Time to re-look at certain rules?

[franchise]

19 minutes ago, TheHamIsDone said:

At that point we might as well start reviewing faceoffs 

It would be much quicker if we just installed something that popped a puck up in the dot. Eliminate the linesman waiting 30 secs to do it

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

23 minutes ago, TheHamIsDone said:

At that point we might as well start reviewing faceoffs 

I believe 'slippery slope' is the term

3 minutes ago, franchise said:

It would be much quicker if we just installed something that popped a puck up in the dot. Eliminate the linesman waiting 30 secs to do it

Just like bubble hockey!

[BroncoHeard]

1) I'd like to see a point of emphasis discussion in the off season regarding those hits in which of offensive player is turning away at the last minute in order to avoid a hit and a offensive player "jumping" out of the way to avoid a hit.  In both scenarios, these players are putting themselves at risk for a serious injury caused from a checking from behind or kneeing.  Many times, the defending player does not have enough time to "hold up".  Current rules require the officials to protect those offensive players and penalize the offending defender, often ending with a major or game misconduct.

If a player is turning his back at the last second to avoid a hit and gets hit from behind, why can't this also be considered embellishment?  If the offensive player created a dangerous situation, why can't they also be called for a major or game misconduct?  

If a player tries to jump out of the way and gets kneed, why cant that player be called for "leaving his feet" or "embellishment"?

2) During the regular season, "after" an official has called a major penalty or game misconduct,  it should be the coaches option to request they review the video and "appeal" the call.  The refs often get the call wrong and a 5 minute major can be a game changer, along with game misconducts.  

 

 

[yzerman19]

1 hour ago, BroncoHeard said:

1) I'd like to see a point of emphasis discussion in the off season regarding those hits in which of offensive player is turning away at the last minute in order to avoid a hit and a offensive player "jumping" out of the way to avoid a hit.  In both scenarios, these players are putting themselves at risk for a serious injury caused from a checking from behind or kneeing.  Many times, the defending player does not have enough time to "hold up".  Current rules require the officials to protect those offensive players and penalize the offending defender, often ending with a major or game misconduct.

If a player is turning his back at the last second to avoid a hit and gets hit from behind, why can't this also be considered embellishment?  If the offensive player created a dangerous situation, why can't they also be called for a major or game misconduct?  

If a player tries to jump out of the way and gets kneed, why cant that player be called for "leaving his feet" or "embellishment"?

2) During the regular season, "after" an official has called a major penalty or game misconduct,  it should be the coaches option to request they review the video and "appeal" the call.  The refs often get the call wrong and a 5 minute major can be a game changer, along with game misconducts.  

 

 

I think you have to put the onus on the defensive player.  The offensive player with the puck is allowed to use his body to protect the puck- note:  Jaromir Jagr.  You want that offensive player to be able to create.

leaving ones feet is not a penalty unto itself, it is a smoking gun in determining charging.  I don't think it should be a penalty if a guy is trying to slip a check to make a play, even if he jumps.

All that said, I am entirely for more embellishment calls 

[NotTheRealPCM]

On 3/28/2017 at 3:58 PM, PCM said:

The point of my blog to which The Sicatoka graciously posted the link was not to contest whether Hoff was offsides, but to suggest that the NCAA apply the "no harm, no foul" precedent it set when it changed the man in the crease rule. The change recognized that even if a member of the attacking team was in the crease when technically he wasn't supposed to be, the goal would count if his presence didn't interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. 

After reviewing a replay of Bowen's disallowed OT goal, there are a some facts worth noting.

1. From the time Olson carried the puck into the zone and Bowen scored, 29 seconds elapsed.
2. The linesman in ideal position to determine if the play was onside signaled the zone entry good. Nobody on either team held up as if they expected an offsides call. 
3. Coming in on the rush, Olson fed a pass to Bowen high in the slot. He skated to near the top of the right circle and fired a wrist shot that went wide right. From that point on, it was completely matter of chance as to which team gained control of the puck. 
4. At one point during the 29 seconds UND was in BU's zone, a Terriers' forward had control of the puck. He could have banked it off the glass, chipped it out or lobbed it out. But he tried to skate it out and Olson picked his pocket. It was this play by Olson that ultimately led to Bowen's goal. 
5. By the time Bowen scored, whether or not the zone entry was legal became totally irrelevant. Through hard work, cycling and a strong forecheck, UND kept the puck in the zone to create the scoring opportunity.
6. An official made the mistake of allowing play to continue.  A BU player made the mistake that led to UND's goal. And yet it was UND -- which received absolutely no advantage from one of its players being offsides by what appeared to be a razor-thin margin at best -- that was penalized for the unnoticed infraction. 

Personally, I don't think this was fair way to handle the situation, especially when a team's season and a trip to the Frozen Four are on the line. If the NCAA is going to review playoff goals for offsides infractions, it needs a much better system. It needs high-speed, high-resolution digital imaging cameras positioned on each blue line to quickly provide indisputable evidence. The camera the officials used to overturn UND's OT goal was neither designed for nor positioned for this critical task. 

