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

I agree, but there is a fine line with this.

Why can only offside be reviewable. What about icing where there is a clear line on where the puck has to be shot behind? If an icing is called, should that be reviewable and if deemed not really icing the puck drop isn't in the defensive zone?

I remember thinking live that I wasn't sure if an icing really was icing. I can't remember if it was the one that was directly before the faceoff that the Hawks won and scored at the very end of the 2nd period. That icing call (if wrong) would have given Chicago a scoring chance where they wouldn't have had one as the period would have ended.

There are all kind of things that could be reviewed to get correct if that is what the NHL wants.

I really don't want reviews of icings, just an example of a time where I would rather just play than to maybe get a call right and have to extend games and stop the flow, one of the best things about hockey compared to other sports.

using the same logic, does the league need to ignore too many men if the player was going to the bench anyway? or maybe the puck only needs to just partially cross the blue line. Goals scored just after the whistle count because it was going to go in anyway? Tanner, you are typical of the whiney never played the game blogger whose opinion is so high and mighty that when the rules are applied that's not good enough, because it's really interpretation. Selective application of laws (rules) is tyranny. The game would be lost if any of what you suggest actually occured in the NHL.

I agree, but there is a fine line with this.

Why can only offside be reviewable. What about icing where there is a clear line on where the puck has to be shot behind? If an icing is called, should that be reviewable and if deemed not really icing the puck drop isn't in the defensive zone?

I remember thinking live that I wasn't sure if an icing really was icing. I can't remember if it was the one that was directly before the faceoff that the Hawks won and scored at the very end of the 2nd period. That icing call (if wrong) would have given Chicago a scoring chance where they wouldn't have had one as the period would have ended.

There are all kind of things that could be reviewed to get correct if that is what the NHL wants.

I really don't want reviews of icings, just an example of a time where I would rather just play than to maybe get a call right and have to extend games and stop the flow, one of the best things about hockey compared to other sports.
- carcus

It's a coaches challenge, it's not like the refs said lemme review this or Toronto called. Reviews are made by officials. The thing I don't agree with is Quenville loses his challenge in getting it right, that's the farce of the whole thing

using the same logic, does the league need to ignore too many men if the player was going to the bench anyway? or maybe the puck only needs to just partially cross the blue line. Goals scored just after the whistle count because it was going to go in anyway? Tanner, you are typical of the whiney never played the game blogger whose opinion is so high and mighty that when the rules are applied that's not good enough, because it's really interpretation. Selective application of laws (rules) is tyranny. The game would be lost if any of what you suggest actually occured in the NHL.
- weakglovehand

Flagged

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


- James_Tanner

Actually, I will. The linesmen reviewing the replays and everyone in the world since the goal was overturned is focusing on the back foot when they should be focusing on the front one.

As Lehtera is turning into the zone, at the time the puck is crossing the line, the replay shows his trailing foot off the ice. The same replay also shows that his lead foot doesn't make contact in the zone until after the puck is across the line even from that unfavorable angle. All you have to do is watch the shadow under his skate as that skate descends toward the ice surface. At the point in time where the shadow and the skate blade connect (i.e. - when he establishes himself in the zone) the puck is already well across the attacking zone edge of the blueline. If the officials had been completely thorough in their review, they would have seen this and had no reason to overturn their call.

Imagine if you will a player standing still while straddling the blueline waiting for his teammate to dump the puck in the zone. As the player dumps it past him, he leaps with both feet off the ice to allow the puck to pass into the zone. If he has established himself as being onside and then had both skates off the ice surface as the puck enters the zone, how can he then be determined to be offside simply by virtue of the fact that neither of his skates were touching the ice. You are onside until you aren't, and like the player in this example, Lehtera was onside.

They got this call wrong, but for reasons no one seems to be talking about, and it completely changed the direction of the game and possibly the series.

Only because the "dumb rule" went against your team you have a problem with it.. If it went against the Blackhawks you would have no problem with it...

It's been called consistently all year.. Not sure if you ever had a problem with it before...

Who cares? The game is played by humans and humans make mistakes. As long as the refs are neutral, why does it even matter if there is an occasional bad call?

What matters is millions of dollars gained or loss by each team advancing in the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is the reason for video challenges.

Sorry, sports are BIG businesses these days. Your whining or bending of the rule is

Actually, I will. The linesmen reviewing the replays and everyone in the world since the goal was overturned is focusing on the back foot when they should be focusing on the front one.

As Lehtera is turning into the zone, at the time the puck is crossing the line, the replay shows his trailing foot off the ice. The same replay also shows that his lead foot doesn't make contact in the zone until after the puck is across the line even from that unfavorable angle. All you have to do is watch the shadow under his skate as that skate descends toward the ice surface. At the point in time where the shadow and the skate blade connect (i.e. - when he establishes himself in the zone) the puck is already well across the attacking zone edge of the blueline. If the officials had been completely thorough in their review, they would have seen this and had no reason to overturn their call.

