WTF does that have to do with anything?
Shesty will be starting 50+ games for years to come, and you think the organization gives a (frank) who got here first?
Come on, you're not that dumb.
- Tonybere

So, I guess I'm the only guy (women don't give a rat's ass) in the world who wanted it to stay as is?
Such a knee jerk reaction. You have 100 years to learn how to play with the rule, but have to complain that it isn't right?
- Tonybere

With the advent of instant replay and the Challenge, I think it was time to change. This will speed up the game, no more issue with the skate 1/4" off the ice. I get that was the rule, but I am glad it is changing. Want to bring back the 2-line pass? Skate in the crease? These rule changes improved the game, and so will the offsides rule change.
'

With the advent of instant replay and the Challenge, I think it was time to change. This will speed up the game, no more issue with the skate 1/4" off the ice. I get that was the rule, but I am glad it is changing. Want to bring back the 2-line pass? Skate in the crease? These rule changes improved the game, and so will the offsides rule change.
'
- Fenrir

But, those were problems with THE RULE. This one is a problem with the way the rule is REVIEWED. Big difference.
Keep the rule the way it has been for 100+ years and give them 60 seconds to review it. No clear evidence? Call stands. Done.

But, those were problems with THE RULE. This one is a problem with the way the rule is REVIEWED. Big difference.
Keep the rule the way it has been for 100+ years and give them 60 seconds to review it. No clear evidence? Call stands. Done.
- Tonybere

I'd rather just see them put a limit on how much time can elapse between a missed offside call and a goal before a team is ineligible to review it. If more than 30 seconds goes by and someone scores, there was more then ample opportunity for the defending team to do their facking jobs and they should be ineligible to challenge it. It's so stupid when someone was an inch and a half offside 83 seconds before a goal and it comes back.

I'd rather just see them put a limit on how much time can elapse between a missed offside call and a goal before a team is ineligible to review it. If more than 30 seconds goes by and someone scores, there was more then ample opportunity for the defending team to do their facking jobs and they should be ineligible to challenge it. It's so stupid when someone was an inch and a half offside 83 seconds before a goal and it comes back.
- eichiefs9

Umm. I think it would be more stupid to say that any one case of "not being able to do their facking jobs" should be more or less important than others.
Many times, a team is offside because someone did their job properly and forced the opposition to make an illegal play. Why should that be tossed aside because the other team was able to illegally keep the play alive?

But, those were problems with THE RULE. This one is a problem with the way the rule is REVIEWED. Big difference.
Keep the rule the way it has been for 100+ years and give them 60 seconds to review it. No clear evidence? Call stands. Done.
- Tonybere

Imagine 2-line pass review as well?
What difference does it make if a player's skate is 1/4 off the ice?
I'm for simplifying the rule, or as Chiefs said, after a certain amount of time the offside goes away.

Umm. I think it would be more stupid to say that any one case of "not being able to do their facking jobs" should be more or less important than others.
Many times, a team is offside because someone did their job properly and forced the opposition to make an illegal play. Why should that be tossed aside because the other team was able to illegally keep the play alive?
- Tonybere

Because.

Umm. I think it would be more stupid to say that any one case of "not being able to do their facking jobs" should be more or less important than others.
Many times, a team is offside because someone did their job properly and forced the opposition to make an illegal play. Why should that be tossed aside because the other team was able to illegally keep the play alive?
- Tonybere

Because I don't think nitpicking over what might be three grainy white pixels of ice a minute and a half before a goal was scored is worth taking a 5 minute review plus the time it takes to make sure the clock is reset accurately.

If a team comes in, the offside clearly happened and they score off the rush or right after then I get it...review it and overturn it.

But you can't tell me there was really any clear advantage when all that time elapses between being a millimeter offsides and a goal.

Because I don't think nitpicking over what might be three grainy white pixels of ice a minute and a half before a goal was scored is worth taking a 5 minute review plus the time it takes to make sure the clock is reset accurately.

If a team comes in, the offside clearly happened and they score off the rush or right after then I get it...review it and overturn it.

But you can't tell me there was really any clear advantage when all that time elapses between being a millimeter offsides and a goal.
- eichiefs9

Stop being rational.

Stop being rational.
- Fenrir

I don't think Tony is being irrational, I just happen to disagree. It's such a painfully stupid waste of time when you have to watch the same low-def slo-mo angle 40x while craning your neck to see if there's the tiniest sliver of white ice between the back edge of a guy's skate blade and the blueline a minute before a goal was scored.

I don't think Tony is being irrational, I just happen to disagree. It's such a painfully stupid waste of time when you have to watch the same low-def slo-mo angle 40x while craning your neck to see if there's the tiniest sliver of white ice between the back edge of a guy's skate blade and the blueline a minute before a goal was scored.
- eichiefs9

Tony is being irrational

Tony is being irrational
- mdw7413

OK fair enough.

