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

Exactly. Offsides exist to prevent cherry picking. When you think about it, 99% of referees judgments are subjective and made on the fly. To reveiw just offsides and for reasons that have nothing to do with why the rule exists in the first place is madness because its so arbitrary and the reward (100% accuracy, supposedly ) is not worth anything close to the cost (momentum, wasting time,officials deciding the game etc.)

They should have disallowed both goals, and let the game be settled on the ice.

More egregious than both of those calls was the Fabbri embellishment one. It seems like the refs have saved this call for players who aren't deferential enough towards them, instead of for the infraction that it was originally intended.

Hawks probably would have won anyways though, they're a hell of a team.

They should have disallowed both goals, and let the game be settled on the ice.

More egregious than both of those calls was the Fabbri embellishment one. It seems like the refs have saved this call for players who aren't deferential enough towards them, instead of for the infraction that it was originally intended.

Hawks probably would have won anyways though, they're a hell of a team.
- The Shrike

That was crazy. There was no way that he was embellishing anything on that play.

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.
- 13sundin13

yes it is.

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

Your post sums up your blogs in the proverbial nutshell. It's always the hypotheticals with your line of reasoning. McDavid SHOULD win the Calder and WOULD have IF he played the entire season. Panarin is a dud and WOULDN'T have those numbers IF he didn't play with Kane. The Blues WOULD have won IF the offsides wasn't called.

To clarify, the offisides sucked because it ruined a great hockey play. But, rules are rules. Hell, Jeff Carter was 2 feet offsides in game 7 on the 2014 WCF, for the Kings first goal. Had that been over-turned does it means the Hawks win? No. Bickell's goal in game 7 of the Hawks Canuck series in 2011 was called offsides - and it wasn't. Does that mean the Hawks win that game? No.

I understand the frustration of the Blues fans. Many of them are regulars on the Hawks blog and they are great guys. (The mid 80's Oilers teams still give me nightmares.) Had Tank's goal counted, it doesn't not mean the Blues win. It was not a sudden death goal. Would have given the Blues a great chance to win, though.

The rule exists for a reason. It needs to be tweaked so that goals aren't nullified on technicalities and it doesn't take 15 minutes of staring into an Ipad mini to make a decision. It would also be extremely helpful if the NHL would release their blueline camera footage.

So, Tanner, did you watch the game or are you making your decision to rail against the Hawks (yet again) based upon the highlights? There has been two awesome games played between these teams. To trivialize this by ranting against the video review system is really sad.

Shaw was in the blue paint and Shattenkirk pushed him from behind with a crosscheck into Elliott. And then Brouwer violently crosschecked Seabrook to the ice.

So lets be hypothetical for a minute - say the goal was disallowed. Do you think the refs would have called 2 crosschecking penalties on the Blues on that play? Seriously doubt it, but they would have been warranted.

And that's why the application of the NHL rule book is a joke. I don't know what goaltender interference is and neither do you or the coaches or the players. It falls under 'it depends'.
- RickJ

You stand in front of the net anything goes...you're grasping.

So just out of curiosity, let's use the NFL as an example. A RB makes an amazing move along the sidelines, breaks 3 tackles and breaks away from everyone. After passing all the players, and running along the sideline, he steps 1/2 inch out of bounds on the white line. Should the TD count since he is already passed the defenders and the 1/2" out of bounds really had no distinct disadvantage to the defense? That's basically what you're arguing with this offsides. He was offsides, doesn't matter by 1/4" or 10 ft, he was offsides.

I'm not a Hawks fan, but to argue he was barely offsides and it had no impact on the play is irrelevant. He was offsides and they've made that call repeatedly and consistently since replay has be implemented.

So just out of curiosity, let's use the NFL as an example. A RB makes an amazing move along the sidelines, breaks 3 tackles and breaks away from everyone. After passing all the players, and running along the sideline, he steps 1/2 inch out of bounds on the white line. Should the TD count since he is already passed the defenders and the 1/2" out of bounds really had no distinct disadvantage to the defense? That's basically what you're arguing with this offsides. He was offsides, doesn't matter by 1/4" or 10 ft, he was offsides.

I'm not a Hawks fan, but to argue he was barely offsides and it had no impact on the play is irrelevant. He was offsides and they've made that call repeatedly and consistently since replay has be implemented.
- mw630

The argument that he was barely offside doesn't make sense to me either.

