Oilers 2017/18 season

[lmtada]

I am over it. Frustrated Oiler Fan.

[Roderek]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Ah cmon!!!!!

Friggin offside!!!!!

No way can we get a break!!


Stupid zebras!

Actually the zebras tried to give you a break, they didn't make the initial offside call. In order for it to be called back there had to be 100% video proof the play was offside, or the call on the ice would have stood.

Unfortunately for you Oilers fans his foot was clearly off the ice.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Roderek

Actually the zebras tried to give you a break, they didn't make the initial offside call. In order for it to be called back there had to be 100% video proof the play was offside, or the call on the ice would have stood.

Unfortunately for you Oilers fans his foot was clearly off the ice.

Wasn't he over the line, by about 12" as well?

[Roderek]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Wasn't he over the line, by about 12" as well?

To remain onside you only need to have one skate on the ice outside the blueline. Lots of times you will see players straddle the line, or stretch their back leg to remain on side.

So his front foot was over the line but his back foot was still onside, however, he lifted it up and therefore it was not on the ice making him offside.

Had his skate remained on the ice the goal would have counted.

The offside challenge is a tough one to swallow when it doesn't go your way on a close call like this, the intent of the challenge on this was to be able to go back on a play that was grossly offside. A few years ago in the playoffs a goal was allowed when a player was about 3 feet inside the zone before the puck, but there was no way to change the call since it wasn't blown offside. I can't remember the team but I believe the goal cost them the series.

Since the challenge rule has been implemented, more offsides like this one have been reversed then blatant offside calls that it was intended to prevent. which is why they have now added a 2 minute penalty if your challenge is not correct.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Roderek

[LEFT]To remain onside you only need to have one skate on the ice outside the blueline.

Of course, not sure what I was thinking.

Thanks.

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by Roderek

Actually the zebras tried to give you a break, they didn't make the initial offside call. In order for it to be called back there had to be 100% video proof the play was offside, or the call on the ice would have stood.

Unfortunately for you Oilers fans his foot was clearly off the ice.

Let me start by saying according to the rules as they stand right now, the review call was correct, but to say that the refs "tried to give you a break" is ridiculous.
There is no way the human eye could determine that Khaira's skate was less than 1/2" off the ice with his leg clearly behind the blue line. They need super slow motion replay to see stuff like that which only takes away from the game, never adds to it. The ref can only see so much, and as you stated, the rule was put in place for blatant offsides and not a 2mm lift of a skate with the whole leg still on side. It is another example of exploitation of a rule that was put in place for a completely other reason.
Like I said previously, make the rule that a part of the player (stick excluded) needs to be breaking the plane of the blue line to be on side....simple.
I'm sure the NHL will take years to change this stupidity.

BH

[Roderek]

Originally Posted by BloodHound70

Let me start by saying according to the rules as they stand right now, the review call was correct, but to say that the refs "tried to give you a break" is ridiculous.
There is no way the human eye could determine that Khaira's skate was less than 1/2" off the ice with his leg clearly behind the blue line. They need super slow motion replay to see stuff like that which only takes away from the game, never adds to it. The ref can only see so much, and as you stated, the rule was put in place for blatant offsides and not a 2mm lift of a skate with the whole leg still on side. It is another example of exploitation of a rule that was put in place for a completely other reason.
Like I said previously, make the rule that a part of the player (stick excluded) needs to be breaking the plane of the blue line to be on side....simple.
I'm sure the NHL will take years to change this stupidity.

BH

Someone noticed in a very short manner. To say the human eye couldn't detect it is ridiculous. I would say more often then not the refs get it right on the first try. Lots of times the broadcasts will show a replay and you go wow that was a good call, and the fact he caught that at full speed...

You can't have a rule that only works for when you want it to work, so you have to take the good with the bad, the rule is written, and according to how it is written the Oilers were offside. It doesn't matter if it was a little or a lot it was offside.
To help prevent these kind of things being challenged regularly they implemented the delay of game penalty if you challenge and are wrong. Which has cut down these reviews substantially.

