I don't know how I feel about this - As an engineer I like exacting detail - a clear idea of right and wrong -
however as a hockey fan and with the arbitrary interpretations of rules by officials all the time I guess the league is looking for ways to be black and white about some calls -
I agree the delay is really getting crazy for all these reviews across the playoffs -
I think what makes me crazy is the lame league explanations of these calls or non calls on the case of Shaw's goal - just no rhyme or reason for some of them -
- dozerD10

I like how you threw in you're an engineer.

I like how you threw in you're an engineer.


- vancity787

I know right - no Marine Biologist ... better episode -

I like how you threw in you're an engineer.


- vancity787

Coga is the only architect around here.

Why does it matter that he threw in that he drives trains?

I like how you threw in you're an engineer.


- vancity787

As a lifelong Blues fan I went into that game with the expectation that they would lose in some absurd manner. It always happens, that is Blues playoff hockey.

But that was idiotic, almost as idiotic as the phantom embellishment call on Fabbri.

So at one point the ref doesn't want to decide the game so he invents an embellishment, then a few minutes later he is fine waiving off a goal that he needed a microscope to see the infraction on?
- Cephalopods

Fabbri had just hacked Toews, Ladd cross-checked Fabbri - Two penalties....

Coga is the only architect around here.

Why does it matter that he threw in that he drives trains?
- Iggysbff

Respect my booshie homie

If the Coyotes win the Lottery to draft Matthews then I guess that will be a conspiracy?

But if they NHL was really about making money, why did they screw over the Sabres twice in drafts even though they have some of the top ratings in all the league?

come on man not everything is illuminati poop
- DDM-Coga

There is no conspiracy about draft lotteries or game outcomes, how can I be anymore clear? Anyone who thinks there is is just wrong.

Glad you took the time to try and discredit my point without addressing my hockey based evaluation of WHY that play gets called offsides. But im sure you will come up with something that is an excuse against chicago in this scenario
- FourFeathers773

I found your point to be ridiculous and your reasoning to be the same reasoning that people use constantly to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. I am sorry, but I find that kind of reasoning intellectually offensive and will not tolerate it.

He's already deemed in the offensive zone because his trailing skate is off the ice and the puck hasn't entered the zone or crossed the entirety of the blue paint. It's not the front, closer to center, it's the back, closer to the goal line, that the puck has to cross before a player can enter.

Unless you have control of the puck, you can then skate in backwards if you want.
- LeftCoaster

I understand the determining edge rule. I have been a linesman before.

My thing is from this angle it looks like the puck is just barely on the blue line. But that is an illusion from the angle looking from inside the blueline looking out.

The puck is not right up against the boards.
The puck is in the air.

Those two things coupled with the angle prove that the puck is at least right on or really close to being completely in the offensive zone at this freeze-frame picture.

Imaging panning to the right. The whole image moves to the left. Which includes the puck from where it appears to be in this pic.

Feel like your missing the point here. Its probably not so much the call was overturned as it is the 5 minutes of energy sapping ridiculousness that takes what was a fantastic exciting playoff match up all the way down to a preseason atmosphere.
- benmacw

Exactly. No one is arguing that the play wasn't technically called correctly.

The problems are 1. that isn't the spirit of the rule

2. It's a pedantic and miserly application of the rule.

3. The coach's challange shouldn't exist.

4. The call ruined a game because of application of a rule that wasn't needed and should be eliminated.

5 . The goal that actually counted (Shaw's) was far worse and if either goal should have been disallowed, it was that one.

6. These delays ruin the game and are not worth the fractional accuracy they provide.

Great. See ya later and good luck in the future. Cuz this is nothing but click bait. And terribly wrong too boot.

Bye.
- Iggysbff

Yeah OK there bud. You're the biggest troll that posts on this site and have zero credibility. How you're even allowed to post here is beyond me. So when you say "see ya" it probably is for reasons different than you think.

Exactly. No one is arguing that the play wasn't technically called correctly.

The problems are 1. that isn't the spirit of the rule

2. It's a pedantic and miserly application of the rule.

3. The coach's challange shouldn't exist.

4. The call ruined a game because of application of a rule that wasn't needed and should be eliminated.

5 . The goal that actually counted (Shaw's) was far worse and if either goal should have been disallowed, it was that one.

6. These delays ruin the game and are not worth the fractional accuracy they provide.
- James_Tanner

I am not actually sure the call was correct. I at least haven't seen an angle proving that the puck wasn't completely over the line when his back skate comes up.