Imagine if you will a player standing still while straddling the blueline waiting for his teammate to dump the puck in the zone. As the player dumps it past him, he leaps with both feet off the ice to allow the puck to pass into the zone. If he has established himself as being onside and then had both skates off the ice surface as the puck enters the zone, how can he then be determined to be offside simply by virtue of the fact that neither of his skates were touching the ice. You are onside until you aren't, and like the player in this example, Lehtera was onside.

They got this call wrong, but for reasons no one seems to be talking about, and it completely changed the direction of the game and possibly the series.
- bluenatic411

You make a good point but from angles I've seen his front skate also touches down before the puck is fully across the blue line as well.

Actually, I will. The linesmen reviewing the replays and everyone in the world since the goal was overturned is focusing on the back foot when they should be focusing on the front one.

As Lehtera is turning into the zone, at the time the puck is crossing the line, the replay shows his trailing foot off the ice. The same replay also shows that his lead foot doesn't make contact in the zone until after the puck is across the line even from that unfavorable angle. All you have to do is watch the shadow under his skate as that skate descends toward the ice surface. At the point in time where the shadow and the skate blade connect (i.e. - when he establishes himself in the zone) the puck is already well across the attacking zone edge of the blueline. If the officials had been completely thorough in their review, they would have seen this and had no reason to overturn their call.

Imagine if you will a player standing still while straddling the blueline waiting for his teammate to dump the puck in the zone. As the player dumps it past him, he leaps with both feet off the ice to allow the puck to pass into the zone. If he has established himself as being onside and then had both skates off the ice surface as the puck enters the zone, how can he then be determined to be offside simply by virtue of the fact that neither of his skates were touching the ice. You are onside until you aren't, and like the player in this example, Lehtera was onside.

They got this call wrong, but for reasons no one seems to be talking about, and it completely changed the direction of the game and possibly the series.
- bluenatic411

This was also my first thought and have brought it up about his front foot not being on the ice and the last time it touched the ice before the puck is clearly in the zone was in the neutral zone.

I have moved on from that and even the back foot as it is lifted, the location of the puck is very questionable from the angles I have seen on video/pictures.

I don't see how they call that offside unless they have other angles that they aren't sharing. And why wouldn't they if they clearly show him offside?

As a Blues fan, I have to say I have no problem with the rulings from last nights game. The fact is, the Blues lost some composure, which lost us the game. That said, I have never understood the need for a player having to have his skate on the ice in a offside situation. That is ridiculous. It makes much more sense to require players to break the plain of the blueline when judging the offside, than him having to drag a skate on the ice to stay onside. The blueline should not hamper the natural stride of a player, which was the case of Lehtera last night.

This was also my first thought and have brought it up about his front foot not being on the ice and the last time it touched the ice before the puck is clearly in the zone was in the neutral zone.

I have moved on from that and even the back foot as it is lifted, the location of the puck is very questionable from the angles I have seen on video/pictures.

I don't see how they call that offside unless they have other angles that they aren't sharing. And why wouldn't they if they clearly show him offside?
- carcus

They did say on the broadcast that the NHL has other access to camera angles that TV doesn't.

I'm sure the teams get to look at it if they want. Not sure why they wouldn't let fans see it as well though.

Calls are calls and they go both ways.....it's how the Players and in particular how leadership reacts.

Hitch and Backes needed to call a time out and settled the team down for the 7 minute stretch run and Teresanko took a bad penalty at a bad time. I remember when Toews took a series of Bad penalties against Detroit in 2013 and Seabrook climbed into the box and calmed him down and the rest is history.
Hitch and Backes did nothing but complain and wine and that's the difference between the Hawks leadership and the Blues. It's also why if they lose this series Hitch will be gone.

Hitchcock's post game was pathetic.

The play was off side and Shaw made a Hockey play and scored. Big Deal...every analyst on TSN and Sports net agree and these are long time Hockey guys from every position.
- Colbyboy

What was nice, was after about 8 minutes to decide if Shaw's goal was legit, a commercial timeout followed. Hitch and Backes had 10 minutes to get their act together. Hitch then pulls Elliott early for the easy empty netter, which ends up being the winning goal. Over reaction from leadership cost them the game. Arbitrary rule application is the norm for the NHL and goalie interference is the biggest. Adding offside to that list doesn't help the game

NHL Network had the new blueline camera angle and that showed it the best..... it was offsides, get over it. Instead of sulking like their fans the Blues could have sacked up and went out and got the goal back like good teams actually do (2013 Hawks vs Wings in a disallowed goal that should have won the game, Hawks come right back and win it in ot) instead the Blues let the Hawks walk away with a win.

