NORTH DAKOTA @ Boston U. - FRIDAY Gameday

[nodakgirl93]

Way too close to overturne. They really should have an official from the ncaa to determine these. Not just the random refs that were hired from individual conferences.

[sprig]

The only decent view was the linesman live on zone entry.  We know he called it a good entry

[OgieOgilthorpe]

3 minutes ago, sprig said:

The only decent view was the linesman live on zone entry.  We know he called it a good entry

It does look like he may have been concentrating on getting out of the way at the moment of the crossing. But with this close of a call, I can't believe they overturned it.

But if UND could have just scored again we wouldn't even be talking about this... 

[sprig]

Just now, OgieOgilthorpe said:

It does look like he may have been concentrating on getting out of the way at the moment of the crossing. But with this close of a call, I can't believe my eyes. 

Correct, but still the only good view

[nodakgirl93]

1 minute ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

But if UND could have just scored again we wouldn't even be talking about this... 

Like on the many pp chances they had in regulation....

[sprig]

Guessing shouldn't be a review standard.  If offside remains reviewable, need to add blue line cams to both bluelines, or lineman gopros.

[Wildfan]

The angle of that camera doesn't help either, angles play a mean game on eyes, see Ninos potential tying goal for Wild vs Stars game 6. This pic shows skate in contact with line.

If this was not a OT game winner in NCAA tourny that goal stands.

If linesman didnt go into review thinking it was offsides the goal probably stands. It was noted he thought it was, which intiated the review. 

Was he offsides? Maybe, but can not tell from that view for certain. Sucks because I don't think that inch had any effect on the puck going into the net. It is a different play entirely from a player going on a breakaway where he beats the pass to him in.

[franchise]

15 minutes ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

 

But if UND could have just scored again we wouldn't even be talking about this... 

Shouldn't have to score 2 OT goals to win.

I feel like the refs said, well UND is dominating so let's go with no goal and then they still win anyway

[George M. Bluth]

Just so I'm sure I know the rules correctly, puck on the blue line is considered in the zone, and skate on the blue line is considered out, right?

[Siouxphan27]

34 minutes ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

I think he means they showed video of the puck carrier alone and a video of the player being marked as offsides on camera alone, but weren't able to show both on the same camera at the same time. 

Because one was shot from the grassy knoll?

i still can't believe they overturned it with this questionable evidence. 

[7>4]

42 minutes ago, franchise said:

Clear as can be

Yep, that's the view I kept seeing and thinking "how the F is that indisputable evidence of offsides?"  Unless you can see white between Hoff's skates and the blue line before the puck enters the zone there is no way, IMO, that you overturn the call on the ice made by the guy staring down the line.  The angle, the view, the netting obstructing the view all make it impossible to determine if, in fact, Hoff was offsides.  Disappointing that a game that hard fought was effected by the call.  Props to Berry for towing the NCAA line that the call was right but I just don't see it.  

[7>4]

3 minutes ago, George M. Bluth said:

Just so I'm sure I know the rules correctly, puck on the blue line is considered in the zone, and skate on the blue line is considered out, right?

Based on this I believe the puck has to be across the edge of the line closest to the goal.  Still doesn't change my opinion of the call.

 

The blue line is always considered to be part of the zone in which the puck is in. Therefore, when the puck is entering the attacking zone, the “determining edge” of the blue line shall be the edge closest to the attacking goal. Therefore, the determination as to whether an “off-sides” has occurred will only take place at the moment the puck has completely crossed the determining edge into the attacking zone. A player only needs to have skate contact with one skate with the blue line to be considered "on-side."

[OgieOgilthorpe]

3 minutes ago, 7>4 said:

Based on this I believe the puck has to be across the edge of the line closest to the goal.  Still doesn't change my opinion of the call.

 

The blue line is always considered to be part of the zone in which the puck is in. Therefore, when the puck is entering the attacking zone, the “determining edge” of the blue line shall be the edge closest to the attacking goal. Therefore, the determination as to whether an “off-sides” has occurred will only take place at the moment the puck has completely crossed the determining edge into the attacking zone. A player only needs to have skate contact with one skate with the blue line to be considered "on-side."

See here, we are disputing it.

If it takes 15 minutes to make a decision on the call...wouldn't that make it disputable? 

