Offsides Review Rule

[Pevsfreedom]

I hate the offsides callback or spending 10 minutes to figure out if a 5 minute should be a 2 minute, but a 2 minute can't become a 5 despite evidence - the amount of reviewable sh*t vs unreviewable is stupid, boring, and messes with the fans in the building and at home. So much of the game is based around being fast paced, and lays in the eyes of the officials. I personally don't give a sh*t if someone scores on us if they were an inch offsides 90 seconds ago - but I guess they "get it right" but it feels very gamey. I can see the importance for like an actual GOAL (checking it went over the line) but a lot of the "getting it right" changes they've made I find to be intolerable. I agree that it should be someone's boring job to review offsides and then waive it off after ~10-30 seconds if it was indeed off sides. I think over a season it averages out regardless for and against a team, and is basically probably a wash in the end, but overall I think there are 2 linesmen who do really good jobs, and might miss an offsides once or twice a game, and I think that's part of the game. If they want it dead 100% accurate get some damn lasers to take their jerbs (jobs) and get it right, but only calling it back if a goal is scored on all of the uncalled offsides is just gamey and goofy to me.

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.

Yeah I mean at the very least these reviews need to be 1-2 minutes at max. It's a joke most of the time.

 

[Kurisu]

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?

They talk about this rule a lot on Sirius NHL shows, and a few of the analysts passionately hate it. I tend to agree with you. There should be a judgement component available to the refs that if the play and possession develop significantly after entering the zone the goal should be allowed. Kinda like hybrid icing. There's a lot of difference between cherry picking and what happened on this goal. If the offsides was a contributing factor on the goal, then sure waive it off. But if the puck is cycled and possession changes after the missed offsides, that should be a refs judgement. If they're putting 30+ seconds back on the clock after the goal is overturned that's just silly.

And I'm not talking about this play, just the rule as it's applied.

 

[AngelEyes]

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.

Until a team loses the decisive Stanley Cup Finals game on a blown offside non-call. (BTW, Hull was in the frickin' crease.)

 

[05/29/93]

Until a team loses the decisive Stanley Cup Finals game on a blown offside non-call. (BTW, Hull was in the frickin' crease.)

Like in 1980:

 

[DarkLeftHand]

While I agree with the usage of video and getting the calls right, it has sapped some of the joy out of the game for me. I now have a slight sense of dread after every Kings goal scored, wondering if the celebration is premature, pending a closer look at the zone entry..