The Blues were out shot 35-18 and totally outplayed in game 1 and should have went down 1-0 in the series but a lucky bounce got them the win, point is just be lucky this series isn't 2-0 going back to Chicago

Oh and the "phantom" call on Fabri was a slashing call which is what he did to Toews before Ladd put him in the boards so no phantom call there just refs seeing him being a punk and getting what he deserved then evening it up. BTW Steen is doing enough slashing and stick work this series to cover Keith for the next two series

To overturn a goal that is that close is ridiculous. I was watching live and no one was like 'hey that might be offside' the Hawks were just throwing a hail mary.

The coaches challenges have to go. All video replay should go, it's garbage. Let em play.
- James_Tanner

Except that Quenneville in the post game presser said he had replay folks from behind the bench yelling at him to take a challenge as they saw the guy offsides. Far from a "hail mary".

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

Totally agree. Anyone who is saying "offsides is offsides" or "calls go both ways" is missing the entire point. This has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about the spirit of the rule. Fact is, not one player on the ice would have done anything differently on that play because it is not humanly possible to see that offside. St Louis earned that goal and the only reason that got challenged was because it was the go ahead goal and the blackhawks had nothing to lose that that point. The worse ones are the ones that happen a minute later when the play really had nothing to do with the goal scored. There are many more infractions that are missed by the officials that actually affect the play on the ice, offsides are the most arbitrary calls to focus on.

Hard to believe that anyone who likes the sport can support the coach's challenge for offsides, makes no sense. Worse is yet to come, imagine a game 7 series clinching goal, the most exciting play in hockey, being tied up by a 5-10 NHL video review for an offside. It's 100% the toe in the crease all over again.

You make a good point but from angles I've seen his front skate also touches down before the puck is fully across the blue line as well.
- Iggysbff

I'm not tech savvy enough to be able to provide a screen grab, but the Blues feed showed the same angle as the "imgur" link earlier in the thread, and when you move it forward frame by frame, the puck disappears behind Lehtera with white ice visible between him and the blueline at the same time his skate connects with its shadow.

I think they got it wrong based on the evidence, but the bigger question is that in the context of everything we've been able to see about the location of both skates relative to when the puck crosses the line, how in the world can they justify calling it "conclusive" that the play was offside? Based on the evidence available, it is onside at best and at worst inconclusive. The league and its officials have interjected themselves into the outcome of a playoff game, and in so doing may have influenced the outcome of the series.

Totally agree. Anyone who is saying "offsides is offsides" or "calls go both ways" is missing the entire point. This has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about the spirit of the rule. Fact is, not one player on the ice would have done anything differently on that play because it is not humanly possible to see that offside. St Louis earned that goal and the only reason that got challenged was because it was the go ahead goal and the blackhawks had nothing to lose that that point. The worse ones are the ones that happen a minute later when the play really had nothing to do with the goal scored. There are many more infractions that are missed by the officials that actually affect the play on the ice, offsides are the most arbitrary calls to focus on.

Hard to believe that anyone who likes the sport can support the coach's challenge for offsides, makes no sense. Worse is yet to come, imagine a game 7 series clinching goal, the most exciting play in hockey, being tied up by a 5-10 NHL video review for an offside. It's 100% the toe in the crease all over again.
- 13sundin13

I agree with this.

I still question if that was really offside as the view I have seen is an angle that you can't really tell where the puck is since it is from inside the zone looking out. Freeze frames create illusions as the puck looks to just be getting to the front edge of the line when his back skate lifts off the ice. But it also looks like the puck is against the boards. When you factor in the fact that the puck was off of the boards between them and Lehtera, and that it was in the air, not along the ice, the exact location of the puck isn't determinable from that angle. It is definitely further to the left in the screenshot as you have to pan the camera to the right to look straight down the line.

You have to have definitive proof to take away that goal. So there had to be a better angle that I personally would like to see before I say that it is offside and the call is correct. For as long as it took, it seems like they had a lot of questions if it was offside, and that would lead me to believe that they don't have enough evidence to overturn.

Totally agree. Anyone who is saying "offsides is offsides" or "calls go both ways" is missing the entire point. This has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about the spirit of the rule. Fact is, not one player on the ice would have done anything differently on that play because it is not humanly possible to see that offside. St Louis earned that goal and the only reason that got challenged was because it was the go ahead goal and the blackhawks had nothing to lose that that point. The worse ones are the ones that happen a minute later when the play really had nothing to do with the goal scored. There are many more infractions that are missed by the officials that actually affect the play on the ice, offsides are the most arbitrary calls to focus on.

