National Hockey League 2018-2019

VoidTerraFirma said:
He was only offside because he was attempting to enter the bench...which is right at the Blue line. He was, in no way whatsoever, part of the play and no advantage was gained. If the bench entry were say, two feet closer to center ice...there is no offsides.

Again, it’s a really, really tough call.
Click to expand...

But as I have read in multiple places...you are taught from youth hockey onward to make sure you are on side when leaving the ice, even if you have to go over the boards. It isn't a rare or isolated thing, or like baseball where fields are different. Am I correct that all NHL rinks have the door in the offensive zone, and it is a known issue in the 2nd period for a visiting team?

If so, it's not a tough call at all.
 
He should have went over the boards to the bench in the neutral zone. This is known by every hockey player before they hit PeeWee age.
Not a tough call but a tough mistake by the player.

There is also a door in the neutral zone too I believe.
 
Didn’t say it was a bad call...said it was a tough call, because it took a critical goal off the board in a Game 7 on a technicality that had no tangible effect on the outcome on the ice.

It’s the equivalent of calling a touchdown back from the 3 yard line because a player had one foot on the field of play back at midfield.

But thems the breaks...what goes around comes around.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
He was only offside because he was attempting to enter the bench...which is right at the Blue line. He was, in no way whatsoever, part of the play and no advantage was gained. If the bench entry were say, two feet closer to center ice...there is no offsides.

Again, it’s a really, really tough call.
Click to expand...

Not at all a tough call. Really an easy call. He was on the ice, in the attacking zone, before the puck entered over the blue line. There is nothing equivocal about it. The rule does not state anything indicating the player in an offside position must be involved in the play or giving his team an advantage for the call to be made. In soccer, he would not have been offside, as he was not involved in play, but in hockey, that matters not at all.

BTW - I grew very tired of the NBC announcers fellating the Avalanche over the course of seven games. Might as well have been watching a feed from the local (Denver) channel...
 
There's a ton equivocal about it. This is not tort law (Tortorella law?). Part of hockey that can seem very 'different' is intent. @VoidTerraFirma is right - there was no advantage gained.

The real controversy is that this call used to never be made (sorry for bad syntax). Now, it is made, and via a new tool/technology. Should players be aware of it? Sure. But as a hockey enthusiast, I enjoy the game less because of this.

In other words, a lot of traditional hockey fans really appreciate that the sport has NOT been officiated as "black or white." In fact, hockey is the one sport I know where officials are asked to judge intentions on the ice, and players take it into account.

A good (and horribly Bruin-centered) example would be the way Anderson summed up McAvoy's hit. Yes, it was to his head, but he didn't think McAvoy intended to hit him that way, it just happened. And though I know I was poop-talking people here, please allow this to be taken as a serious remark: this is exactly why long-time hockey fans find the passionate judgements of noobs to be ... tough to take seriously, some times. We look at the McAvoy hit (or the Thornton hit, or the Marchand punch, or the Dubois goalie run, or the Kadry cross-check) and we see massive differences.

And a good portion of those differences are derived from the context of the history of the game. Ask us to abandon that in favor of "was he/wasn't he?" instant replay, and you are asking us to abandon one of our favorite parts of the sport's culture.
 
One of many. How about the "delay of game" call for unintentionally putting the puck over the glass on the defensive end? You can try and pick and choose all you like, but at the end of the day the rules are the rules, and must be applied equally and evenly. If you want to bitch about that, you're cherry-picking...
 
Wanted to separate out my personal reaction to such stuff into a different post.

In almost every sport, I'm a huge fan of replay. Soccer, IMHO, would benefit HUGELY from more replay, and I don't agree about the people who complain about the NFL. I recall the old days and blown calls, and I'll take present reality every time. Double for baseball.

Somehow, I want hockey to be different. I want the officials to be part of the game. Irrational? Sure. But then, so is spending thousands of dollars to watch grown men play a game and many people do that, too.

