Time to re-look at certain rules?

[The Sicatoka]

Folks, we have a PCM sighting. 

I repeat, we have a PCM sighting! 

http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2017/03/there-should-be-more-reasonable.html 

Quote

There should be a more reasonable approach to reviewing offsides
The NCAA needs to rethink which goals it disallows as the result of an offsides entry into the zone.

 

[The Sicatoka]

That said, I stand by my previous positions:

Quote

FIRST: Let’s put the second referee in the press box.
NEXT: It’s time to look at “points” realistically and align them to risk and reward. 

http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-nchc-needs-to-change.html

[Cratter]

Can't believe they don't have two cameras on each blue line. 

If they can take away a goal because of it it's as bad as not having a camera pointing at the goal line.

[The Sicatoka]

From PCM's take on the off-sides rule: 

Quote

The NCAA has already established a precedent that goals can be allowed when an uncalled infraction had no bearing on the scoring opportunity. Just as the NCAA wisely applied common-sense limits to the man-in-the-crease rule, it should do the same when it comes to rewinding the tape to review goals scored following a missed offsides call.

I'd say if the goal was scored right off the line rush, sure, review, and disallow. 

However, if the play was so close that the officials allowed it at entry by the attackers, and if the defending team got defensive zone possession (not a clear, just possession) you do not review back for an off-sides entry if a goal is scored.

Before you ask, "What is possession", I'd define it as whatever would stop play if a delayed penalty were about to be called (just a puck-controlling touch is enough). 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Just now, Cratter said:

Can't believe they don't have two cameras on each blue line. 

The whole time I was scrolling through twitter between overtimes I was just praying someone had a great conclusive look down the line showing Hoff offsides so we didn't have another 'one that got away' moment.

IMO calling it from a camera 200 feet away is a joke. We're trusting this camera through a net with questionable resolution to zoom in that far rather than the linesman who was standing down the blue line that was looking for this very infraction.  It's not logical.

[scpa0305]

11 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Folks, we have a PCM sighting. 

I repeat, we have a PCM sighting! 

http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2017/03/there-should-be-more-reasonable.html 

 

I completely agree.

It's like reviewing a touchdown pass to see if any of the oline flinched (that the ref's missed).

[franchise]

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

From PCM's take on the off-sides rule: 

I'd say if the goal was scored right off the line rush, sure, review, and disallow. 

However, if the play was so close that the officials allowed it at entry by the attackers, and if the defending team got defensive zone possession (not a clear, just possession) you do not review back for an off-sides entry if a goal is scored.

Before you ask, "What is possession", I'd define it as whatever would stop play if a delayed penalty were about to be called (just a puck-controlling touch is enough). 

Agreed. Immediate entry, sure.  If you're cycling and then score, no way.  As has been said before, might as well go back on each dump in, to make sure the red line was gained before the chip in and ensuing goal

[The Sicatoka]

Like I told PCM in a text last night when DU scored their ENG:

"Officials now reviewing to see if DU offsides at 6 minute mark of second period." 

[southpaw]

If it takes three officials to look at a review, chances are it should stand as called.

[krustyklown]

16 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

The whole time I was scrolling through twitter between overtimes I was just praying someone had a great conclusive look down the line showing Hoff offsides so we didn't have another 'one that got away' moment.

IMO calling it from a camera 200 feet away is a joke. We're trusting this camera through a net with questionable resolution to zoom in that far rather than the linesman who was standing down the blue line that was looking for this very infraction.  It's not logical.

You bring up good points here as to distance, view obstruction and resolution.  I would add those bozos were looking at a monitor that could not have been greater that 13" on the diagonal.  The one I was looking at, even thru green-tinted glasses, was 50" on the diagonal and it certainly was not conclusive in my mind.   Perhaps the clowns were looking at different image(s) than ESPN was broadcasting - I'll hang my hat on this to justify disallowing the goal in order to stay out of the rabbit hole.

[nodakgirl93]

Give it a rest. Lots more important things to worry about. 

[ksl_sioux4ever]

They should implement the nhl rule about dumping the puck out of zone into the crowd penalty. BU had a bad habit of doing that in Friday's game

[cberkas]

2 minutes ago, ksl_sioux4ever said:

They should implement the nhl rule about dumping the puck out of zone into the crowd penalty. BU had a bad habit of doing that in Friday's game

That delay of game rule is needed.

