Offsides Challenge Rule

[rtstr]

I'm having trouble understanding the offsides challenge rule. Last night the Devils had a goal taken away because they were supposedly offsides when entering the zone. After they entered the zone, St Louis regained the puck, turned it over while trying to break out, and then the Devils scored. Shouldn't the fact that STL had possession prior to the goal completely negate the marginal offsides from 15 seconds earlier? From a hockey perspective, I'd think so, but I'm not sure how the rule is written when it comes to possession changes. Is there even a clause about that? Or time elapsed? Both of those seem like obvious factors that would be considered.

I believe it has to be CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn the original call, and when this rule was created the NHL wanted to err on the side of caution and trust original calls unless it's absolutely clear they were wrong. The review took nearly 10 minutes and was one of the closest ones I've seen-- it could've gone either way IMO. If it took so long, how was it conclusive? It totally killed the game flow (and also stole a win from the Devils). Seems like there is significant inconsistency in this review process and that makes little sense to me-- shouldn't it be coming from the same people in the office in Toronto every time? It felt like I was watching an NFL game.

[Dennis]

As far as I understand if a player is offside any goal can be turned over if the puck remains in the opposing team's zone. There is no time limit. 15 seconds, a minute, 5 minutes, it doesn't matter if the puck doesn't leave the zone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


I also completely agree with your second paragraph, the offside challenge has been a joke. The ref should have one minute to see evidence to overturn a call. If it's not immediately obvious let the goal stand and play some hockey.

[PenguinHunter]

I am in favour of this as well.... it should only be used for blatantly obvious ones.... yes I am looking at you Matt Duchene....I agree there should be a time limit on how long the refs have to determine it. Any longer than 30 second looking at the replay is too long. It has to be horribly obvious. This is like the replays for guys sliding into 2nd base and coming a mm off the base in there attempt to stand up... just brutal reviews for the game.

And I also agree that the offside should be directly related to the goal... a team has 5 minute powerplay and is in the offensive zone for the full 5 minutes and scores at the end of the powerplay... but wait lets go back to the start of the powerplay... they were offside.... No Goal... restart the powerplay. just crap! then the 60 minute hockey game actually becomes a 65 minute game because 5 minutes are played again (I know this is a far-fetched example).

[rataylor22]

I'm having trouble understanding the offsides challenge rule. Last night the Devils had a goal taken away because they were supposedly offsides when entering the zone. After they entered the zone, St Louis regained the puck, turned it over while trying to break out, and then the Devils scored. Shouldn't the fact that STL had possession prior to the goal completely negate the marginal offsides from 15 seconds earlier? From a hockey perspective, I'd think so, but I'm not sure how the rule is written when it comes to possession changes. Is there even a clause about that? Or time elapsed? Both of those seem like obvious factors that would be considered.

I believe it has to be CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn the original call, and when this rule was created the NHL wanted to err on the side of caution and trust original calls unless it's absolutely clear they were wrong. The review took nearly 10 minutes and was one of the closest ones I've seen-- it could've gone either way IMO. If it took so long, how was it conclusive? It totally killed the game flow (and also stole a win from the Devils). Seems like there is significant inconsistency in this review process and that makes little sense to me-- shouldn't it be coming from the same people in the office in Toronto every time? It felt like I was watching an NFL game.

All of those complaints are correct. However, there is no possession or time elapsed component.

[als_revenge]

As far as I understand if a player is offside any goal can be turned over if the puck remains in the opposing team's zone. There is no time limit. 15 seconds, a minute, 5 minutes, it doesn't matter if the puck doesn't leave the zone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


I also completely agree with your second paragraph, the offside challenge has been a joke. The ref should have one minute to see evidence to overturn a call. If it's not immediately obvious let the goal stand and play some hockey.

I believe Note 1 to rule 78.7 indicates when an offside can be reviewed.

"NOTE 1:
Goals will only be reviewed for a potential “Off-side” infraction if: (a) the puck does not come out of the attacking zone again; or (b) all members of the attacking team do not clear the attacking zone again, between the time of the “Off-side” play and the time the goal is scored."