What a joke 

[Snake]

I've been thinking about this trend of reviewing offside zone entries on scoring plays, and I can't help but wonder why not extend it to dump-in zone entries?  Why don't we go back to make sure the puck carrier truly gained the red line on a dump-in entry that results in a goal?  I mean, we want to make sure we get it right, don't we?

 

Note: I hate offside reviews and am not in favor of this...just pointing out some of the inconsistencies with using video review to make sure we get calls right.  Of course, linesmen would actually have to take the red line as seriously as the blue line. 

[Snake]

The other thing about these close offside reviews is that these plays are so close the integrity of the play isn't really compromised. If it was so obvious that the offside player gained an advantage, or if the defending team hesitated or stopped playing, the indisputable evidence would certainly be apparent on the replay and the reversal would be warranted. 

[Ranger]

Gotta say, as a former imagery analyst/scientist, that image is far from providing conclusive evidence to support either decision.  Many issues here, as others have addressed--angle, puck screen, pixelization, magnification, reflection, etc.  I doubt they had the appropriate tools and display to make that call.  Hopefully a clearer fan video/photo will surface.

[yzerman19]

Seems like the "burden of proof" was flipped on this.  Like they needed to prove it was onside irrefutably.  The other issue, brought up here, that is also clear on the screen shot:  BU had 3 guys back!  Offside by a millisecond did nothing to impact the play or outcome.

 

[Siouxphan27]

8 minutes ago, yzerman19 said:

Seems like the "burden of proof" was flipped on this.  Like they needed to prove it was onside irrefutably.  The other issue, brought up here, that is also clear on the screen shot:  BU had 3 guys back!  Offside by a millisecond did nothing to impact the play or outcome.

 

Yep, instead of just doing their job and reviewing the play, they took the situation and consequences of the call into consideration, ignored the initial on ice call, and figured well, it's a close call, UND can still win if they score again, etc., so let's ignore that little thing about indisputable evidence and play on. 

 

[yzerman19]

I zoomed in tight.  Hoff's left skate is on the blueline at that instant.  The puck is on the blueline.  we'd need to advance the frame a millisecond

[MafiaMan]

Questionable calls in sports history:

5)  The Nebraska-Missouri Flea-Kicker no-penalty TD

4)  Tom Brady, the Raiders, and the completely unbelievable "tuck rule"

3)  The Colorado-Mizzou 5-down game (Tigers completely jobbed on this one)

2)  USA vs Soviet Union 1972 Olympic men's basketball gold medal game (if you haven't seen this travesty on YouTube, you should)

1)  The Hoff "conclusive evidence" offsides call against BU

Before this gets "re-tweeted" on GPL as me saying this is the most egregious call in sports history, my top five is completely in jest.  However, if THAT is conclusive evidence, then I'm Mickey Mouse.

[Ranger]

Here is my analysis after quick enhancements to the above image...  right skate over the blue line; left skate almost certainly on the blue line (comparing boot size, blade size, space between front and back of blade, which appears to be atop the blue line).  Hoping they had a later image in the sequence to support their ruling, because this image supports the linesman call. 

[Ranger]

18 minutes ago, yzerman19 said:

I zoomed in tight.  Hoff's left skate is on the blueline at that instant.  The puck is on the blueline.  we'd need to advance the frame a millisecond

Agree

[swl010]

7 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

Questionable calls in sports history:

5)  The Nebraska-Missouri Flea-Kicker no-penalty TD

4)  Tom Brady, the Raiders, and the completely unbelievable "tuck rule"

3)  The Nebraska-Mizzou 5-down game (Tigers completely jobbed on this one)

2)  USA vs Soviet Union 1972 Olympic men's basketball gold medal game (if you haven't seen this travesty on YouTube, you should)

1)  The Hoff "conclusive evidence" offsides call against BU

Before this gets "re-tweeted" on GPL as me saying this is the most egregious call in sports history, my top five is completely in jest.  However, if THAT is conclusive evidence, then I'm Mickey Mouse.

It was Colorado vs Mizzou

[MafiaMan]

Just now, swl010 said:

It was Colorado vs Mizzou

Good catch.  My memory is fuzzy.

[hky]

They didn't need indisputable evidence to prove he was onsides.  It was called a goal on the ice.  They needed indisputable evidence that he was offsides and if they have to go that far back, and take that long it couldn't have been indisputable.  Yes, the Sioux had plenty of chances to win that game, but I think the call after the review is wrong.