Well this is awkward...

[PCM]

What's the NHL rule for reviewing offsides? Watching Chicago at Pittsburgh last night, the Blackhawks scored a beautiful goal off the rush which was set up by UND's own Nick Schmaltz. Chicago's zone entry was reviewed and determined to be onside, although just barely. The question was quickly answered because the cameras were well positioned and the images were of high enough quality to leave no doubt. The NCAA needs a system similar this if it's going to review for offsides. Does the NHL have the same rule about the puck leaving the zone before the zone entry becomes non-reviewable? 

[SJHovey]

Just now, PCM said:

What's the NHL rule for reviewing offsides? Watching Chicago at Pittsburgh last night, the Blackhawks scored a beautiful goal off the rush which was set up by UND's own Nick Schmaltz. Chicago's zone entry was reviewed and determined to be onside, although just barely. The question was quickly answered because the cameras were well positioned and the images were of high enough quality to leave no doubt. The NCAA needs a system similar this if it's going to review for offsides. Does the NHL have the same rule about the puck leaving the zone before the zone entry becomes non-reviewable? 

This, I believe, is part of the problem.  I'm not sure we're ever going to see enough cameras, with a high enough quality, at all college rinks.  I think the NHL system is also aided by "Toronto" in that they have people watching the games with the ability to quickly look at a potential offsides, even before the play is stopped.  That speeds up the review.

[PCM]

3 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

This, I believe, is part of the problem.  I'm not sure we're ever going to see enough cameras, with a high enough quality, at all college rinks.  I think the NHL system is also aided by "Toronto" in that they have people watching the games with the ability to quickly look at a potential offsides, even before the play is stopped.  That speeds up the review.

If that's the case, I would suggest that the NCAA follow the same procedure used during the regular season. If it doesn't have the resources to fairly and accurately review zone entry in a timely manner, then it shouldn't be using a deficient procedure for the playoffs. 

[cberkas]

34 minutes ago, PCM said:

What's the NHL rule for reviewing offsides? Watching Chicago at Pittsburgh last night, the Blackhawks scored a beautiful goal off the rush which was set up by UND's own Nick Schmaltz. Chicago's zone entry was reviewed and determined to be onside, although just barely. The question was quickly answered because the cameras were well positioned and the images were of high enough quality to leave no doubt. The NCAA needs a system similar this if it's going to review for offsides. Does the NHL have the same rule about the puck leaving the zone before the zone entry becomes non-reviewable? 

If I remember right offsides in the NHL just like the NCHC is a coaches challenge. The part that is confusing is the puck entering the zone has to cross the blue line completely (the offensive zone side of the blue line) before a player can. There was a color guy from Hockey East that said they should just make a rule that makes the neutral zone side of the blue like the threshold for on sides when entering the zone.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[siouxrunner]

PCM's logic is sound on this. NCAA Rule 93.4 says, in part:

Quote

The opportunity for review exists during the time the puck entered the attacking zone illegally as a result of the offside infraction and until the puck leaves the offending team’s attacking zone.

The Bowen "goal" is a perfect catalyst for reviewing this rule and providing clarification on it, just like they did with players in the crease.

Take this extreme example: With the rule as it stands today, zone entry is reviewable until the puck clears the zone or play is stopped. Theoretically a team could enter the offensive zone at the beginning of a period, keep the puck in the zone without stoppages for for the entire period, score a goal just as the period ends, and have the zone entry from nearly 20 minutes prior reviewed to see if the play was offside. This is obviously a ridiculous example, but with the rule applied as it is currently written, how else would they handle it?

Rule 73.1, which deals with interference on the goalkeeper, allows the officials some discretion on deciding if a player in the crease has impaired the goalies ability to make a save. Here is some text from rule 73.1:

Quote

However, an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend the goal.

This rule could easily provide the framework for improving rule 93.4 and avoid ridiculous offside entry reviews.

[The Sicatoka]

I still say you should only be allowed to review back to the last change of possession.

BU had the puck after the alleged Hoff offsides and failed to clear. That's on them. 

And it would make for FAR shorter reviews ... I hope. 

[ibleedgreen]

Is there any way if someone could upload a snippet of the part of the game when they entered the zone with the puck up until the goal was scored. Would be nice to see of how much time was actually spent in the zone up until Dixon scored the goal. Obviously there wasn't any change in possession of the puck, right?

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, ibleedgreen said:

Obviously there wasn't any change in possession of the puck, right?

After a UND shot, a BU defenseman possessed the puck but was shortly thereafter stripped of it by Olson which led to the non-goal. 

[Siouxphan27]

4 minutes ago, ibleedgreen said:

Is there any way if someone could upload a snippet of the part of the game when they entered the zone with the puck up until the goal was scored. Would be nice to see of how much time was actually spent in the zone up until Dixon scored the goal. Obviously there wasn't any change in possession of the puck, right?

it was roughly 30 seconds.  and possession changed, but UND got the puck back again. 

[ibleedgreen]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

After a UND shot, a BU defenseman possessed the puck but was shortly thereafter stripped of it by Olson which led to the non-goal. 