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by Roderek

Someone noticed in a very short manner. To say the human eye couldn't detect it is ridiculous. I would say more often then not the refs get it right on the first try. Lots of times the broadcasts will show a replay and you go wow that was a good call, and the fact he caught that at full speed...

You can't have a rule that only works for when you want it to work, so you have to take the good with the bad, the rule is written, and according to how it is written the Oilers were offside. It doesn't matter if it was a little or a lot it was offside.
To help prevent these kind of things being challenged regularly they implemented the delay of game penalty if you challenge and are wrong. Which has cut down these reviews substantially.

I am not arguing the call what so ever as I already stated, it was called right under the current rules. Not even discussing this as an Oiler fan, but rather a hockey fan. You are focused on my views thinking i'm an angry Oil fan which I am not.
I do not believe for a second that considering how fast the game is played now, the linesman can see a skate barely off the ice on a off side call like that (maybe once in a blue moon maybe, but on average, not a chance). Teams have their own war rooms of guys getting paid to watch for stuff like that on video replay, and it is those guys who alert the bench to make the objection.
My whole view on this is that the rule needs to be changed for the betterment of the league and it's fans. This rule is flawed plain an simple and should be taken out of the game. It was meant for a certain purpose and has now created a whole new issue.

BH

[Roderek]

I don't think removing the challenge rule would make the game better, it would hurt the game. It is unfortunate that ones like this are challenged, but when you have an obvious one missed like in the Stanley cup playoffs like a few years back, I would prefer you could challenge that and get it right.

So if I have to take the bad with the good I can live with it. I think giving the challenge team a penalty if they do not win the challange has been a huge step in the right direction as it has cut these reviews down considerably.

Heck if Nashvilles PK was as bad as the Oilers they probably wouldn't have even risked the challange

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by Roderek

I don't think removing the challenge rule would make the game better, it would hurt the game. It is unfortunate that ones like this are challenged, but when you have an obvious one missed like in the Stanley cup playoffs like a few years back, I would prefer you could challenge that and get it right.

So if I have to take the bad with the good I can live with it. I think giving the challenge team a penalty if they do not win the challange has been a huge step in the right direction as it has cut these reviews down considerably.

Heck if Nashvilles PK was as bad as the Oilers they probably wouldn't have even risked the challange

I’m not saying to get rid of it, I’m saying the rule of what constitutes an off side does. How is the play any different whether a guys foot is a 1/2” lower or not. If his foot was touching the ice the goal counts but since his foot was up slightly the goal is disallowed. Does that honestly make ANY a sense at all. That rule was put in place because a guy was 3 feet off side and the linesman missed it. Should that be reviewed and overturned? Absolutely! But that is not how this rule is being used and that is what I mean about it hurting the game. If a player is past the plain of the blue line then yes it should be offside no question, not if a guys toenail is hitting the ice or not.

BH
Nice to see you can have a discussion without taking shots. Kinda proves my point. 🙄

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Bessie, I love your optimism, albeit misplaced.

To me, the big difference this year from last is Talbot....That guy stood on his head last year, stealing wins where perhaps they should have lost. He is looking incredibly mortal this year.

Brendan's Dad... Johnny got another 3 points last night...how is your mighty Leon doing?
Don't be forgetting our bet

Don't worry I won't forget about our bet. Just don't you forget that I put our #2 guy up against your #1 guy, to give you a fighting chance, so I wouldn't do a whole lot of gloating if I were you!

[Twisted Canuck]

I don't mind the offside challenge/ruling nearly as much as the stupid delay of game penalty for putting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone. That one makes me crazy most of the time, just have a face off in the zone and be done with it!

[kevinhits]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

I don't mind the offside challenge/ruling nearly as much as the stupid delay of game penalty for putting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone. That one makes me crazy most of the time, just have a face off in the zone and be done with it!

