....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

First, I have no dog in this fight.

To the calls: Anyone complaining about this icing is asinine. The linesmen have been allowing this rope-a-dope all season, and did so earlier in the first period on a much more blatant play by Shattenkirk. The NBCSN broadcast, which was the Blackhawks' feed, even talked about it for a few seconds. If you are a Blues' fan who is upset, be upset at your C who lost the draw, and the W who let Kane tap it to the point. Be upset at Lehtera who didn't get out to the point to block the shot. You have to concentrate for all 60-minutes.

As for the Shaw goal the slash comes from swinging at a rebound. That's never called. The rest is just a result of scrambling for a loose puck. While I don't have any real idea what goalie interference is, I can tell you that all season they have only called it when there is a bump before the puck gets into the paint, or when the offensive player obviously holds or impedes the goalie on the scramble. Neither of those happens here. The bump is while the puck is in the paint (and it's both very minor and initiated by the goalie), and there is nothing that restrains the goalie. Close, but a good goal.

Finally, the offside call. As a guy who officiated as high as juniors, this play bothers me some. They get the call right in the end, and here's why: One, you never look at the front foot or the fact that both feet are "in the air". Two, the back foot has to be on the ice if he's that close to the line. So, by the letter of the law this is correct. Having said that, I think the spirit of the law isn't served here. The millisecond difference did not create this scoring chance or have anything to do with the play really. The call is correct, but justice may not have been served.


Bottom line, it always sucks when 2 or 3 crucial calls all go to one team, but this happens in sports, especially in the small sample size of a single game. These were two very close games and either team could be up 2-0. To win the Cup, it takes the character of being able to stare into the abyss of adversity at least once and then recover from it. We know the Blackhawks have it. Do the Blues? That question will decide the series.

the slippery slope of interpretation is exactly what's wrong with NHL officiating today. A holding call in game one isn't in the 3rd period of the same game. We've all seen the far referee make the phantom trip call yet the cross check earlier in the play is ignored with the referee standing right infront of where the infraction occured. To add interpretation to a static, (offside is offside) makes the game worse. I'll live gladly with technology correcting a wrong call even if it didn't effect the play, rather than endure another referee's decision to interpret if or not the offside was part of the play.
Taking it a step farther, do we allow a goal 3 seconds after the whistle because it was going to go in anyway, or is the too many men call obsolete because the extra player was going to the bench? Can you define goalie interference? The NHL sure can't, and more to the point why is the application so erratic, resulting in goals that shouldn't be and denying those that should all while risking the health of the goaltender. Can you explain why we have a crease, since everyone is invited in?

First, I have no dog in this fight.

To the calls: Anyone complaining about this icing is asinine. The linesmen have been allowing this rope-a-dope all season, and did so earlier in the first period on a much more blatant play by Shattenkirk. The NBCSN broadcast, which was the Blackhawks' feed, even talked about it for a few seconds. If you are a Blues' fan who is upset, be upset at your C who lost the draw, and the W who let Kane tap it to the point. Be upset at Lehtera who didn't get out to the point to block the shot. You have to concentrate for all 60-minutes.

As for the Shaw goal the slash comes from swinging at a rebound. That's never called. The rest is just a result of scrambling for a loose puck. While I don't have any real idea what goalie interference is, I can tell you that all season they have only called it when there is a bump before the puck gets into the paint, or when the offensive player obviously holds or impedes the goalie on the scramble. Neither of those happens here. The bump is while the puck is in the paint (and it's both very minor and initiated by the goalie), and there is nothing that restrains the goalie. Close, but a good goal.

Finally, the offside call. As a guy who officiated as high as juniors, this play bothers me some. They get the call right in the end, and here's why: One, you never look at the front foot or the fact that both feet are "in the air". Two, the back foot has to be on the ice if he's that close to the line. So, by the letter of the law this is correct. Having said that, I think the spirit of the law isn't served here. The millisecond difference did not create this scoring chance or have anything to do with the play really. The call is correct, but justice may not have been served.


