The only change I would make is that if the linesman (during the review) can't tell on full speed video if it's offside, then the call on the ice should stand, even if it's technically an inch incorrect. The point of video review is to fix glaring, blatant, hideous mistakes. If you can't tell at full speed if it's offside, then you can't fault the linesman for it even if they're technically incorrect.

I get the desire to get the call right, but not at the cost of removing the human element from the game, especially when you can't review penalty calls which, when they go wrong, are 99% of the time much more egregiously wrong and yet still unreviewable.

You mean at the end with 4 seconds left in the game? Yes, that icing should have been waived off. You are right.
- powerenforcer

....No. The one at the end of the 2nd that van riemsdyk clearly could have gotten to prior to the puck crossing the line.

Great sport is great.

Joke league is a joke.

Isn't Garbo all about parity? Wouldn't das Hackles doing well be about the worst thing he could imagine. And after the the disaster that was the 2014 west finals where the Hawks lost 5-4 in OT and the Kings had not one, but two goals that should of been disallowed, i don't think anyone can accuse the league of being on the Hawks side.

The right call was made twice last night. Dude was offside, Dude couldn't make the save.

Want to talk about a questionable goal, how about the one one Dubnyk tonight, kicked from behind the net, and then swatted in from above the bar.
- hawkitect

Yes, that was a complete joke. I guess tonight they allow kicked-in goals.

....No. The one at the end of the 2nd that van riemsdyk clearly could have gotten to prior to the puck crossing the line.
- jpl0219

But they evened it up at the end, so stop crying.

The league got both calls right, so don't know why there is so much complaining. It is better that you get the call right and a team doesn't lose a game on a offside goal.

video replay should only be used to review goals - did puck cross line, was it kicked in, was there goalie interference? I would rather have the refs miss a few calls than wind the clock back and study the hole thing like it as the Zapruder film.

What many people are failing to realize is that he is still onside in this picture. You can clearly see the shadow of his lead skate below the skate itself. It doesn't matter that the trailing skate is off the ice, it matters that the lead skate is. If you had an image a frame or two further along, you would see the skate and shadow converge when his lead skate hits the ice in the zone, but by that time the puck is in the zone and disappears behind Lehtera's body.

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxXBL8Jv7Y

If you play this YouTube video from the Situation Room and freeze it at 0:43 there is still space between the leading skate blade and the shadow on the ice. Move to 0:44 and the lead skate is now in contact with the ice but the puck is already in the zone and disappearing behind Lehtera's body. He was onside the entire time.
- bluenatic411

You are correct Lehtera is onside in this picture. What I don't know is why everyone who thinks the call is wrong keeps referencing this picture.

In this picture he is offside, the puck is still on the blue line(i.e in the neutral zone given the flow of play) and Lehtera has one skate on the ice in the attacking zone with his trailing skate in the air.

Here's what's funny.

All the lamentation over two calls that were close, but correct.

And yet . . . no one mentions:

Bouwmeester getting away with not just a slash, but also a hook, on Kane from behind. Blown call(s)? On a play where Kane probably had a 50% chance of scoring. Hhhhh-yeah!

And a bonehead stupid, selfish penalty by Tarasenko.

You have rules. You have replay. They were employed correctly. Some people don't like who it went against.

Carry on.
- John Jaeckel

The problem is not that the offside was indeed offside. The problem is the fact that coaches can challenge that kinda thing. Why stop at offsides? I'm sure on a lot of goals if you go back far enough in the play you'll be able to find a penalty that should have been called earlier in the sequence.

Like other are saying, I think the video review should only be for reviewing the actual goal, not stuff that occurred earlier in the sequence.

Carry on.

You are correct Lehtera is onside in this picture. What I don't know is why everyone who thinks the call is wrong keeps referencing this picture.

In this picture he is offside, the puck is still on the blue line(i.e in the neutral zone given the flow of play) and Lehtera has one skate on the ice in the attacking zone with his trailing skate in the air.


