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

I think you are incorrect and they got both calls right.

Also there is no such thing as " offsides" it's "offside"

They got both calls right. No debate.

It was off-side, what's to debate? People female dog and complain we need review because teams win on occasion when they shouldn't, due to a blown call, so they implement review, to get it right, and now people are female doging about the review.....Jesus Murphy.....it was off-side

Where in the rule book does it say anything about skate being off the ice?

They got both calls right. No debate.
- TimBits

Not according to Tanner. Doesn't matter that the replays all show it is offside...

Where in the rule book does it say anything about skate being off the ice?
- Antilles

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.

- Scooby_Doo

You laugh, but here is the rulebook. It's not in there.


http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en...-Interactive-rulebook.pdf

Where in the rule book does it say anything about skate being off the ice?
- Antilles

I'm not a hawks fan, but I can't believe this is an argument. The skate has always had to be on the ice at least on the blue line for it to be onside. It's been called like that forever. Yes, it likely cost the Blues the game last night, but don't act like that hasn't been called for years.

I think you are incorrect and they got both calls right.

Also there is no such thing as " offsides" it's "offside"
- Iggysbff

Icings is icings

I really don't see where Shaw 'pushes Elliot'. Elliot's pad never made it to the post where Shaw shot the puck and that wasn't because of a push by Shaw.

The offside play was pretty clear. He was offside. No arguing that. That said, I think the rule needs to be altered or removed. This is playoff hockey. Let the refs not call countless cross checks, let them determine if there is goalie interference and let them make the call on offside.

I'm not a hawks fan, but I can't believe this is an argument. The skate has always had to be on the ice at least on the blue line for it to be onside. It's been called like that forever. Yes, it likely cost the Blues the game last night, but don't act like that hasn't been called for years.
- mw630

Guess guys aren't using this move effectively enough to stay onside.

Icings is icings
- Slimtj100

Elliot's was pushed into his nets.

Ek i'm guessing you didn't see the blue line camera which was shown on NHL Network that showed it was 100% offsides.....

Elliot's was pushed into his nets.
- Iggysbff

maybe but when its due to his own teammate pushing the guy into him well thats your d-mans fault

I'm not a hawks fan, but I can't believe this is an argument. The skate has always had to be on the ice at least on the blue line for it to be onside. It's been called like that forever. Yes, it likely cost the Blues the game last night, but don't act like that hasn't been called for years.
- mw630

It's not an argument, it's asking people to do more than base their opinion on how they think it's always been called and instead on what the rules actually are.

maybe but when its due to his own teammate pushing the guy into him well thats your d-mans fault
- HawksGuySince85

Shaw's stick hit Eliiott's pad before Shattenkirk touched Shaw.

The Shaw goal is totally a good goal. No controversy whatsoever and I can't stand the Hawks.

It's hockey. Like it or not that's a greasy playoff goal.

Terrible calls that both went against St Louis. Terrible.

maybe but when its due to his own teammate pushing the guy into him well thats your d-mans fault
- HawksGuySince85

Dude...it was a joke on pluralizing everything...

He wasn't pushed in. Shaw's stick hit his pads on the shot floow through. Puck was already in the net.

Ek i'm guessing you didn't see the blue line camera which was shown on NHL Network that showed it was 100% offsides.....
- HawksGuySince85

His skate hadn't crossed the plane. Because it was in the air it wass off-sides? Makes zero sense.

His skate hadn't crossed the plane. Because it was in the air it wass off-sides? Makes zero sense.
- wolfhounds

That's been a rule for eons haha

I think Busey looks better then hitch

It's not an argument, it's asking people to do more than base their opinion on how they think it's always been called and instead on what the rules actually are.
- Antilles

I'm sure you would be perfectly fine then if the play was reversed and a hawks player's skate was in the air and they called it onside? The rule is your body cannot be in the offensive zone before the puck. If your skate is off the ice and your other one is in the offensive zone, you are no longer in the neutral zone. They have called that offsides on numerous replays throughout the regular season. I'll leave it at that because I'm sure there is no changing your mind.