A face off means nothing if the defensive team has had alot of pressure on them and tired....and decides to throw the puck over the glass and they can get a change. Now if, like icing, they cannot make a line change, then I would be ok with that

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by kevinhits

A face off means nothing if the defensive team has had alot of pressure on them and tired....and decides to throw the puck over the glass and they can get a change. Now if, like icing, they cannot make a line change, then I would be ok with that

I'd be fine with it being like an icing and no line change, but a 2 minute pp for delay of game is ludicrous. I've even seen a goalie with no pressure try and move a rolling puck, over the glass and suddenly you are short handed. As well, some arenas glass is shorter than others on the half wall...too many variables to call it a penalty. Face off, no line change if you like, but scrap the penalty!

[JBE]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Don't worry I won't forget about our bet. Just don't you forget that I put our #2 guy up against your #1 guy, to give you a fighting chance, so I wouldn't do a whole lot of gloating if I were you!

Does your number 2 guy get paid more money than the Flames #1 guy?

[TBark]

I believe the off-on side rule will soon be changed to the “plane” of the foot on the line.

Also, is it only the entry into the zone when a goal is scored that can be challenged?
Meaning once the zone is cleared can that questionable zone entry play be reviewed if a goal is scored a bit later ?
Or can any entry into the zone since the last stoppage of play negate a goal ?
I don’t know the answer to this but I thought I’d ask.

TBark

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by TBark

I believe the off-on side rule will soon be changed to the “plane” of the foot on the line.

Also, is it only the entry into the zone when a goal is scored that can be challenged?
Meaning once the zone is cleared can that questionable zone entry play be reviewed if a goal is scored a bit later ?
Or can any entry into the zone since the last stoppage of play negate a goal ?
I don’t know the answer to this but I thought I’d ask.

TBark

I don’t think it will change anytime soon. According to TSN this issue was tabled at last years GM conference and was voted to keep it the same. Not sure why.

Anyway the answer to your question is that the offside is only reviewable while still in the zone. Once play is whistled down or it leaves the zone it is no longer relevant.

BH

[TBark]

Of course NA after a whistle, so NA once zone is cleared after close call.
Ok tks,

[BloodHound70]

In lies the problem though. Theoretically a team could enter the zone, cycle the puck for a while, maybe loose possession, gain it back, cycle some more and end up scoring. The team that got scored on could challenge the off side that took place 2 minutes earlier even though they had possession themselves since, and the goal would be called back. Absolutely ridiculous.

BH

[Ultimate Predator]

They should relocate this team and start a new franchise team here edmonton would be way better off ha ! Bunch of loosers!!!

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Predator

They should relocate this team and start a new franchise team here edmonton would be way better off ha ! Bunch of loosers!!!

Thank you UP for such a well thought out, cerebral input to this forum. We are all better off for having read it........

BH

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Don't worry I won't forget about our bet. Just don't you forget that I put our #2 guy up against your #1 guy, to give you a fighting chance, so I wouldn't do a whole lot of gloating if I were you!

But, our #1 guy is ahead of your #1 guy, and with two games in hand yet. Our fourth round, 104th overall pick guy, ahead of the first overall pick. I'd say he deserves a little respect....

Johnny, 9th place with 49 points.
Leon, 55th place with 34 points.

Quite the spread there....

[sgill808]

Originally Posted by BloodHound70

Thank you UP for such a well thought out, cerebral input to this forum. We are all better off for having read it........

BH

There are rules in every game that people disagree on. If a team crosses the line on a suspected offside they can't just stop play to check it. If they have possession for 2 minutes after that entry in the zone and they score, do you think the scoring team is going to be more upset they got the goal called back or would they be more angry if they got the whistle right away and were not able to get a chance at all?

As for the delay of game with the puck going over the glass, it should be treated like an icing with a face off in the zone and no line changes allowed.