Holy sh*t....this makes me even more mad. A change of possession should be a reset. If that's the case you could go back to multiple possessions before a goal to find a "missed call".

[The Sicatoka]

And that's PCM's point.  

[dagies]

1 hour ago, PCM said:

If that's the case, I would suggest that the NCAA follow the same procedure used during the regular season. If it doesn't have the resources to fairly and accurately review zone entry in a timely manner, then it shouldn't be using a deficient procedure for the playoffs. 

agree completely with this

[PCM]

1 hour ago, ibleedgreen said:

Is there any way if someone could upload a snippet of the part of the game when they entered the zone with the puck up until the goal was scored. Would be nice to see of how much time was actually spent in the zone up until Dixon scored the goal. Obviously there wasn't any change in possession of the puck, right?

I looked at the replay. From the time UND entered the zone until Bowen scored, 29 seconds had elapsed. 

[PCM]

53 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I still say you should only be allowed to review back to the last change of possession.

BU had the puck after the alleged Hoff offsides and failed to clear. That's on them. 

And it would make for FAR shorter reviews ... I hope. 

I could live with change of possession, but I think it makes sense to say that once the attacking team loses control of the puck -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- any opportunity to review the zone entry ends. Once control of the puck is up for grabs with each side having an equal opportunity to gain possession, any advantage from entering the zone offsides effectively ends. So why extend the possibility for review any longer than necessary?

The man-in-the-crease precedent essentially says that if the player committing the technical violation had no role in a goal being scored, then the officials overlook it as being irrelevant to what happened. Once the zone entry becomes irrelevant to how the goal was scored, it should become a non-factor to the officials. 

[yzerman19]

right, in theory if the attacking team does not have possession, if an offsides were in order, they would be allowed the opportunity to tag up as well.  If BU had transitioned it quickly up-ice with us deep and scored, would UND's offsides wave off their goal?

I know I'm reaching here...

[PCM]

9 hours ago, yzerman19 said:

right, in theory if the attacking team does not have possession, if an offsides were in order, they would be allowed the opportunity to tag up as well.  If BU had transitioned it quickly up-ice with us deep and scored, would UND's offsides wave off their goal?

I know I'm reaching here...

Maybe it is a reach, but it's a good point. I haven't looked up the rule, but a previous poster said the opportunity to review a possible offsides entry ends when the puck leaves the zone. So in your scenario, there couldn't be a review because the puck came back out of BU's zone. 

However, if the NCAA is saying a goal can be disallowed because of whistle that didn't blow, then shouldn't it work both ways? What if a BU player anticipated Olson's first pass to Bowen high in the slot, picked it off, took the puck the other way and scored on a breakaway? Shouldn't UND be able to claim the goal wouldn't have happened if the linesman had correctly whistled the zone entry offsides? In that scenario, UND would actually have a better case than BU. Bowen scored 29 seconds AFTER the zone entry and AFTER BU gained possession of the puck but failed to clear it. 

The linesman's failure to whistle the zone entry offsides became irrelevant to UND's goal, but would have been very relevant on a hypothetical BU breakaway goal which the current rules allow. 

[The Sicatoka]

23 hours ago, PCM said:

I could live with change of possession, but I think it makes sense to say that once the attacking team loses control of the puck -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- any opportunity to review the zone entry ends.

I'm saying "change of possession" because a "voluntarily give up control" scenario is a shot. 

Say it's a line rush and it's the ol' shoot it off the far pad as a pass to the other wing play. You voluntarily gave up possession, but that shouldn't count. 

[PCM]

35 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm saying "change of possession" because a "voluntarily give up control" scenario is a shot. 

Say it's a line rush and it's the ol' shoot it off the far pad as a pass to the other wing play. You voluntarily gave up possession, but that shouldn't count. 

I'm saying no goal should count if the scoring opportunity is in any way related to the offsides zone entry. So a shot on goal and putting in the rebound wouldn't count. If Bowen's initial shot off the rush had been on goal and Hoff -- by virtue of entering the zone offsides -- was in position to put in the rebound, then the goal wouldn't count. But given that Bowen's first shot went wide and the puck was then up for grabs by either team, any advantage UND had was lost at that point. So why extend the opportunity for review beyond that point? 

I can see how a change of puck possession would be a more definite and perhaps more discernible point to determine when the review period ends. However, I also think whether the a goal is reviewed for a potential offisides infraction should be directly related to whether being offsides gave the attacking team an advantage that led to the goal. Once that advantage disappears, so should the opportunity for review. My objective is to shorten the review period at much as possible so the officials can stop thinking about it as soon as possible. 

Remember when this goal was reviewed for being offsides?

 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

4 minutes ago, PCM said:

 

Remember when this goal was reviewed for being offsides?

 

If that goal gets waved off, Grand Forks would look like Dinkytown after the 2014 semifinals... and I'd be leading the charge

[MafiaMan]

I'm getting a little tired of the immediate celebration followed by 2:00 of review followed by a more subdued celebration...