(frank) YOU TONY

- jimbro83

OK fair enough.

(frank) YOU TONY
- eichiefs9

Why don't you (frank) me yourself, coward!!!

I don't think Tony is being irrational, I just happen to disagree. It's such a painfully stupid waste of time when you have to watch the same low-def slo-mo angle 40x while craning your neck to see if there's the tiniest sliver of white ice between the back edge of a guy's skate blade and the blueline a minute before a goal was scored.
- eichiefs9

This is why my opinion is that the rule is fine as is. Just cut the review off at 60 seconds. If you can't tell in that time whether the blade was down or not, then accept the element of human error and the call stands. The whole thing would take about a minute and a half and 99% of the time you would have the correct call.

Tony is being irrational
- mdw7413

That's what I do, darlin'. That's what I do.

This is why my opinion is that the rule is fine as is. Just cut the review off at 60 seconds. If you can't tell in that time whether the blade was down or not, then accept the element of human error and the call stands. The whole thing would take about a minute and a half and 99% of the time you would have the correct call.
- Tonybere

I'm certainly not against a time limit on all reviews either. I would rather die than for hockey to become one long review-fest like the NFL. (yes mdw, I know you'd rather I die than that also)

I just think that looking back a full minute for an inch or two of ice on review isn't really a "clear advantage" for the team that scored. To me that's like getting a speeding ticket for doing 56 in a 55. Literally and technically correct, but really just a big fat waste of time for all involved.

Why don't you (frank) me yourself, coward!!!
- Tonybere

I'm certainly not against a time limit on all reviews either. I would rather die than for hockey to become one long review-fest like the NFL. (yes mdw, I know you'd rather I die than that also)

I just think that looking back a full minute for an inch or two of ice on review isn't really a "clear advantage" for the team that scored. To me that's like getting a speeding ticket for doing 56 in a 55. Literally and technically correct, but really just a big fat waste of time for all involved.
- eichiefs9

So, do we get rid of the blue line and have a "blue area?"
It's a line. It is a defined region that separates the area you are allowed in from the area you are not allowed in. Being over by an inch isn't a big deal? How about 4 inches? 29.4574"? What's the difference? Over is over, period. There is no other way to govern it.

p.s. - NOW I'm being irrational!!!

I'm certainly not against a time limit on all reviews either. I would rather die than for hockey to become one long review-fest like the NFL. (yes mdw, I know you'd rather I die than that also)

I just think that looking back a full minute for an inch or two of ice on review isn't really a "clear advantage" for the team that scored. To me that's like getting a speeding ticket for doing 56 in a 55. Literally and technically correct, but really just a big fat waste of time for all involved.
- eichiefs9

Back in HS there was a trip to an Island/Ranger game and during the 2nd and 3rd intermission there was a review of a goal that had the rangers go up 1 and then replay like the last 5 min of the 2nd and Then start the third it was a little crazy

So, do we get rid of the blue line and have a "blue area?"
It's a line. It is a defined region that separates the area you are allowed in from the area you are not allowed in. Being over by an inch isn't a big deal? How about 4 inches? 29.4574"? What's the difference? Over is over, period. There is no other way to govern it.

p.s. - NOW I'm being irrational!!!
- Tonybere

Just to throw a wrench in here...if the puck is in the air and the defenseman trying to keep it in reaches outside the zone and brings it back in its offsides right?

Why does the plane extend up for the puck and not the player?

Just to throw a wrench in here...if the puck is in the air and the defenseman trying to keep it in reaches outside the zone and brings it back in its offsides right?

Why does the plane extend up for the puck and not the player?
- climbdenali12

Because that's the way they wrote the rule?

So, do we get rid of the blue line and have a "blue area?"
It's a line. It is a defined region that separates the area you are allowed in from the area you are not allowed in. Being over by an inch isn't a big deal? How about 4 inches? 29.4574"? What's the difference? Over is over, period. There is no other way to govern it.

p.s. - NOW I'm being irrational!!!
- Tonybere

Well by that logic you should be giving teams too many men penalties when a player hops on the ice before the guy he's replacing is completely off of it. Get rid of that five foot courtesy rule. Six guys on the ice is six guys, no matter how you slice it.

Nonsense aside, I'm not arguing about being over the line an inch or a mile. I'm just saying that reviewing a play 90 seconds after an offside is stupid and they should cap the amount of elapsed time before you're ineligible for a review.

Because that's the way they wrote the rule?
- Tonybere

So your saying there are discrepancies with the way the rule is written? :lol

That's what I do, darlin'. That's what I do.
- Tonybere

Don't call me darlin, honey