We get it. Upset oilers fan. The rules are unfair. The other goalies on a hot streak. The referees are blind. Our guys are horny teenagers, they can't help it. The other teams gatorade is a better flavor than our teams gatorade.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Don't worry I won't forget about our bet. Just don't you forget that I put our #2 guy up against your #1 guy, to give you a fighting chance, so I wouldn't do a whole lot of gloating if I were you!

You're right...YOU put your #2 guy against my #1 guy...that's what started the whole bet...I can gloat all I want! Don't blame me for your betting choice.
All in good fun

[elkhunter11]

I find it ironc how some people whine about a rule when it costs their team, and yet most would not care if it benefitted their team.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I find it ironc how some people whine about a rule when it costs their team, and yet most would not care if it benefitted their team.

Most are upset because it lessens the experience and delays the game.

A big part of the excitement is the instantaneous rush when a goal is scored. If you add in "well maybe not" I would rather just watch the highlights after they are done mulling it over.

The same thing happened with the ridiculous "in the crease rule" a few years back. You never knew if it was a goal or not until after the commercial break.

Referees and linesmen are a real part of the game and overall do an awesome job. People whine about some calls like the weather but it is soon forgotten as play continues. A play isn't stopped if the puck hits a linesman or ref, if he makes contact with a player or falls in the thick of it even though it sometimes leads to a scoring opportunity or aides in the defence.. Why would a split second error be any different when an off side is involved?

It should be handled like balls and strikes in baseball. It is what it is, part of the game. If a ref or linesman is doing a poor job have him replaced.

[BloodHound70]

Not once have I mentioned the Oil in my discussion about the offside call, you can go back and reread them.
I agree that they are way below what was expected. I was discussing the rule as a fan of the game and how stupid that rule is, but some of you cannot get past the "my team is better than your team" BS and have a simple discussion on a general topic.

BH

[Big Sky]

Matt Duschene's goal from a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7pN56VZOfM

I believe that this was the type of missed call that precipitated the rule change.
And, of course, once you introduce a rule to allow the review of the play, it doesn't matter how offside the player is. Whether it's an inch or a couple of feet, offside is offside and goals are going to be disallowed.

One change to the rule that I would like to see is to limit the amount of time that the linesmen get to look at the replays. If they can't decide within a minute, then it's too close to call and the ruling on the ice should stand. I wanna watch hockey, not the linesmen staring at an ipad. IMO

[Roderek]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

Matt Duschene's goal from a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7pN56VZOfM

I believe that this was the type of missed call that precipitated the rule change.
And, of course, once you introduce a rule to allow the review of the play, it doesn't matter how offside the player is. Whether it's an inch or a couple of feet, offside is offside and goals are going to be disallowed.

One change to the rule that I would like to see is to limit the amount of time that the linesmen get to look at the replays. If they can't decide within a minute, then it's too close to call and the ruling on the ice should stand. I wanna watch hockey, not the linesmen staring at an ipad. IMO

If they are going to use instant replay they need to take the time to get the call right. It would be way worse to find out they were wrong after video review. game 41 of the season not so much. Stanley cup playoffs different story.

With that said use the review time as your TV time outs. There is nothing worse then waiting 2-3 minutes for a review and then 10 seconds later there is a whistle and they cut to commercial break.

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by Roderek

If they are going to use instant replay they need to take the time to get the call right. It would be way worse to find out they were wrong after video review. game 41 of the season not so much. Stanley cup playoffs different story.

With that said use the review time as your TV time outs. There is nothing worse then waiting 2-3 minutes for a review and then 10 seconds later there is a whistle and they cut to commercial break.

I’m all for getting the call right but the way the rule stands right now is far from what it was intended. When a play is called off side because the players foot is barely off the ice but his leg is way behind the blue line in my opinion is not getting it right. It is exploiting a rule that needs to change.

BH