Still don't think he was offside.

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

That's exactly how I feel. The rule sucks the excitement out of a goal. They pan over to the coach to see if there's challenge coming then you sit and wait to see if something happened that nobody saw at the moment. I hate this rule.

Sorry pal, you're the one being biased here. If this is "clickbait" then I just give up now, what is even the point of discussing things or trying to have a conversation if anyone who disagrees with you is so biased they can't be trusted and is just trying get attention?

I have nothing against the Hawks and I don't get paid enough to care about how many hits my articles get. Your comment just makes me sad, since it's pretty much word for word what people say to discredit anyone they don't agree with.
- James_Tanner

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

1) The Dahlbeck and a 1st trade for Vermette was idiotic, even though Vermette scored 2 playoff game winners, was money in the faceoff circle, and helped Chicago win the Cup.

2) The Seabrook extension was idiotic.

3) The Duncan Keith suspension of 6 games was idiotic.

4) The overturned Blues' goal was idiotic.

Hilarious.

What about rule 83.4?

"Other than in situations involving a delayed off-side and the puck entering the goal, no goal can be disallowed after the fact for an off-side violation, except for the human factor involved in blowing the whistle."

This was not a delayed offside call since the linesmen never blew the whistle, so shouldn't the goal have counted?

Quotes not working but it doesn't matter Because most of what your saying James is silly. It is clear you have a bias against the Hawks.
yes I'm a Hawk fan but I'm sorry those calls were correct. I can't believe you bring up Keith suspension again.
Cmon James let's talk this out I don't like to see you so sad and upset
Leafs signed Kadri there you feeling better.
Oilers will make the playoffs next year Cmon your smiling I bet now, that a boy

What about rule 83.4?

"Other than in situations involving a delayed off-side and the puck entering the goal, no goal can be disallowed after the fact for an off-side violation, except for the human factor involved in blowing the whistle."

This was not a delayed offside call since the linesmen never blew the whistle, so shouldn't the goal have counted?
- RobShouts

Changed with the new video review.

So just out of curiosity, let's use the NFL as an example. A RB makes an amazing move along the sidelines, breaks 3 tackles and breaks away from everyone. After passing all the players, and running along the sideline, he steps 1/2 inch out of bounds on the white line. Should the TD count since he is already passed the defenders and the 1/2" out of bounds really had no distinct disadvantage to the defense? That's basically what you're arguing with this offsides. He was offsides, doesn't matter by 1/4" or 10 ft, he was offsides.

I'm not a Hawks fan, but to argue he was barely offsides and it had no impact on the play is irrelevant. He was offsides and they've made that call repeatedly and consistently since replay has be implemented.
- mw630

It may irrelevant, but it's ok the question these things and offer opinions. Obviously it's over and done with, but to just tow the line and say "rules are rules" doesn't contribute very much to the discussion at hand. You're correct that it's irrelevant to that specific play because it's within the rules, but challenging these kinds of things and offering opinions is what makes things progress and improve.

Lots of people are saying that they're going to make some rule modifications over the summer to clarify a few things related to offsides so that in itself would prove that something is wrong with how it's currently being used.

It may irrelevant, but it's ok the question these things and offer opinions. Obviously it's over and done with, but to just tow the line and say "rules are rules" doesn't contribute very much to the discussion at hand. You're correct that it's irrelevant to that specific play because it's within the rules, but challenging these kinds of things and offering opinions is what makes things progress and improve.

Lots of people are saying that they're going to make some rule modifications over the summer to clarify a few things related to offsides so that in itself would prove that something is wrong with how it's currently being used.
- 13sundin13

I might be biased because I'm a Pens fan and remember back to game 1 in 2012 when the Pens were up 3-0 towards the end of the first, Briere got a pass a full foot offsides, call was missed and he scores taking momentum into the locker room. The Flyers come back and win the game and ultimately destroy the Pens the rest of the series. Not saying for sure that play changed the series, but you can't say for sure if they didn't score there they would have come back in game 1.

I don't like the idea of allowing a player to have his skate off the ice, still in the neutral zone, and it be counted onside. That lends itself to a lot more interpretation and guessing by the ref than close plays like this one. I would personally rather have the call be right and take the break in the play than have the incorrect play stand and potentially impact the entire game/series.