Hard to believe that anyone who likes the sport can support the coach's challenge for offsides, makes no sense. Worse is yet to come, imagine a game 7 series clinching goal, the most exciting play in hockey, being tied up by a 5-10 NHL video review for an offside. It's 100% the toe in the crease all over again.
- 13sundin13

Except it is humanly possible. Quennville had his spotters that told him immediately it was offside. So should we call a goal that was called a goal on the ice off because replay shows it didn't fully cross the line?

Except it is humanly possible. Quennville had his spotters that told him immediately it was offside. So should we call a goal that was called a goal on the ice off because replay shows it didn't fully cross the line?
- Iggysbff

Except it is humanly possible. Quennville had his spotters that told him immediately it was offside. So should we call a goal that was called a goal on the ice off because replay shows it didn't fully cross the line?
- Iggysbff

Right, but the spotters are trained to point out anything even close at a key moment like that.

At full speed, they didn't know that it was offside.

It was a hope and a prayer, and it was answered.

Except it is humanly possible. Quennville had his spotters that told him immediately it was offside. So should we call a goal that was called a goal on the ice off because replay shows it didn't fully cross the line?
- Iggysbff

No, you're still not seeing the point. First of all, his spotters were watching multiple HD angles of slow motion replay and calling down so I stand by the fact it's not humanly possible to see it and that nobody on the ice would have done anything differently on that play. Secondly, the reason that the offside rule was created was not so a guy doesn't get a millimeter advantage on the opposing player, it was created so that teams can't just be hanging around by the goalie waiting for passes. Same reason it exists in so many other sports. The reason the rule was created has been distorted.

In terms of goal replays, they are not even in the same conversation because whether or not the puck crosses the line is directly related to goal being called. A player being a mm offside is not.

I'm just wondering why Hitch burned our timeout to challenge a goal that had already been reviewed. I was pissed last night, but overall the Blues outplayed the Hawks and could've easily won that game. Really, that goal with like 3 seconds left in the second was a killer. The Blues ALWAYS seem to give up last second goals and it needs to stop. If they go into the 3rd up 1-0, they probably win that game.

Also, they need to keep cooler heads. Tarasenko's temper got the better of him and his penalty led to the go ahead goal. Not a great penalty to take.

The coaches challenge does not "get it right" because challenges are only permitted when a goal is scored. Consider some extreme cases
1) Duchene enters offside, sets and his team spends the remainder of the period in the offensive zone, scoring as time expires. Goal comes back
2) same as above, but instead of scoring, opponent clears the puck. No appeal is allowed.

For all intents and purposes, that zone time is running time in which a goal is not allowed. THis has profound implications on a power play.

It is a profoundly stupid rule.

As a Blues fan, I have to say I have no problem with the rulings from last nights game. The fact is, the Blues lost some composure, which lost us the game. That said, I have never understood the need for a player having to have his skate on the ice in a offside situation. That is ridiculous. It makes much more sense to require players to break the plain of the blueline when judging the offside, than him having to drag a skate on the ice to stay onside. The blueline should not hamper the natural stride of a player, which was the case of Lehtera last night.
- kcblues

This ^ is actually one of the best viewpoints I have read in regard to defining what determines offside in relation to how the rule should be written.
Because offside is intended to determine legal proximity, it would make more sense to see the rule written to state that the player cannot completely leave the plane of the blueline, not necessarily leave contact with it, since as long as he is still within the plane of it, his on ice position does not change and therefore is not increased to his advantage.

And yes, if the rule was written this way, last nights goal would have counted, and I would not have a problem with that.

****

Then, on the other side of the coin, we have a moron blogger that writes the spirit of the rule was designed to stop players from being 10 feet offside (paraphrased)... so I guess 9 feet is ok then? 8 feet? 2 feet? Millimeters? Where do you draw the line, moron?

If Tanner wasn't such an idiot though, HockeyBuzz wouldn't get so many clicks, so I guess I can see why he is still allowed to write his wortheless drivel.

I'm just wondering why Hitch burned our timeout to challenge a goal that had already been reviewed. I was pissed last night, but overall the Blues outplayed the Hawks and could've easily won that game. Really, that goal with like 3 seconds left in the second was a killer. The Blues ALWAYS seem to give up last second goals and it needs to stop. If they go into the 3rd up 1-0, they probably win that game.

Also, they need to keep cooler heads. Tarasenko's temper got the better of him and his penalty led to the go ahead goal. Not a great penalty to take.
- Rhuno

Toronto was reviewing whether the puck was knocked in with a hand I believe. They were not reviewing goaltender interference as that is only reviewable upon challenge and the referee reviews and determines if it was interference.

I think that is the first time I have seen a play reviewed two separate times though, very confusing at first.