"The disaster in STL which should make us question everything"

AKA the back-to-back right calls made after review, that should make us do nothing.

I'd say your title is a BIT of an overstatement/overreaction. Juuuussst a bit.

The rule has always been the same. Enforcing it with new technology has changed. Technology has changed. All sports. Doesn't mean they need to change the rule because of one outcome.
- Iggysbff

If the skate always needed to be on the ice to help the linesmen make the correct then it only goes to serve that since now the linesmen doesn't need the help for sake of precision then the skate doesnt need to be in the ice. It's not about the outcome it's about reasoning evolving. If A was needed for B, and B is no longer dependent on A then A can evolve into C.

Did the clock get set back to the point that the offside occurred? I didn't pay attention to that. But I know earlier in the season in a Kings game it didn't and over a minute had elapsed.

Totally agree, that was a bs call by the nhl to help out the Hawks, no different on what the refs did to the Canucks against the Bruins in the finals. Chicago gets all the breaks, should Keith even be playing?? If that was a Blues Dman he would have got 10 games minimum. NHL has its favourites for whatever the reason, and I will not retract this statement, I honestly believe Bettman calls the shots.
- joegreif17

I know its awesome, we get everything we want. The fix is in. How does it feel to know you're going to lose before it even happens?

I agree. Poor rule the skate has to be on the ice. should be similar to football where you just have to break the plane
- ikeane

Either way: there would be reviews where some people wouldn't like it because the puck wasn't over before the guy broke the plane. Changing the rule wouldn't do anything. These guys are whining about the video review process.

You want replay Ek? This then can happen. So you either keep replay and allow the eventual correct calls, though hard to call real-time more accurately, or you abandon replay.

You cannot have replay and female dog about the outcome when the plays turn out to be correctly called via replay. Pick one. You cannot have both.

Is the offside ticky tacky? Ehhh, perhaps when considering real time it would have been an on side real time call 99/100 times. But it's the rule under the league view and replay. Wanna change the skate-on-ice rule?

Wanna allow a free for all in the crease? Or zero contact? Only ways to be 100% certain otherwise. Everything else will be subjective.

And this fodder about favoring the 'Hawks is BS. The league has gone out of their way to try to prevent multiple championships in a relatively short time. And in the last six seasons, there are TWO teams to do it.

And who in the hell wanted to play the Kings last spring?! Sounds funny but they could have repeated if they squeaked in. Just like they won in 2012 after squeaking in.

Absolutely not true. A player straddling the blue line as the puck enters the zone is onside. The same player jumping in the air from that same position as the puck enters the zone is still onside. The most important issue was whether the player's last contact with the ice was in the attacking zone or the neutral zone. If you have both skates in the air (very common if you skate and have ever paid attention) and your last contact with the ice surface was onside, you stay onside until you're not. The only way you go from onside to offside under those circumstances is if the next part of the player or his equipment to contact the ice does so in the attacking zone before the puck is 100% in the zone. The puck was already 100% in the zone before Lehtera's lead skate hit the ice. Onside.

If you're going to claim "That's how the rule is written" it would help to actually know the rule.
- bluenatic411

I do understand the rule, instead of saying both players skates were not onside, I should have said both players skates were offside, that was confusing on my part.

I understand what people are saying, that his front foot hadn't touched the offensive zone and he was therefore still onside. I am saying that isn't how the rule is written. This is the relevant part of the rule:

"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."

Neither of the Blues player's skates were "in contact with, or on his own side of the line". Therefore, he is offside.

His leading foot wasn't in contact with, or on his own side of the line, and neither was his trailing foot. It doesn't say anything about whether either of his skates had contacted the offensive zone, that isn't part of the rule.

Eclund: Here's the thing that bothers me. We are losing the spirit if "getting the call right" by doing it this way. I know this is a work in progress and I am not one to buck technology, but we need to introduce another concept into this...and I am not sure how, but the concept has to be something akin to "Did the missed call have anything to do with the goal?"

The offsides last night was ridiculously close and honestly was too close even frame by frame to determine. We are talking milliseconds here the puck was a hard pass on the blue line the second the back skate came up. Is it technically offsides? Yes.....but what is offsides really? the concept of offsides is at its core meant to keep players from, for lack of a better term, cherry picking, right? Was this player cheating in that way? Of course not. The definition of offsides being "when the skate leaves ice" may need to be re-evaluated now that we are going frame by frame....That definition was set up for linesmen to use as a standard, but now that we are able to go frame by frame why isn't the definition simply, "Is the player completely over the blue line?" Isn't that more in the spirit of offsides? Isn't that how we explain offsides as a rule? "You can't cross the blue line until the puck does."

Really, Sir? The spirit of the rule? The CONCEPT of offsides?

