That's been a rule for eons haha
- Slimtj100

People acting like this is some new revelation

1980....John Tonnelli....I wish they had review back then because the Flyers would have three Stanley Cups not two

Wait a minute. OK it is offside. Then let's slow down the camera and see if Shaws stick touched Elliot before he scored. I'm not talking pushed I am saying when he whacked at the puck the first time and missed he hit Elliot. Call it goalie interference, a slash what ever but for people to say it didn't interfere... how the F do you know. A stick swinging in my face would interfere with just about anything I do., much less hitting me. If it is reviewed it now becomes black and white not a opinion. I'll take the offside but if we are playing by review you got take the interference.

My other issue is that game one of the season should be officiated the same as game 84. You can't add extra cameras that the Boston Bruins didn't get all year. They missed the playoffs by 1 win. Can you c say if they had the same set up as last night that they may have won a game on a reviewable call?

Bottom line is the game is over and the NHL will always be a garage league. This was just the cherry on top after you suspend a guy 5 games for his multiple stick swinging incidents. WWF should partner with Bettman at least it would be entertaining then.

That's been a rule for eons haha
- Slimtj100

Keep trying. haha

Rule 83 – Off-side

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.

The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.

Wait a minute. OK it is offside. Then let's slow down the camera and see if Shaws stick touched Elliot before he scored. I'm not talking pushed I am saying when he whacked at the puck the first time and missed he hit Elliot. Call it goalie interference, a slash what ever but for people to say it didn't interfere... how the F do you know. A stick swinging in my face would interfere with just about anything I do., much less hitting me. If it is reviewed it now becomes black and white not a opinion. I'll take the offside but if we are playing by review you got take the interference.

My other issue is that game one of the season should be officiated the same as game 84. You can't add extra cameras that the Boston Bruins didn't get all year. They missed the playoffs by 1 win. Can you c say if they had the same set up as last night that they may have won a game on a reviewable call?

Bottom line is the game is over and the NHL will always be a garage league. This was just the cherry on top after you suspend a guy 5 games for his multiple stick swinging incidents. WWF should partner with Bettman at least it would be entertaining then.
- Teamusa20

Subjective.

Not subjective.

"I think the initial purpose of an offside challenge was to rid the game of egregious calls where a player is a foot or two offside, but you can't just do those ones," NHL senior director of hockey operations Kay Whitmore said to NHL.com. "If it's offside, it's offside, and this one was millimeters offside."

Ek i'm guessing you didn't see the blue line camera which was shown on NHL Network that showed it was 100% offsides.....
- HawksGuySince85

I didn't see this. Is there a video anywhere online?

Keep trying. haha

Rule 83 – Off-side

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.

The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.
- wolfhounds

I think you highlighted the wrong part. Position includes whether or not the skate was on the ice or in the air. This play has been called for ages. I have no idea how people are complaining about this. Does the rule need to be fixed? Yeah probably. But it is the rule now. Stop acting like it hasn't been this way for years.

Keep trying. haha

Rule 83 – Off-side

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.

The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.
- wolfhounds

A skate has to remain in contact with the line or his side of it. That means physically touching it

Again, everyone is looking in the wrong place on this call. It wasn't Shaw pushing Elliott into the net as he was pushing the puck into the net, it was Shaw leaning on the back of Elliott's head as he was reaching for the puck. Check out Rule 69 on goaltender interference.

From 69.1:
"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal"

And while it continues to say:
"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

I will maintain that Shattenkirk shove of Shaw pushed him into the crease, but had absolutely nothing to do with Shaw subsequently leaning on Elliott's bucket. He did that on his own, and it was a violation of Rule 69.1 (1). If you read Kay Whitmore's recap of his conversation with the on-ice official, the referee states that he did not overturn the goal because he didn't feel that Shaw's contact kept him from being able to stop the puck. Even in hindsight, the referee proves that he doesn't even understand the rule to make a proper judgment because the burden of proof is not to determine whether or not the goal would have gone in anyway, but rather whether or not the goalie's movement was impaired by the attacking player. Elliott's movement was impaired by Shaw ---> Goaltender interference by rule ----> no goal.

