James Tanner: The Answer to How Long Before Dumb Rules Ruin a Playoff Game Is In Game ruined by dumb rule!

Tanner once again whines about the Blackhawks

As for the Blackhawks not having a disadvantage of the offsides? Yea, well when the team is in the middle of a change and a stretch pass that is also offsides allows Lehtera to get behind the defense and down low to cause Chicago to start scrambling in coverage and allows Tarasenko to walk in the slot uncovered for a goal because of the disarray, THATS the advantage

Please pretend you understand nuances of the game instead of knee jerking blogs for click bait

I agree with you.


Hell may have just froze over, but I do agree that that rule is outside the spirit of a good hockey game and hate that it changed the course of a hockey game, possibly the series and potentially many more.

Tanner once again whines about the Blackhawks

As for the Blackhawks not having a disadvantage of the offsides? Yea, well when the team is in the middle of a change and a stretch pass that is also offsides allows Lehtera to get behind the defense and down low to cause Chicago to start scrambling in coverage and allows Tarasenko to walk in the slot uncovered for a goal because of the disarray, THATS the advantage

Please pretend you understand nuances of the game instead of knee jerking blogs for click bait
- hawkeytalkman

Sorry pal, you're the one being biased here. If this is "clickbait" then I just give up now, what is even the point of discussing things or trying to have a conversation if anyone who disagrees with you is so biased they can't be trusted and is just trying get attention?

I have nothing against the Hawks and I don't get paid enough to care about how many hits my articles get. Your comment just makes me sad, since it's pretty much word for word what people say to discredit anyone they don't agree with.

It was offside, why do the players need to be that close that it needs reviewing....they know where the blueline is. I know it sucks the life out of the game but if it was offside then it was the right call.

( I'm cheering for the Blues - so they're pretty much toast anyways )

Offsides is offsides.

As a lifelong Blues fan I went into that game with the expectation that they would lose in some absurd manner. It always happens, that is Blues playoff hockey.

But that was idiotic, almost as idiotic as the phantom embellishment call on Fabbri.

So at one point the ref doesn't want to decide the game so he invents an embellishment, then a few minutes later he is fine waiving off a goal that he needed a microscope to see the infraction on?

Ruin game, not sure about that, they were the right calls based on the video evidence.

The teams voted to use a challenge and this is what they get, so whats to complain about.

They wouldnt need challenges if the NHL and its owners were 100% confident in the ability of the Refs to get the calls right. There is no way to guaranteed that so reviews and challenges have to be put in place.

I don't see a problem with it

Tanner once again whines about the Blackhawks

As for the Blackhawks not having a disadvantage of the offsides? Yea, well when the team is in the middle of a change and a stretch pass that is also offsides allows Lehtera to get behind the defense and down low to cause Chicago to start scrambling in coverage and allows Tarasenko to walk in the slot uncovered for a goal because of the disarray, THATS the advantage

Please pretend you understand nuances of the game instead of knee jerking blogs for click bait

Like he said, he was a millimeter offsides, if his skate is touching the ice, he's onside. The challenge for offsides needs to go. Make it reviewable in circumstances where an obvious offside has occurred, and leave the human element in the game.

You make it sound like it was 2 feet offside and the Blues got a clear advantage for it. The Blues outplayed the Hawks in game 2, and should have won. Icing should have been waived off in the 2nd and the hawks shouldn't have had an offensive zone faceoff with 4 seconds left. Fabbri shouldn't have been given an embellishment call for the crosscheck from Ladd (what else is fabbri supposed to do after getting cross checked from behind when not expecting it?)

Like he said, he was a millimeter offsides, if his skate is touching the ice, he's onside. The challenge for offsides needs to go. Make it reviewable in circumstances where an obvious offside has occurred, and leave the human element in the game.

You make it sound like it was 2 feet offside and the Blues got a clear advantage for it. The Blues outplayed the Hawks in game 2, and should have won. Icing should have been waived off in the 2nd and the hawks shouldn't have had an offensive zone faceoff with 4 seconds left. Fabbri shouldn't have been given an embellishment call for the crosscheck from Ladd (what else is fabbri supposed to do after getting cross checked from behind when not expecting it?)
- jpl0219

offsides is offsides.

offsides is offsides.
- Blackstrom2

Was it though? I still haven't seen anything proving it was. Which was needed to overturn the goal.

It's not like the blues have a chance in this series anyways. First rd choke artists vs cup champs. I wonder if St Louis will be lucky enough to win even one more game ?

offsides is offsides.
- Blackstrom2

exactly

Like he said, he was a millimeter offsides, if his skate is touching the ice, he's onside. The challenge for offsides needs to go. Make it reviewable in circumstances where an obvious offside has occurred, and leave the human element in the game.

You make it sound like it was 2 feet offside and the Blues got a clear advantage for it. The Blues outplayed the Hawks in game 2, and should have won. Icing should have been waived off in the 2nd and the hawks shouldn't have had an offensive zone faceoff with 4 seconds left. Fabbri shouldn't have been given an embellishment call for the crosscheck from Ladd (what else is fabbri supposed to do after getting cross checked from behind when not expecting it?)
- jpl0219

And Shaws goal shouldn't have counted....terrible call IMO

Big market Chicago is going to get all the calls out of Toronto over St. Louis. It's all about the ratings.