I guess another way to say it is that just my personal experience is that replay has greatly improved sports - except for hockey.
 
bsman said:
One of many. How about the "delay of game" call for unintentionally putting the puck over the glass on the defensive end? You can try and pick and choose all you like, but at the end of the day the rules are the rules, and must be applied equally and evenly. If you want to bitch about that, you're cherry-picking...
Click to expand...

And you can call it "cherry picking," and I can tell you that's simply your personal choice of phrase trying to advocate for something that I think is unrealistic.

I've officiated in two sports; one was basketball. The idea that I should call every infraction I witness is the height of silliness to me. I would compare it to a cop pulling someone over and writing a ticket for going 56 in a 55 zone.

But then we would both be making arguments based on logical fallacies, and we get Internet 101.
 
Danhedonia said:
And you can call it "cherry picking," and I can tell you that's simply your personal choice of phrase trying to advocate for something that I think is unrealistic.

I've officiated in two sports; one was basketball. The idea that I should call every infraction I witness is the height of silliness to me. I would compare it to a cop pulling someone over and writing a ticket for going 56 in a 55 zone.

But then we would both be making arguments based on logical fallacies, and we get Internet 101.
Click to expand...

I have officiated soccer for almost 30 years (as well as serving in a variety of related positions), so I believe I am speaking with some authority when I say that there was nothing unusual about that call. This is the way it has been called all season long. Almost every team has both benefited and suffered the consequences of it...
 
I know nothing about soccer. Would love to know more.

"all season long" - does not respond to what I was saying. I'm saying I don't like this call. I am certain I am not alone, because two years ago, the competition committee people entertained the idea of a cutoff time for offsides calls reversing goals for precisely this reason.

You like the new way. I like the old way.
 
Danhedonia said:
I know nothing about soccer. Would love to know more.

"all season long" - does not respond to what I was saying. I'm saying I don't like this call. I am certain I am not alone, because two years ago, the competition committee people entertained the idea of a cutoff time for offsides calls reversing goals for precisely this reason.

You like the new way. I like the old way.
Click to expand...


Ah - I have got you now! I'm actually inclined to agree with you on this.
 
Worth chewing - "intent" is usually not something that most sports ask their officials to figure out. Hockey does. Weird.

As far as putting my Bruins under the bus, this is a massive pet peeve of mine. Somehow I missed the memo where my wish for a team to win means I shouldn't be critical of them. The Reddit Celtics sub had an hilarious addiction to downvoting anything that wasn't blind faith.

That's, um, not the 'charm' of Boston fans. (yeah, I know: please do recall that we have accepted being called Massholes). The 1970's in particular (Red Sox soul-crushes in '75, '78; Bruins ... '77-'79) were profoundly traumatic.

Being a pro athlete in Boston is tricky; witness the vicious excoriation that Kyrie Irving is receiving today. Pre-gentrification Bostonians are pretty hard-bitten, and like two things from their sports heroes: toughness, and an appreciation for the fans' dedication. This is why Clemens is despised ("playing in Boston is just another game" when he was playing for the Yankees) and Isaiah Thomas is beloved (IT loved Boston enough to choose to live in the city, so he could walk to games, so he could 'see people on the street'). You might call it "Pathetic," and you'd probably be right, but as Sub Pop's "LOSER" t-shirt shows, sometimes the downtrodden embrace their station as a strength.

The Bruins have laid some absolute eggs in this post-season. That Cassidy 'pep talk' I posted above shows I'm not alone in that opinion. It's diabolically frustrating as a fan to see a team play so hard for 3 or 4 games, and then just take the day off. Hey guys, it's not like it's the Cup or anything. And it's not as if our team is brainiac central; when we need to be smart, we're really not.

Anyhow, F*** the Whal- erm, "Hurricanes."
 
If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or who is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier, the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation.