I for one hate this rule and would be all for a 1 minute time limit (or whatever) to find conclusive evidence that the call was wrong. The thing I hate about instant replay IN ALL SPORTS is that the intention was (or should be) to overturn blatantly wrong calls. It should NOT be about getting everything perfect (which does require too much time). Reminds me of the Bills touchdown called back against the Patriots to end the first half a few weeks ago. You can't tell me anyone saw conclusive evidence to overturn that call. As a fan, the delays are brutal.

Next year, the NHL is implementing a rule that adds a 2 minute penalty for the offside thing, if a team is wrong. The hope is that this will cut down on the number of times a coach will make a challenge. (The goal would count, plus a penalty, if you are wrong). But that could still result in a 20 minute review. Frustrating, because as a fan, it seems so easy to fix by imposing a time limit to overturn the call...

[newper114]

Yeah watched the game and that was frustrating worst is this is the second close call the devils had which went against them in the last few games. That being said it's the rules so guess it is ok lol.

The announcers were saying that a big chunck of the review was probably because they were trying to figure out how much time would need to be added back to the clock. However that's basic math did it really take that long??!

As for the penalty added if call is wrong I believe that is in affect now no? The announcers kept saying if this goes in the devils favor there would be a power play

[als_revenge]

I very well could be off by a year; maybe it is implemented this year!

I haven't seen an off-side challenge in quite some time to be honest!

[LawMan]

I have all kinds of problems with the current offside challenge. Agreed it was intended to catch "obvious" misses but that's not what is happening. Outside the Duchene goal I cannot remember another egregious occurrence of an offside goal and this is quickly becoming the NHL's version of "what is a catch" (NFL's biggest replay issue).

I want the NHL to scrap offside challenges completely, we lived with missed calls for 90+ years and the game was better for it. I seriously hope the league outright eliminates the rule this offseason.
If they keep it I would want all of the following to apply:
1. Goal must be scored on the initial rush that was offside and be within 5 seconds of the offside occurring. An offensive team that enters the zone and then cycles for 45 seconds and then scores should not lose a goal. Hockey is too fluid a game to call like baseball or football which have play-stoppage-play-stoppage.
2. No challenges if the defensive team possesses the puck between offside and goal, get the puck out damnit, fail to and live with the consequences.
3. No challenge on PP goals scored. Why? Because a team that enters the zone offside on a PP is in a no win situation: score and it gets called back (at least you get the PP time back) don't score and you lose the PP time which is valuable.
4. Time limit 1-2 minutes to find conclusive proof of overturn.

I think I would be OK with some type of official initiated review (either the on-ice or off-ice officials reviewing. Ideally an off-ice official because coaches will beg for review from on-ice officials). Ultimately however I say scrap the rule. NHL refs take a lot of flack but they are pretty damn good at making offside calls/non-calls IMO and most goals scored that are an inch offside (arguably) the defence has plenty of chances to stop.

Final tangent: I don't think it gets reported/discussed/clarified enough that on the Duchene Goal that started this whole mess the linesman had an argument that since the Nashville player last touched the puck before it entered the Nashville zone Duchene was not in fact offside.
The last paragraph of Rule 83.1 reads:

If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.

While I do not believe the Nashville player "passed" the puck back so much as it deflected off him that is an interpretation the linesman has to make in real time. It is arguable the "problem" goal that started the whole mess was correctly called.

[Godin]

This has to be one of the, if not the dumbest, rule there is. Period. Let the linesmen call the offsides and end these challenges.

The NHL pays 2 of them every game and calling offsides is one of the few duties that they are paid for. Breaking up fights, making icing calls and conducting face offs. Thats basically it. If they don't see that a player was a half an inch offside, so be it, or, review every offside. Why is an offside on a goal more important than any other offside? Any offside, or lack of a call can change the pace of a game that may create a goal 3 minutes later. Just like an icing call or a penalty.