I wish this article was written about another team so that I didn't seem like a homer.
Yes it sucks, but the play WAS offside. Doesn't matter how close it was, that's the rules.
So many blown calls on both sides, but for the most part officiating was fine. Whining and crying about it does no good.
Your blogs agrees the play was offside, so yes be mad a the rule, but not at the outcome of the call.

You can't fault the officials, it was off-side, rules are rules....if it's a point of contention then remove the challenge. It was still off-side.

If the puck crosses the goal line by a millimetre it's still a goal, if it doesn't, it's not.

There was still 7:46 left in the game, to say the Blues should be up 2-0 is ridiculous. Tons of time left!

Big market Chicago is going to get all the calls out of Toronto over St. Louis. It's all about the ratings.
- Cephalopods

Ruin game, not sure about that, they were the right calls based on the video evidence.

The teams voted to use a challenge and this is what they get, so whats to complain about.

They wouldnt need challenges if the NHL and its owners were 100% confident in the ability of the Refs to get the calls right. There is no way to guaranteed that so reviews and challenges have to be put in place.

I don't see a problem with it
- DDM-Coga

Why do calls need to be 100% right? It's non-sensical. Who cares? As long as the refs aren't biased, why should it matter? Like I said, I would take ten wrong calls over even a short review that sucks the life out of the game.

The Coach's Challange is worse than the glow puck, instigator rule, trapazoid and Glen Healy combined.

In my opinion, the league should have before the puck drops to call down and change the on-ice call due to BLATENT infractions only (this can be subjective, everything else in the game is subjective, so it makes no difference) and there should be no other video review.

Our quest for total accuracy is foolish and silly.

- DDM-Coga

You dont believe in NHL conspiracies, even after the John Scott fiasco?

I'm just happy that Tanner is alive and well. I was sure his head exploded when Duncan Keith scored the first Hawk's goal

Like he said, he was a millimeter offsides, if his skate is touching the ice, he's onside. The challenge for offsides needs to go. Make it reviewable in circumstances where an obvious offside has occurred, and leave the human element in the game.

You make it sound like it was 2 feet offside and the Blues got a clear advantage for it. The Blues outplayed the Hawks in game 2, and should have won. Icing should have been waived off in the 2nd and the hawks shouldn't have had an offensive zone faceoff with 4 seconds left. Fabbri shouldn't have been given an embellishment call for the crosscheck from Ladd (what else is fabbri supposed to do after getting cross checked from behind when not expecting it?)
- jpl0219

And don't forget that they counted a much, much worse goal for the game winner. It's obviously not the case, but given Keith's hilariously light sentence for what should be a season long suspension and possible banishment from the game, and all the things you mentioned, a case could be made that the NHL wants Chicago to win.

This is the angle I have seen over and over. And the one the NHL used in their explanation video. It is from inside the blueline looking out. The puck is off the ice, not up against the boards on the ice. So combining those two things, if you pan the angle to look straight down the blueline, it is not certain where the puck is in relation to the line.

They installed cameras above the boards (circled in pic) and on top of the glass at the blue lines to look straight down the blueline for these exact calls. I haven't seen anything yet showing those angles. I would be able to accept the goal reversal if I could see it offsides from that view.

But this view isn't definitive. Which is necessary to overturn the call. I don't think it is too much to ask for a legit angle of the play.

In a playoff game, in the third period, on a go ahead goal, that has to be very clear to overturn.

Agree with Tanner, it's not a good rule.

Also hate the automatic "slash" penalty called if a stick breaks. The stick breaks if you look at it the wrong way.

The penalty for delay of game when the puck goes over the boards by a Dman should be changed also. One thing if the D man shoots it over the boards. Another if the puck hits a D man's stick and deflects over the boards, being a penalty.

Oh well, the officiating is what it is, just bad right now. Both teams have to deal with bad calls usually/eventually.

This is the angle I have seen over and over. And the one the NHL used in their explanation video. It is from inside the blueline looking out. The puck is off the ice, not up against the boards on the ice. So combining those two things, if you pan the angle to look straight down the blueline, it is not certain where the puck is in relation to the line.

They installed cameras above the boards (circled in pic) and on top of the glass at the blue lines to look straight down the blueline for these exact calls. I haven't seen anything yet showing those angles. I would be able to accept the goal reversal if I could see it offsides from that view.

But this view isn't definitive. Which is necessary to overturn the call. I don't think it is too much to ask for a legit angle of the play.

In a playoff game, in the third period, on a go ahead goal, that has to be very clear to overturn.
- carcus

To overturn a goal that is that close is ridiculous. I was watching live and no one was like 'hey that might be offside' the Hawks were just throwing a hail mary.

The coaches challenges have to go. All video replay should go, it's garbage. Let em play.