Paul Stewart: Coyle Offside and the NHL Case Book

" Watching the game on TV in real time, I immediately thought it was an offside."

this:

So you could see it in real time, why couldnt the on ice officials? Because now, with replay, they dont need to, they are shying away from make a call because they are afraid to make the wrong call.

Yes, Paul. You are a dinosaur, but so am I, so I’m with you!

The fighting and instigation rules debacle the NHL has set forth, has only damaged the game I used to give up my evening for. Now if I see it, ok, if I don’t, no loss. The passion is gone. So is the hate, and the rivalries! Remember when a team would play each team in its division 6 times? Or a line brawl protecting a teammate? Ah, the good ‘ol days!

Paul Stewart: Coyle Offside and the NHL Case Book
- Paul Stewart

many teams have been burned with the silly interpretations of the offside rule as it is now "interpreted", but why now are some saying we going to see a change in the rule -
could it be because it happened to the Bruins?

Paul, this kind of falls under (in a way) the automatic delay of game for the puck over the glass.

The intent of the rule was to prevent teams from chipping the puck out of play when they're hemmed in deep and don't want to ice the puck. However, more often than not, it is done accidentally, and there have been tons of instances where a player in his own zone has actually shot the puck over the glass in the attacking zone.

I remember a blog you posted where you didn't want to call this in a game because you didn't feel it was warranted. However, under the letter of the book, it had to be called. This is the same with these micrometer offsides plays. It may not be the spirit of the rule, but under the rule book, it is an infraction and must be called appropriately.

Just my 2 cents.

many teams have been burned with the silly interpretations of the offside rule as it is now "interpreted", but why now are some saying we going to see a change in the rule -
could it be because it happened to the Bruins?
- BorjeFan4Ever

well said!

this whole debate now after it burned the bruins is so stupid. Because its fresh, but the habs had a goal called back because babcock challenged that the skate wasn't on the ice when the puck crossed the blue. It was literally 1 cm off the ice... goal called back.... was that as stupid as this call? yes. but its the rules so what the (frank).

I think that if a coach thinks a play is off-side, he should have to call it in real-time. Raise a flag on the bench as the play happens, then the referees let the game play out... If a goal is scored on the play and the coach's flag is up, then the referees review to see if it was offside or not. If no goal is scored, then the flag goes down and we get on with life.

It's not fair that linesmen need to spot it with the naked eye in real-time, yet the coaches get to review after the fact.

I am in full agreement with entertainment aspect. Fans need to be able to celebrate goals. One improvement would be to eliminate the challenge if game play eliminates the advantage. For example, after the defending team has touched the puck or 15 seconds, or if the goal is not scored on the rush or rebound. This allows plenty of time for the numeric advantage to be offset.

Another option is to reconsider the offside definition to make the calls less subject to interpretation. For example, eliminate control and use the "break the plane" standard rather than skate on the ice. Yet another would be an "eye in the sky" to stop play on obvious offsides that are missed.

The pathological case in the current system is a power play zone entry is offsize, and a goal is scored just prior to the penalty expiring. The attacking team can essentially be penalized by losing a power play opportunity for going offside.

BTW, I once saw an automatic 2 minute penalty for shooting the puck over the glass at the other end of the rink. Logically this is the same as an icing, so why the need for a 2 minute penalty is beyond me.

There's no denying the game has EVOLVED considerably more in the last 20 years than at any point since you could make a backwards pass. But that's the thing, the game always evolves. This includes player training, coaching strategy, league marketing.. every facet of the game. If you want things to stay virtually the same for 100 years, go watch baseball.

That being said we are edging dangerously close to removing the discretion of the offcials from the game. I dont think anyone involved in the game wants to see it reffed by the letter of the rulebook... there would be 50 ticky-tacky penalties a game!! But when you have these black and white scenarios like offside, puck over glass (or the forgettable toe-in-the-crease) you remove the discretionary human element of "a good hockey play" vs an intentional violation of the rules.

I dont know what the answer is, but I suspect it begins with some form of public accountability. A reporter could ask "Hey Mr. Linesman, why wasnt Coyle called for being offside?" and if that linesman is honest he can say "Well Ms. Reporter, it looked to me like he had control of the puck entering the zone. Having looked at it in retrospect, it's very, very close, and it turns out I was wrong." But that speaks to a bigger issue of people's refusal to admit when they're wrong.

I often wonder how much pressure the widespread legalization and legitimization of sports betting puts on leagues to get the calls perfectly right, no matter how long it takes, how many people it takes to examine the calls under a microscope, and ultimately how much it ruins the game. There is a lot of money involved in this. If someone bets a lot on a game or some aspect of a game and lose on a close call that is not thoroughly examined, and afterward it is determined to have been the wrong call, it could cause arguments between the now-legitimate sports betting companies and their clients, regardless of any signed disclaimers.