Bottom line, it always sucks when 2 or 3 crucial calls all go to one team, but this happens in sports, especially in the small sample size of a single game. These were two very close games and either team could be up 2-0. To win the Cup, it takes the character of being able to stare into the abyss of adversity at least once and then recover from it. We know the Blackhawks have it. Do the Blues? That question will decide the series.
- jam10sugar

THIS EXACTLY! game on lets play hockey--

Both of these plays were 100% correct. The shaw goal was a good garbage goal. His first contact with Elliott was a follow through on his original shot which did very little to affect Elliott's ability to make the save and the puck was across the line before he made any significant contact to Elliott. If we are going to call that no goal we might as well go with no part of any player or players stick can enter the crease at any point.

As for the offside call it has been called forever that your skate has to be on the ice to be considered onside (for example when you check up on a delayed offside your skate has to touch the blueline, you can't just swing your foot over the blueline). I have taken many reffing courses and that is how they teach it. In this case the right call was made. I understand that the video review was brought in to make sure there were no blatant mistakes made leading to goals but there can not be a "it was really close so we can ignore it" rule. It is either offside or not and It was offside.

Also going with breaking the plane of the blueline really wouldn't work. Does it include all parts of the body? when you are checking up on a delayed offside call can you just swing your arm out over the blueline? Seems crazy to me. It has been called the exact same forever, leave it alone and be happy that they are technically getting these calls right.

First, I have no dog in this fight.

To the calls: Anyone complaining about this icing is asinine. The linesmen have been allowing this rope-a-dope all season, and did so earlier in the first period on a much more blatant play by Shattenkirk. The NBCSN broadcast, which was the Blackhawks' feed, even talked about it for a few seconds. If you are a Blues' fan who is upset, be upset at your C who lost the draw, and the W who let Kane tap it to the point. Be upset at Lehtera who didn't get out to the point to block the shot. You have to concentrate for all 60-minutes.

As for the Shaw goal the slash comes from swinging at a rebound. That's never called. The rest is just a result of scrambling for a loose puck. While I don't have any real idea what goalie interference is, I can tell you that all season they have only called it when there is a bump before the puck gets into the paint, or when the offensive player obviously holds or impedes the goalie on the scramble. Neither of those happens here. The bump is while the puck is in the paint (and it's both very minor and initiated by the goalie), and there is nothing that restrains the goalie. Close, but a good goal.

Finally, the offside call. As a guy who officiated as high as juniors, this play bothers me some. They get the call right in the end, and here's why: One, you never look at the front foot or the fact that both feet are "in the air". Two, the back foot has to be on the ice if he's that close to the line. So, by the letter of the law this is correct. Having said that, I think the spirit of the law isn't served here. The millisecond difference did not create this scoring chance or have anything to do with the play really. The call is correct, but justice may not have been served.


Bottom line, it always sucks when 2 or 3 crucial calls all go to one team, but this happens in sports, especially in the small sample size of a single game. These were two very close games and either team could be up 2-0. To win the Cup, it takes the character of being able to stare into the abyss of adversity at least once and then recover from it. We know the Blackhawks have it. Do the Blues? That question will decide the series.
- jam10sugar

Fabulous post! Thanks

Let's drop the Puck and see who can stare down adversity in 3 hours.

Eklund: The Disaster in St Louis Which Should Make Us Question Everything...
- Eklund

How is this turn of events an existential issue? Question everything? a bit extreme and over reaching to engage that premise--Disaster?

The offside wasn't offside. The rule states an and/or scenario that doesn't apply. To say that the rule has been called with the skate having to touch the ice in the past is to say that we've allowed mistakes to happen in the past and are fine with letting it continue. I don't agree with the Ladd goal either, but the game changes once the Tarasenko goal is allowed to stand as it should have been, and then the LAdd goal doesn't happen. How's that for existential?

The offside wasn't offside. The rule states an and/or scenario that doesn't apply. To say that the rule has been called with the skate having to touch the ice in the past is to say that we've allowed mistakes to happen in the past and are fine with letting it continue. I don't agree with the Ladd goal either, but the game changes once the Tarasenko goal is allowed to stand as it should have been, and then the LAdd goal doesn't happen. How's that for existential?
- aslord

Wut?