You can't tell from the angle shown over and over because it is inside the blueline looking out.

I agree with the concept that if the infraction is so minuscule it can't be detected by sight then it should not matter. Regarding the Coaches Challenge, it shouldn't be one per game. Maybe a coach gets say 10 over the whole regular season, and maybe 3 per playoff season- that would add some strategic nuance- when to use it, when to save it for another battle, etc- at least in the playoffs it does have a real cost to lose your timeout if it goes multiple overtimes
- Top_Shelf_Shot

How about just zero coach's challenges? The league was fine without them for 100 years and now that they have them, the game is worse. They tried, it sucked time to go back to the status quo.

I found your point to be ridiculous and your reasoning to be the same reasoning that people use constantly to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. I am sorry, but I find that kind of reasoning intellectually offensive and will not tolerate it.
- James_Tanner

Here we go again with your arrogance.

So just so we are all clear:

Blogger: gets to pass off his opinion as irrefutable fact constantly and cannot be attacked for it.

Poster: can never pass opinion as fact even if the facts support it.

Here the argument tho...if there is no replay then Chicago fans are freaking out because it was offsides. Offsides is offsides. I'm in the get the call right crowd. It's the 21st century and the leauge is in it.

I never agree with the NHL rule changes or gimmicks (i.e.-3/3 OT or shootout, etc) but getting calls right, especially goals, is imperative. It's a very fast sport and sometimes you just can't see it with the naked eye in the moment.

I don't know how I feel about this - As an engineer I like exacting detail - a clear idea of right and wrong -
however as a hockey fan and with the arbitrary interpretations of rules by officials all the time I guess the league is looking for ways to be black and white about some calls -
I agree the delay is really getting crazy for all these reviews across the playoffs -
I think what makes me crazy is the lame league explanations of these calls or non calls on the case of Shaw's goal - just no rhyme or reason for some of them -
- dozerD10

http://imgur.com/fDfDJPt

Not sure why people are talking about inches.
90% of his body and his entire stick were in the zone before the puck was. In the spirit of the off side rule he was in miles ahead of the play. It was an easy call and the right one. If it was a Hawk player I would say the same. Unlike Hitchcock the Hawks would have long moved on and prepared for game 3.

Here the argument tho...if there is no replay then Chicago fans are freaking out because it was offsides. Offsides is offsides. I'm in the get the call right crowd. It's the 21st century and the leauge is in it.

I never agree with the NHL rule changes or gimmicks (i.e.-3/3 OT or shootout, etc) but getting calls right, especially goals, is imperative. It's a very fast sport and sometimes you just can't see it with the naked eye in the moment.
- Slimtj100

Will people please stop this!! Its "offside" not offsides.

http://imgur.com/fDfDJPt

Not sure why people are talking about inches.
90% of his body and his entire stick were in the zone before the puck was. In the spirit of the off side rule he was in miles ahead of the play. It was an easy call and the right one. If it was a Hawk player I would say the same. Unlike Hitchcock the Hawks would have long moved on and prepared for game 3.
- Colbyboy

Which is specifically allowed by the rule as long as one skate is still on his side of the blue line.

Anyone care to quote where the rule book says skate has to be in contact with the ice?

How about just zero coach's challenges? The league was fine without them for 100 years and now that they have them, the game is worse. They tried, it sucked time to go back to the status quo.
- James_Tanner[/quo

Because it's about getting it right.

Tennis, Football ...on and on all have reviews. Get with times.

Yeah OK there bud. You're the biggest troll that posts on this site and have zero credibility. How you're even allowed to post here is beyond me. So when you say "see ya" it probably is for reasons different than you think.
- James_Tanner

Awe...go cry to the mods?

I have not broken any COC rules here. You on the other hand...

I had no issue with the goal being called back.

Will people please stop this!! Its "offside" not offsides.
- Iggysbff

Thank you!!!!!!

[quote=James_Tanner]How about just zero coach's challenges? The league was fine without them for 100 years and now that they have them, the game is worse. They tried, it sucked time to go back to the status quo.
- Colbyboy[/quo

Because it's about getting it right.

Tennis, Football ...on and on all have reviews. Get with times.

True, but with tennis it's for a single point, and the review takes about 10 seconds.

And football has frequent stops as well.

Thanks you!!!!!!
- Colbyboy

Will people please stop this!! Its "offside" not offsides.
- Iggysbff

Offsides is offside