Changed with the new video review.
- Iggysbff

Yes and no, it's actually still in current rulebook as published by the NHL. It's just a case of there being rules that directly contradict each other and the NHL choosing to enforce one of them not the other.

Yeah I'm a hawks fan, yeah I think the blues stink. But the reality is this:

Video replay is stupid.

That was so close to on sides. The "blur" was fairly over, while both feet were off the ground. I'll take it, but stupid.

That was not goalie interference, but I can see how one would think it is. Hard to tell past the 2 huge illegal cross checks by blues players, but whatever.

Yeah I'm rooting for the hawks - and by association and personal discovery - hate the Blues.

But I hate how much a video replay can sway momentum, or bring an exciting game to a slow bore.

Refs suk pretty bad regardless, and I'm sure each team will get their fair share of being screwed over. That's another thing that makes winning the cup so impressive - you have to deal with constant bull honkey calls.

Well let's face it JT, playoff officiating in the NHL is a made up work of fiction in the first place. Why on earth the rules of the game seemingly take on a whole new and different meaning in the post season as compared to the regular season is an enigma in and of its self. Pretty much the only pro sport to allow different interpretations of the rules from game to game. Way way too much discretion given to officials.

That being said you can't hardly sit by and argue a bad call is made on a legit offsides play (no matter how miniscule). Everyone wanted replay/coaches challenge and now many are ruing the decision when the calls don't go their way. You can argue til you're blue in the face, but if a replay shows a legit missed call and the call is reversed you cant say it's a bad rule.

Missed/bad calls happen all to often every game, it's completely counter intuitive to star griping about legit missed calls being reversed by replay.

We've seen time and again in all sports that all replay does is increase stupid rules, human error and waste long amounts of time. Was sold to us as fixing the egregious errors but instead it's overturning goals for stupid miniscule reasons. Thank god it hasn't happened to the Caps yet but it will

Well let's face it JT, playoff officiating in the NHL is a made up work of fiction in the first place. Why on earth the rules of the game seemingly take on a whole new and different meaning in the post season as compared to the regular season is an enigma in and of its self. Pretty much the only pro sport to allow different interpretations of the rules from game to game. Way way too much discretion given to officials.

That being said you can't hardly sit by and argue a bad call is made on a legit offsides play (no matter how miniscule). Everyone wanted replay/coaches challenge and now many are ruing the decision when the calls don't go their way. You can argue til you're blue in the face, but if a replay shows a legit missed call and the call is reversed you cant say it's a bad rule.

Missed/bad calls happen all to often every game, it's completely counter intuitive to star griping about legit missed calls being reversed by replay.
- MnGump

How goes it, Gumper?

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

1) The Dahlbeck and a 1st trade for Vermette was idiotic, even though Vermette scored 2 playoff game winners, was money in the faceoff circle, and helped Chicago win the Cup.

2) The Seabrook extension was idiotic.

3) The Duncan Keith suspension of 6 games was idiotic.

4) The overturned Blues' goal was idiotic.

Hilarious.
- MartiniMan

Yes, another Hawk hate blog from Tanner. So what else is new?
If both calls went the Blues way (still controversial), there would be no Tanner officiating blog today. His blatant Hawk hate is ridiculous.

I know right - no Marine Biologist ... better episode -
- dozerD10

Electrical, mechanical, chemical, civil....??

And don't forget that they counted a much, much worse goal for the game winner. It's obviously not the case, but given Keith's hilariously light sentence for what should be a season long suspension and possible banishment from the game, and all the things you mentioned, a case could be made that the NHL wants Chicago to win.
- James_Tanner

You're (frank)ing amazing, Tanner. A week or so ago when I asked you for your Kadri blog regarding his hit, you eventually said you were OK with a 10 game suspension for him, if Keith got 40. Now, it is a full season or banishment. Boy, Keith's penalty gets bigger by the week for you. It is this whining that makes you a complete hack. What is it next week? Lifetime in prison?

It is this stance and your continued griping that makes what credibility you had, go right out the window. You are a work of art.

How goes it, Gumper?
- MartiniMan

Pretty good guy! Getting better every day! You?

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

Go tell Matt Meachum, the 'Hawks video guy, that BS angle. Perhaps he is just that good and quick, he was able to find it and call down to Dineen in time. Quit reaching for poop. You come off as a petulant child.