I also agree that the accidental over-the-glass 2 min. penalties should be done away with, unless it is obvious that it was deliberate. Instead it should be treated like an offsides, with the team that committed it not being allowed to change lines. Also, for both this and offsides, the team that committed it should have a certain number of seconds to get into face-off position or it is in fact a delay of game penalty. The other team can take longer, in which case it is not.

And regarding Tocchet, my favorite "incident" of him is when he played for the 1992 Pens and the Pens were playing the NY Rangers in the second round. After Lemieux returned in game 7, after Graves had broken his wrist with a cheap slash earlier in the series, and was continuing to receive cheap shots from Rangers players, Tocchet went up to Messier and told him something like "the next time someone does that to Lemieux I am coming after you! (pointing at him)". Lemieux was left alone after that and the Pens won the series and later the Cup.

I often wonder how much pressure the widespread legalization and legitimization of sports betting puts on leagues to get the calls perfectly right, no matter how long it takes, how many people it takes to examine the calls under a microscope, and ultimately how much it ruins the game. There is a lot of money involved in this. If someone bets a lot on a game or some aspect of a game and lose on a close call that is not thoroughly examined, and afterward it is determined to have been the wrong call, it could cause arguments between the now-legitimate sports betting companies and their clients, regardless of any signed disclaimers.

I also agree that the accidental over-the-glass 2 min. penalties should be done away with, unless it is obvious that it was deliberate. Instead it should be treated like an offsides, with the team that committed it not being allowed to change lines. Also, for both this and offsides, the team that committed it should have a certain number of seconds to get into face-off position or it is in fact a delay of game penalty. The other team can take longer, in which case it is not.

And regarding Tocchet, my favorite "incident" of him is when he played for the 1992 Pens and the Pens were playing the NY Rangers in the second round. After Lemieux returned in game 7, after Graves had broken his wrist with a cheap slash earlier in the series, and was continuing to receive cheap shots from Rangers players, Tocchet went up to Messier and told him something like "the next time someone does that to Lemieux I am coming after you! (pointing at him)". Lemieux was left alone after that and the Pens won the series and later the Cup.
- PghPens668771

That’s the “old” NHL! Welcome to the kindler, gentler version of today.......that SUCKS!! The nasty rivalries that were must see tv are gone. Bettman has them singing Kumbayah in the key of revenue, by the casual fan, or corporate seat holders. Sad state of affairs for the greatest game on earth!

I often wonder how much pressure the widespread legalization and legitimization of sports betting puts on leagues to get the calls perfectly right, no matter how long it takes, how many people it takes to examine the calls under a microscope, and ultimately how much it ruins the game. There is a lot of money involved in this. If someone bets a lot on a game or some aspect of a game and lose on a close call that is not thoroughly examined, and afterward it is determined to have been the wrong call, it could cause arguments between the now-legitimate sports betting companies and their clients, regardless of any signed disclaimers.

I also agree that the accidental over-the-glass 2 min. penalties should be done away with, unless it is obvious that it was deliberate. Instead it should be treated like an offsides, with the team that committed it not being allowed to change lines. Also, for both this and offsides, the team that committed it should have a certain number of seconds to get into face-off position or it is in fact a delay of game penalty. The other team can take longer, in which case it is not.

And regarding Tocchet, my favorite "incident" of him is when he played for the 1992 Pens and the Pens were playing the NY Rangers in the second round. After Lemieux returned in game 7, after Graves had broken his wrist with a cheap slash earlier in the series, and was continuing to receive cheap shots from Rangers players, Tocchet went up to Messier and told him something like "the next time someone does that to Lemieux I am coming after you! (pointing at him)". Lemieux was left alone after that and the Pens won the series and later the Cup.
- PghPens668771

Craig Berube did something similar. I forget who the NYR player was, but Berube he said the same thing to Leetch (I'll come after you). Not only did it stop, the player actually approached Berube and apologized.

Sadly, those kinds of antics would be met with an automatic 30-game suspension today...unless you're Marchand.

Craig Berube did something similar. I forget who the NYR player was, but Berube he said the same thing to Leetch (I'll come after you). Not only did it stop, the player actually approached Berube and apologized.

Sadly, those kinds of antics would be met with an automatic 30-game suspension today...unless you're Marchand.
- jmatchett383

Which is why the NHL is, in a word....MEH. The hate, the rivalries, the drama and anticipation, are all gone. It’s kindler, gentler, NHL. Yawn!