Do you really want MORE referee / linesman judgment in the game - determine intent, and how much the infraction affected the play?

Offsides is offsides - call it or don't call it, but to say that the concept applies and not the rule - to say that it's ok for a striped shirt to say - well, it didn't affect the play on the ice....

Absurd.

You know what's really ironic? There was a penalty on the Shaw goal.....but it wasn't on the Hawks. It should have been on Brouwer for cross checking Seabrook to the ice right in front of the net. But lets ignore that, right? It makes for a better story if those damn Blackhawks nobody can seem to get rid of lucked and schemed their way to another win, right?

The whole tempo of the games changed after that offside challenge. It was a 10 minute stoppage of play...which is ridiculous considering the NHL is trying to speed up the game and create more scoring.

St Louis was in control of that game up until that point. It undeniable that the call changed that game.

Eklund are you blind? Shaw was being pushed by Shattenkirk into his own goalie. You got a point on the first challenge it was IMO too close to call I assumed it was a good goal but shaw was shoved into Elliott by his own teammate and that is never considered legitimate goalie interference. Get over it

The whole tempo of the games changed after that offside challenge. It was a 10 minute stoppage of play...which is ridiculous considering the NHL is trying to speed up the game and create more scoring.

St Louis was in control of that game up until that point. It undeniable that the call changed that game.
- grojek

No it not

In the ranger review: imo he can't put himself offside if he has control of the puck, now whether or not you think he has control is open to opinion.

Eklund are you blind? Shaw was being pushed by Shattenkirk into his own goalie. You got a point on the first challenge it was IMO too close to call I assumed it was a good goal but shaw was shoved into Elliott by his own teammate and that is never considered legitimate goalie interference. Get over it
- Ballam

You might want to watch it again. Shattenkirk shoved Shaw into the crease. Shaw leaned on Elliott and pushed him into the net under his own power. Shaw's contact with Elliott had nothing to do with the shove from Shattenkirk.

The refs are trying to do the best job they can. I mean sometimes poop happens. It's hockey. This whole coaches challenge will hopefully be refined during the off-season. Those tiny monitors are a little ridiculous.

So, everyone blames officials and linesmen when they miss a close call and treats them like trash. Maybe we all can give the refs a little more of a break and respect considering cameras even have a difficult time getting the call perfect.

I like the coaches challenges because referees can't always be perfect and it helps make the game fair and under the rules laid out, which is the only responsibility of an official.

http://www.riverfronttime...murder-rate-in-the-nation

The refs are trying to do the best job they can. I mean sometimes poop happens. It's hockey. This whole coaches challenge will hopefully be refined during the off-season. Those tiny monitors are a little ridiculous.
- Wagsman999

We appreciate your support!!! Now if you could attend all youth games and remind the parents/players/coaches of this........

It wasn't a broad daylight robbery all calls was legit,EK just wanna troll you guys for clicks no pun intended

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2015/10/01/st-louis-has-the-highest-murder-rate-in-the-nation
- Landsbergfan

What's the point of this?

What's the point of this?
- ehabs9

The real disaster in St Louis

Minuscule micrometer offside IS still OFFSIDE! Something seemingly escaping all the naysayers. That's like saying a potential game winning TD in the Super Bowl should count even though a foot was a micrometer out of bounds.


Maybe not the best analogy, but rules like offsides need to be completely black and white, not left up to covienient interpretation based on how close or even how important a single game may be.

Today @ 1:00 PM ET
Both calls were correct. I am not sure why people are turning this into a big thing.

Offside is offside. You can't put "intent" into the equation. He tried to stay onside and it failed. Simple. The rules dictate the play is dead once that happens. Correct call made.

Shaw did not touch Elliot enough to prevent him from making a save. The puck was in once any major contact was made. The contact was also forced by the Blues player cross checking and pushing Shaw towards Eilliot. Not significant enough contact to take the goal back and there is no "foot in the crease" rule anymore. Correct call made.

The league wanted to make sure they could do all they could to get the correct call. Last night was a great example of that in process. Now if you want to complain about the amount of time these reviews took away from the flow of the game, then you have something to talk about.






Agree with every word you wrote///100% Spot on

As for the time it takes...use it for more TV Time outs which occur every game, upset the flow and give me an opportunity to refresh my Scotch and Soda

Who cares it's the price to get things correct.

A few things on the offside play. 1) I would agree that he is onside until his front foot lands. 2) I don't think the refs ever looked at the front foot, I think they focused on the back foot, and the puck. 3) I would like to see the next three frames, because I think his front foot landed before the puck crossed.

both calls were right.. that said, i still hate the stopping of the game for 5 min.. they should pay to have a video ref in the building.. 1 guy by himself watch the replay side with the refs or over rule them.. having the guy who made the call stare at that tablet for 5 min is stupid..