If, during a delayed off-side, an attacking player in the attacking zone elects to proceed to his players’ bench (which extends into the attacking zone) to be replaced by a teammate, he shall be considered to have cleared the zone provided he is completely off the ice and his replacement comes onto the ice in the neutral zone. If his replacement comes onto the ice in the attacking zone, if the delayed off-side is still in effect, he too must clear the attacking zone. If the remaining attacking players have cleared the attacking zone and the Linesman has lowered his arm for the delayed off-side, he shall be considered on-side.


That's the rule. How hard is it to understand? Don't like it, change it. I fucking guarantee if it had been the other way around the Av's would have challenged it as well.
 
Staal blind siding Marchand with a cross check to the ribs as he's trying to come off ice is not a good look.

But, you know: Bruins are fair game, unless Kadry.
 
Danhedonia said:
We're not talking about that. We're talking about how hockey games are and should be called.
Click to expand...

The fact is that coaches can challenge a play for an off side, and there are repercussions if the challenge is overruled. The ref's didn't call the play. Once the challenge is made, it's not about intent or interpretation. That's the whole point of instant replay and league oversight.

That was good assistant coaching.


Good game by the Bruins, btw. Only saw the last half, but they looked scary.

Forgot the Canes player, but lip read him saying 'oh yeah,my bad, sorry' to Charra after a little riff at the net. Looking straight up.
 
You're sort of repeating what we said.

Not being unkind, but perhaps as a newer fan the idea of 'replay' and 'challenges' and 'repercussions' just seems normal to you. But it isn't in the context of NHL hockey; it's very new and very different. And if you read the back and forth, one of the things I like (as well as many hockey lifers) is the notion of selective enforcement. Hockey officiating is very, very different than other sports.

The Canes really are a bunch of jerks. I don't mind them coming in chippy, but Hamilton and Staal whining about penalties is a laugher. When Keith Jones (if you don't know why he'll never be a Bruins supporter, keep learning the history) tells you to STFU about your whining, then it's bad.

The Canes just don't have much talent, and I can understand them compensating with aggression, but the complaining ... it's just trashy.
 
Didn't you just complain about the hit on Marchand? You can't lambast other teams fans for complaining about hits that didn't get called, then do the same thing when it happens to your team.

Look, instant replay and challenges are new to baseball as well, and for the most part I am resistant to them as well. Look at any of the baseball threads, and I am always vocal about keeping the electronic strike zone out of the game and leave the umpiring to the umps. It's part of the game. If they institute the DH in the NL, I'm done.

But that said, when the rules change, you either use them to your advantage or have them used against you. So I get the nostalgic sentiment you have, but it just isn't all that relevant to games being played today.
 
I honestly wonder which information you're using?

1. No, I did not complain about the hit on Marchand. I observed that Staal is a cheap shot artist. So is Brad Marchand. They're also both good players. Marchand has become a borderline elite player. No one in Boston has been whining for Marchand - they all say "he has to stay out of the box." Never mind the extra whacks officials let opponents give him - it is what it is, and his game is his game.

2. I did not lambaste the Canes for complaining about non-calls; I lambasted them for complaining about calls.

3. I don't know how to disagree with you more completely about "today's games," when you describe yourself as a very new fan. I would be more receptive to a different point of view if it seemed more-informed. I do appreciate that you have a different opinion, but I also think you're very likely to feel different once you've seen a couple decades' worth of hockey. Or even five years.

It's not at all "nostalgic sentiment," it's the essence of the game. Some of that is deeply rooted in the physical mechanics of skating; you can't circle the bases without moving every moment. But hockey players have vastly more nuance in their motions. Just because something is a new development doesn't make it 'an improvement,' nor does it mean we cannot examine the topic.

Just knowing the rules of the game really doesn't equate to knowledge, not with this sport. If you don't care about the history of a sport, well, that's kind of the definition of "proudly uninformed" to me. YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top