A skate has to remain in contact with the line or his side of it. That means physically touching it
- Just5

Those seem like separate clauses to me. And the play was incredibly close. And he was still physically behind the blue line (on the z plane, I think), so I'm not sure what advantage he gained.

Either way, to waive that goal and allow the other is crap. Refs decided the game.

Keep trying. haha

Rule 83 – Off-side

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.

The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.
- wolfhounds

You are missing the key phrase here...

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with

Again, everyone is looking in the wrong place on this call. It wasn't Shaw pushing Elliott into the net as he was pushing the puck into the net, it was Shaw leaning on the back of Elliott's head as he was reaching for the puck. Check out Rule 69 on goaltender interference.

From 69.1:
"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal"

And while it continues to say:
"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

I will maintain that Shattenkirk shove of Shaw pushed him into the crease, but had absolutely nothing to do with Shaw subsequently leaning on Elliott's bucket. He did that on his own, and it was a violation of Rule 69.1 (1). If you read Kay Whitmore's recap of his conversation with the on-ice official, the referee states that he did not overturn the goal because he didn't feel that Shaw's contact kept him from being able to stop the puck. Even in hindsight, the referee proves that he doesn't even understand the rule to make a proper judgment because the burden of proof is not to determine whether or not the goal would have gone in anyway, but rather whether or not the goalie's movement was impaired by the attacking player. Elliott's movement was impaired by Shaw ---> Goaltender interference by rule ----> no goal.
- bluenatic411

I dare say that the NHL referee who does this for a living might know a thing or two about the rules and how to call the game. If Backes scores this goals blues fans wouldn't have a problem. Even Hitch said to quit whining about this. Games over, quit whining and hope they can get it back together in Chicago

I'm sure you would be perfectly fine then if the play was reversed and a hawks player's skate was in the air and they called it onside? The rule is your body cannot be in the offensive zone before the puck. If your skate is off the ice and your other one is in the offensive zone, you are no longer in the neutral zone. They have called that offsides on numerous replays throughout the regular season. I'll leave it at that because I'm sure there is no changing your mind.
- mw630

One issue brought up is his other foot was not on the ice in the offensive zone. It was also in the air.

The last time his leading foot was on the ice before the puck completely crossed the blue line, it was in the neutral zone.

This is the first time I have ever heard that a skate in the air over the offensive zone is considered in the offensive zone. And I have been a ref in the past. I was always under the impression that you are in the zone where your skates/body is touching the ice.

So if you have to tag up, you have to get a skate on the ice in the neutral zone or you are still in the offensive zone. Thought it was the same way going in. If your first skate is in the air, you haven't gained the zone yet.

But that seems to be a debate even though I haven't seen anything in the rule book that states it as the case.

People acting like this is some new revelation
- Iggysbff

I know lol I don't get the controversy

Those seem like separate clauses to me. And the play was incredibly close. And he was still physically behind the blue line (on the z plane, I think), so I'm not sure what advantage he gained.

Either way, to waive that goal and allow the other is crap. Refs decided the game.
- wolfhounds

Refs didn't decide it actually. They missed the call. It was over turned. Rules decided the game.

If it was up to the on ice officials the goal would have stood.

So everyone quit whining about the refs.

I despise this challenge rule and if I see it much, I will become so disgusted that I will just stop watching.

The offside challenge rule, as written and applied cannot in principle, "get it right", at least in aggregate.

The problem is selection bias. Many plays are close to offside. Every non-called offside that does not result in goal prior to a zone exit is effectively time deducted from the 60 minute game. Either
1) a goal is scored, challenged, overturned and the clock is turned back, or
2) no goal is scored, time runs.
in case 2) we just ran off time when no play could result in a goal but no-one on the ice is aware of this (unlike a delayed penalty)

THe worst case is a Power Play in which the PP team maintains extended zone time. Not only did the offside not affect the play (after more than a few seconds and/or events the mixing makes that play moot) but they essentially lose time from their power play because the on-ice officials missed a call.


As a fan, this rule not only fails to "get it right", but it cheats me by creating gameplay that doesn't count.