This post is a mess. And wrong also.

I give a little credit to the NHL for finally trying to get calls correct whenever they can, but as with may other things in the real world, you're only as good as the technology.
They put crappy camera in a crappy spot on the blueline, so many times we are still left with the classic "inconclusive" result, then it is up to the referees to make whatever call they feel makes them look better.
If Lehtera's front foot hadn't yet touched the ice inside the blueline before the puck was fully in then he would be onside, but it is impossible to determine something like that with the terrible angles and sometimes grainy footage, occasionally the puck isn't even visibile!

As far as I know, something like the "Hawkeye system" that tennis uses (and now FIFA too, because they were sick of controversy) is right 100% of the time, because there is no human aspect to it, the science does the work. A few cameras in the right place could get offside calls, and my favorite "goals touched with a stick maybe above the crossbar" correct 100% of the time. The someone could quickly review any disputed play quickly remotely, and avoid the referees having to look at a tiny ipad to embarrass themselves by over turning their own calls.
Technology is here to stay, might as well use it to get stuff right, and not waste anyone's time.
Rant Over!

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....
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

There is a brief moment in stride switching from one skate to the next where both are off the ice. You can see light between the shadow of his skate and the blade. So yes he is floating across the blue for a fraction of a second, and this still was captured during that time.

Been a Hawk Fan for 50+ years,and the Offside rule is ridiculous,but we are stuck with it,and because it has caused so much distress,it will be re-vamped,but dont think for a minute i lost any sleep over the Hawks clearly outplaying the Blues in Game one only to lose 1-0,in OT over a peewee house league bounce of TVR's skate,thems the breaks,just like the Hawks winning the second game the way they did,3 cups/6 years,maybe 4 in 7,stop your whining,i know Blues fans want to get outta the 1st round and they are desparate,PS is Eklund American,what is offsides?

As far as I know, something like the "Hawkeye system" that tennis uses (and now FIFA too, because they were sick of controversy) is right 100% of the time,
- wilkobecks

Then you know wrong. Hawkeye has a margin of error; they just refuse to tell anybody what it is (assuming they even know). Tennis has just decided that it is to be treated as perfectly accurate all of the time for the sake of getting things moving.

A few cameras in the right place could get offside calls, and my favorite "goals touched with a stick maybe above the crossbar" correct 100% of the time.
- wilkobecks

Also wrong; for those camera systems to function they need to be virtually unobstructed at all times, and they only focus on a single moving target (the ball) against a single stationary target (the line). For offside, you would need to focus on potentially 23 different moving targets (11 pairs of skates in the case of a 6 on 5, since it wouldn't be able to tell players apart; plus the puck) and a stationary target (the blue line), and there would obviously be obstruction all over the place. For high sticks, you would need to focus on 12 moving targets (11 sticks - again, it wouldn't be able to differentiate between teams; plus the puck) and a stationary target (the crossbar). Again, assuming no obstructions (good luck with that), you would still need a way to differentiate where on the stick the puck struck, so not only do you have many more targets to focus on, you also are dealing with a moving object striking a moving object, the connection point which is in relation to a different stationary object. And it possibly gets even worse when you consider that the system likely isn't made to handle ricochets; neither soccer or tennis has boards which can change the trajectory of the ball while at the same time keeping it in play.

and avoid the referees having to look at a tiny ipad to embarrass themselves by over turning their own calls.
- wilkobecks

They just need to get them a freaking HD TV down there somehow if they're going to continue to have a coach's challenge in any form. Honestly, the next natural step is for linesmen to begin to call every single close play offside on the ice so that it can't be reviewed in the first place.

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

So, he flying ?

So, he flying ?
- Xizord

No, he was skating.

It's actually normal to have both feet of the ice at times with your normal stride. Same with running.

You push off with your back foot before your front foot lands. Especially during acceleration, which is what Lehtera was doing in this instance.