Shoot the puck out of play without it going off the glass or deflected should be a penalty. It happened way too much this weekend.

[hky]

Didn't it used to be a delay of game in college too?

[cberkas]

4 minutes ago, hky said:

Didn't it used to be a delay of game in college too?

No, but they can call it one in college.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

48 minutes ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Give it a rest. Lots more important things to worry about. 

Like what?

[bigskyvikes]

5 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Folks, we have a PCM sighting. 

I repeat, we have a PCM sighting! 

http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2017/03/there-should-be-more-reasonable.html 

 

Is PCM you? Nice to meet you!

[MafiaMan]

6 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Like I told PCM in a text last night when DU scored their ENG:

"Officials now reviewing to see if DU offsides at 6 minute mark of second period." 

Upon further review...oh, and we also missed a slash at 5:37 and a hook at 4:30 so we're looking at a 2:00 power play for Penn State.

[nodakgirl93]

49 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

Like what?

Life in general. Same people who keep going on and on and think they know more about players circumstances and when to leave early. It's just a sport...

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

45 minutes ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Life in general. Same people who keep going on and on and think they know more about players circumstances and when to leave early. It's just a sport...

You're literally on a Sioux sports message board... should we not speculate because you'd prefer we don't?

Believe it or not, some people are capable of talking about sports and living 'life in general'. There's a handy log off button if you're not able to.

[nodakgirl93]

15 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

You're literally on a Sioux sports message board... should we not speculate because you'd prefer we don't?

Believe it or not, some people are capable of talking about sports and living 'life in general'. There's a handy log off button if you're not able to.

Why would I log off? You're complaining about a call that didn't go our way.  Of course someone has to make a new thread for this issue. Yah I was upset but nothing you can do about it. Brad agreed with the call and seems like the players did to. If you wanna waste your time complaining and thinking of ways to better review then do so. But take it up with the ncaa. Focus on next year. 

[MafiaMan]

8 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Folks, we have a PCM sighting. 

I repeat, we have a PCM sighting! 

Never heard of him!  

[Snake]

3 hours ago, cberkas said:

That delay of game rule is needed.

Shoot the puck out of play without it going off the glass or deflected should be a penalty. It happened way too much this weekend.

Do all college rinks have the same height glass these days?  Could that be why it's not implemented?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

1 hour ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Why would I log off? You're complaining about a call that didn't go our way.  Of course someone has to make a new thread for this issue. Yah I was upset but nothing you can do about it. Brad agreed with the call and seems like the players did to. If you wanna waste your time complaining and thinking of ways to better review then do so. But take it up with the ncaa. Focus on next year. 

To be clear, you're complaining about discussing a call that ended our hockey season 72 hours ago on a message board dedicated to talking about our hockey team. And you wish we'd instead focus on "living our lives in general".

Have I missed anything?

[BigGreyAnt41]

9 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

From PCM's take on the off-sides rule: 

I'd say if the goal was scored right off the line rush, sure, review, and disallow. 

However, if the play was so close that the officials allowed it at entry by the attackers, and if the defending team got defensive zone possession (not a clear, just possession) you do not review back for an off-sides entry if a goal is scored.

Before you ask, "What is possession", I'd define it as whatever would stop play if a delayed penalty were about to be called (just a puck-controlling touch is enough). 

I've been thinking about this since Friday.  I'm totally OK with reviewing for offsides, but like you said, only if the goal was scored on a rush.  I'd like to see a time limit set on how far back they can go to look for offsides.  For example, if the puck entered the zone more than five or ten seconds prior to the goal being scored (which is a lot of time when you're talking about a line rush), and the linesman called it onside, then it shouldn't be allowed to be overturned. 

Obviously Hoff being two inches further too far forward on zone entry didn't affect the outcome of the play considering how much play went on between zone entry and goal score, but it cost us the game even though during the flow of game play the linesman said it was ok.

 

I understand why they called it the way they did and I won't complain about it, because they called it by the rule book.  But in the same way they changed the "crease violation" rule after the 2003 (I think) National Championship game, I think this rule needs to be looked at.