This is great. Everyone saying how the Hawks were gifted the game. They cheated bla bla bla. The sad reality is the Hawks are a great team that now has extra external motivation to take this series now. Everytime someone questions this team it blows up in their face, BADLY. Honestly, I really thought this would go 7 and I gave the Blues a slight edge. NOW that this intangible is in play (and the Hawks use psychology better than anyone) St. Louis is in deep trouble.

A skate has to remain in contact with the line or his side of it. That means physically touching it
- Just5

And that interpretation of the rule should apply equally to both skates. At the time the puck crosses the line, both skates are off the ice, and the last skate to touch (the trailing skate) established him onside when he pushed off. It wasn't until after the puck had completely crossed the line that the lead skate contacted the ice inside the zone. You can see this clearly from any of the bench view angles because the convergence of the skate and its own shadow is not dependent on the angle. If you freeze the frame at the point where Lehtera's skate touches its own shadow, which is when the skate touches the ice inside the zone, on the Blues' feed the puck has disappeared behind Lehtera with white ice visible between his body and the blueline.

Open to interpretation? Certainly. Conclusive? Absolutely not!

Those seem like separate clauses to me. And the play was incredibly close. And he was still physically behind the blue line (on the z plane, I think), so I'm not sure what advantage he gained.

Either way, to waive that goal and allow the other is crap. Refs decided the game.
- wolfhounds

Just worry about the skate and his has to be touching the ice whether it's on the blue line or the safe side of The blue line. That's the rule. No z planes. Kind of like in other sports your not out of bounds until your feet touch out of bounds. You can have a foot in the air (z plane) out of bounds, it doesn't mean that you are

You are missing the key phrase here...

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with
- Iggysbff

Lehtera was just skating. The natural skating stride leaves moments when neither skate is on the ice at times, similar to running.

If you are skating and both feet are in the air in the neutral zone as you carry the puck in the zone, is it offside?

Because both feet are not touching the ice, and the puck crosses the line. So you don't have any feet touching in the neutral zone.

This was my biggest beef with the call last night. I didn't think he was technically in the zone even though it looked like he was. Because he had not landed his front foot in the zone before the puck completely crossed.

You are missing the key phrase here...

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with
- Iggysbff

And then it says "or on his own side of the line", not "and".

I understand how things are usually called, but this was a huge call that was slowed and studied from several angles and could still be argued as inconclusive.

I mean, this is also an off-side rule:

"However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line."

How many times do the officials let that go?

This is great. Everyone saying how the Hawks were gifted the game. They cheated bla bla bla. The sad reality is the Hawks are a great team that now has extra external motivation to take this series now. Everytime someone questions this team it blows up in their face, BADLY. Honestly, I really thought this would go 7 and I gave the Blues a slight edge. NOW that this intangible is in play (and the Hawks use psychology better than anyone) St. Louis is in deep trouble.
- kwolf68

Who said the Hawks cheated?

And that interpretation of the rule should apply equally to both skates. At the time the puck crosses the line, both skates are off the ice, and the last skate to touch (the trailing skate) established him onside when he pushed off. It wasn't until after the puck had completely crossed the line that the lead skate contacted the ice inside the zone. You can see this clearly from any of the bench view angles because the convergence of the skate and its own shadow is not dependent on the angle. If you freeze the frame at the point where Lehtera's skate touches its own shadow, which is when the skate touches the ice inside the zone, on the Blues' feed the puck has disappeared behind Lehtera with white ice visible between his body and the blueline.

Open to interpretation? Certainly. Conclusive? Absolutely not!
- bluenatic411

The rule doesn't care about all that. Puck crosses line, skates in the air. Offside. Can't blame the refs.

I'm still trying to get over the Duchnse YouTube thing I saw earlier. And how the linesman botched that haha

Just worry about the skate and his has to be touching the ice whether it's on the blue line or the safe side of The blue line. That's the rule. No z planes. Kind of like in other sports your not out of bounds until your feet touch out of bounds. You can have a foot in the air (z plane) out of bounds, it doesn't mean that you are
- Just5

Yup. Still incredibly close. And the and/or phrasing leaves room, at least in my mind. Either way, hope the Flyers don't ever encounter that crap cause then my head really will explode.