- tomcho

His front skate is not on the ice in this picture, however the puck hasn't crossed the line yet, so it's not useful in determining anything

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

Man, I expected more from fellow Blues fans.

We're the calls close? Absolutely, but they were both the correct call.

However close it may have been offside is still offside. It doesn't matter if it's 10 feet or 10cm. Shaw's goal was also correct. Shatenkirk checks him into the crease as he takes his first wack at the puck which is followed by Elliott initiating contact with his blocker to to Shaw's left shin area. Shaw does make some contact around Elliott's head who was already in the process of trying to get to the post which he was still able to do.

Hitting a goalie"s pads during a scrum in the crease is not a penalty and I highly doubt there would have been much contact at all if Shatenkirk doesn't cross check Shaw into the crease.

Maybe we should be discussing the idiotic 2 hand slash that put the Hawks on the PP in the first place.

If the Blues are the team everyone hopes they are none of this will matter.

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.
- bluenatic411

You may want to watch it again. Outside of Shaw's stick making contact with Elliott's pads Elliott is who initiated contact with Shaw. He clearly leans forward and his blocker is on Shaw's left shin area.

Not a fan of the blackhawks and I'm rooting for the blues in this series but i think both calls were the right call in each situation..

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

Old rules that have been in place before the technology upholding them need to change, or have a system where the offence or defence get the advantage call in any 'close' call, or disputable call. This doesn't look black & white so there should be a clause where decisions like this are treated as favourable calls to whoever has the advantage. If the league want more goals, give the advantage call to the attacking team.

Or get the technology completely right so there is no discrepancy or change the rule anticipating incidents like this & rule accordingly.

Old rules + new technology = an argument!

I might have missed this part of the argument but.........does the puck have to be on the ice to have crossed the line or can it be in the air? Surely the rules for skates are the same for the puck? If the puck is in the air it hasn't crossed the line until it hits the ice???

Brassard's skate on his goal?? Looked like he raised his edge before the puck crossed the line but no offside?? Just a comparison - not complaining!

There is no "plane" in hockey like there is in football. It is the paint on the ice period. The line does NOT go up into the air.
I agree it should, but presently it doesn't.

His front skate is not on the ice in this picture, however the puck hasn't crossed the line yet, so it's not useful in determining anything
- ehabs9

What? Is he floating across the blue line because his trailing foot clearly is not on the ice in this picture...... The front skate is the only reason he is standing in this picture....

By letter of the rule, the play was offside. Had the linesman been able to see that in real time, the whistle would've blown, and the play wouldn't have continued. So, regardless of the sequence of events after the blue line play, a whistle stops everything. Now, this is bringing the whole notion of the coach's challenge into play. As a big NFL fan, I like coach's challenges. Getting the call correct in important situations matter. The same holds true in the NHL. The problem I have with the whole sequence is the spirit of the offside rule. Clearly, the player's entire body is offside, and his trailing foot is what we are looking at. If they change the rule to say the puck must be over the line before the front skate crosses the line (on the ice or in the air), then it would be much easier to see.

As far as the Shaw goal goes, I'm surprised it stood. There must've been 5 similar plays this season for the Hawks, and maybe 1 of the goals stood.

Maybe just maybe you're biased against the Blackhawks and that's okay, without rules you have chaos.

To add to that EK, and I am a Rangers fan, brassard had the very same play last night...too close to tell, back skate came off the ice, and it was allowed..

To add to that EK, and I am a Rangers fan, brassard had the very same play last night...too close to tell, back skate came off the ice, and it was allowed..
- mattstake

This league is soo inconsistent with calls in general

Finally watched the two replays... St. Louis was offsides... and Shaws goal looked pretty good to me... puck goes into the paint first and he follows in after it.

Shaws goal is boarderline... the St Louis goal was offside, though it was pretty close.

(frank)ing seriously. "What is offside really?" HOW DO YOU HAVE A JOB! It's like you know nothing about hockey or writing!