldn't be contingent on the offending team scoring especially after a long drawn-out (30 seconds or more) fore check where the puck is handled by multiple players setting up multiple plays. Would a time limit make sense? 15 seconds or over and it's waived off? All I know is the missed off-side call had absolutely nothing to do with the Kings scoring. The rule was meant to prevent cherry picking or an unfair odd-man rush where a goal is scored as a direct result of the missed offside. This idea is being abused IMO.

 

[Johnnysuede71]

It would be nice to see a time limit implemented, especially in situations like last night where they had to put ~90 seconds back on the board after the goal was overturned. Really seems like we are getting away from what the spirit of the rule was put in place to do: correct missed offside calls when the off-sides leads directly to a goal. Once a minute goes by, it's hard to argue that the off-sides was the reason for the goal (though it was a contributing factor).

This exactly.

 

[ICE24]

I'm OK with the replay. He was offsides, we have seen it go our way. Kopi should wear a bigger boot.

 

[kingnut]

All the more reason for A) the linesman to get the call right or B) for the 'watchers' to wave the play off immediately. If a goal isn't scored it's still an infraction and shouldn't be contingent on the offending team scoring especially after a long drawn-out (30 seconds or more) fore check where the puck is handled by multiple players setting up multiple plays. Would a time limit make sense? 15 seconds or over and it's waived off? All I know is the missed off-side call had absolutely nothing to do with the Kings scoring. The rule was meant to prevent cherry picking or an unfair odd-man rush where a goal is scored as a direct result of the missed offside. This idea is being abused IMO.

Thats a positive take on it. Still sux though, but i get it.

 

[Birdman]

That’s not why we lost the game

 

[Clif]

Hull entered the crease on Hasek. Stoll didn’t get called for boarding directly before Scuderi got slammed. Eternal moaning on missed calls suck more than drawn out coach’s challenges. At least this system removes asterisks from one area of officiating.

 

[Bill Hicks]

The rule is simple either it's offside or it's not. As long as they get it right who cares how long it takes.
That said, we know they don't always get it right.
I watch a lot of games and it seems this year the linesmen are missing too many offsides, quite a few
are obvious to the naked eye.

They got goalied and were not as crisp as usual, too many split second bobbles, which I blame on too many off days.
Like baseball, it's a rhythm & timing game. If that's the kind of effort it's going to take to beat this team,
we'll be just fine.

 

[Johnnysuede71]

Agreed the Kings did not lose BECAUSE of the call. I’m not implying they did. My question was general and simple. What do you think of the rule? Surprisingly few responders seem to have a problem with it so I am in the minority. Live and learn. I just would wrap up by saying that I can’t think of any other sport where a similar situation exists…in effect going back in time for an effective portion of a sporting contest…to such an extant that it can literally change the outcome of the game. It is very strange and unique to this sport. Perhaps someone can point out an another example I’m missing.

And yes the goalie had a helluva night and Byfield needs to learn how to FINISH and the power play seems unimaginative at times etc etc. That said at the very least this was an exciting loss…to coin a phrase.

 

[Halfwall]

I'm fine with the way it is now. It seems to me there are fewer and fewer stoppages from challenges compared to years back (especially on goaltender interference).

 

[Rogie-Vachon]

When the Kings lose out to Vegas by 1 point, we’re gonna remember this game.

As for the rule - I think a time limit should be introduced. If, say, 30 seconds elapse after the offsides infraction, then it’s waved off. The defense can’t clear the puck…that’s on them.

I’m sure the D is not thinking, “Hey, Kopitar was offsides, so we’ll let them cycle & fatigue us and if they score, we’ll challenge…even if 45 seconds elapse.”

 

[F**e_Off]

Truth's obviously the truth and the clearer that can be presented the better and fairer the outcome will surely be. With regard to ice hockey, taking account of the number of players involved, the size of the puck and the speed of on-ice puck movement, it is humanly impossible for on-ice officials to be instantaneously accurate in their assessment of all that has gone on in the lead up to a goal or infringement.

I believe that, in the case of ice hockey, the powers that be need to decide either to continue to use available technology to, as swiftly after the occurrence, try and sort out truth from fleeting perception or ditch it all and go back to accepting the inevitable consequences of human error and allow, on-ice judgments to go unanalysed, unchallenged and totally uncriticised.

We all know that even with the use of technology many continue to "see" things differently to all that the images seem to show us. I n this respect, I personally like and applaud all that the NHL is trying to do ascertain the truth through technology. I don't see any need to scale back what is being done, other than to ensure that resulting judgments aided by all of the technological replay analysis available are then as correct as possible and that any subsequent errors (like the outrageously...and, be sure, I am absolutely no fan of theirs...disallowed Ducks goal the other night) are suitably "punished".

There's absolutely nothing wrong, in my book, with using every means at our disposal to ascertain the actual truth and reality of Life, but only proividing we all then undertake to accept the resulting proof as the final determinant of what actually happened and all agree to move on.

 

[rinkrat]

If it's not enough of an offsides to get the call on ise, and it doesn't directly affect the goal being scored, then why run the clock back to find it? They don't do that with other plays.

 

[symbology]

If it's not enough of an offsides to get the call on ise, and it doesn't directly affect the goal being scored, then why run the clock back to find it? They don't do that with other plays.

You know, I was just going to post that there is no reason to change the rule. After reading your take, I can agree with that. If a goal is scored on that rush chance and it was offsides, call it back. Otherwise, let it play on.

I like that idea.

 

[DRice]

I really don't have any problem with video replay being used to get things right. The only thing I would address is the amount of time it takes for them to make a call. There needs to be a time limit to make a decision otherwise it's "inconclusive, call on the ice stands" and we move on. It kills the game to watch 2 refs staring at an iPad for 10 minutes.

 

[EB924]

I really don't have any problem with video replay being used to get things right. The only thing I would address is the amount of time it takes for them to make a call. There needs to be a time limit to make a decision otherwise it's "inconclusive, call on the ice stands" and we move on. It kills the game to watch 2 refs staring at an iPad for 10 minutes.

As the OP mentioned, why not blow the play dead? Doesn't the league have the ability to immediately blow the arena horn to signify that a goal was scored when it was missed on ice (i.e. The puck bounces out of the net so fast it was missed by the refs)?

Of course this could become so common that plays that didn't result in a goal would be called dead all the time, killing the flow of the game. This brings us back to the same problem where the excitement on the ice is brought to a standstill because of video replays. It's a question of how much the league/fans/players want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I think there are great benefits to video replay, but there are drawbacks as well. When many pro sports leagues are trying to improve the flow of the games as well as reduce downtime, the advent of replay challenges have worked against that goal.

I'm kind of on the side of the OP, there should be a limit to how far back you can go to challenge an off-sides call. It would at least limit the amount of challenges.

 

[beedee]

I'm kind of on the side of the OP, there should be a limit to how far back you can go to challenge an off-sides call. It would at least limit the amount of challenges.

This! 30 seconds seems like a good number. They can even add a timer progress bar graphic along the bottom of the screen once a team enters the zone! (j/k about that last part....but I wouldn't put it passed them)