Time to re-look at certain rules?

[PCM]

53 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

There're some words you seldom see strung together. 

Poop happens. 

[burd]

4 minutes ago, PCM said:

Poop happens. 

It IS good to hear from you, Patrick. 

[PCM]

45 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

To me, once BU got possession that's the limit to as far back as they should be able to review. 

I would argue that once Bowen shot an missed the net, the opportunity to review for offsides should have ended. UND voluntarily gave up possession of the puck. It was up for grabs at that point. Whatever side controlled it next became purely random. My preference is to limit -- as much as possible -- the opportunity to disallow a goal because of a potentially missed offsides call.  

[squirtcoach]

31 minutes ago, burd said:

It IS good to hear from you, Patrick. 

I second that!

[Fetch]

I third it 

[fightingsioux4life]

No amount of rule changing will ever fix this problem.

[Speez]

1 hour ago, PCM said:

Poop happens. 

Wow, a real PCM sighting. Welcome back Pat. Next thing you know we may have a Diggler sighting.

[siouxweet]

On 3/27/2017 at 6:50 PM, cberkas said:

No, but they can call it one in college.

I think it has only been called once in the history of college hockey, about 10 or 12 in the Holiday Marriucci tourney.  I think the Gophers were playing Northeastern and it was called on NE late in the game or OT giving the Gophers a PP that they scored on.

 

[MafiaMan]

@PCM is alive!  Did you bring @redwing77 with you?

Nice to see you back!  Your insight has been missed greatly!

[dagies]

8 hours ago, 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. 

I think I understand the logic in going back to the zone entry to review a questionable entry, but you have laid out an oustanding argument why a situation like this provides a possible reason to NOT review that far back.  I get it...the idea is if the zone entry was illegal play should have been stopped (it wasn't but should have been) and that would have negated all that came after.   But it seems reasonable to apply some, ah, reason to the situation and you've laid out a good case study for it.   I'm still burned by what is considered incontrovertible evidence, because I don't think what the public has had access to meets the criteria.

(welcome back, PCM!)

[SJHovey]

7 hours ago, dagies said:

I think I understand the logic in going back to the zone entry to review a questionable entry, but you have laid out an oustanding argument why a situation like this provides a possible reason to NOT review that far back.  I get it...the idea is if the zone entry was illegal play should have been stopped (it wasn't but should have been) and that would have negated all that came after.   But it seems reasonable to apply some, ah, reason to the situation and you've laid out a good case study for it.   I'm still burned by what is considered incontrovertible evidence, because I don't think what the public has had access to meets the criteria.

(welcome back, PCM!)

There was a similarly interesting situation in the Wild game last night, if any of you happened to catch it (including Oshie's game winner in OT).  The Wild were down one in the last minute and had pulled the goalie.  They entered the zone on a cross ice pass to Spurgeon, who then dumped the puck.  After some skirmishes along the end wall, a Washington player got possession and shot the puck up the center of the ice, about 7 feet off the ice surface.  Koivu reached up, while on the blue line, grabbed the puck and dropped it down onsides.  A few seconds later the Wild scored.  Toronto wanted to review for offsides.

At first there was a question of whether they were reviewing Koivu's catch, which was pretty close, but seemed like it should be onsides.  Then it became clear they were looking at the initial entry.

In a scenario like that one it's really hard to see how the initial offsides (it wasn't, by the way) could have played any role in the play and further supports PCM's logic.  I would have liked to have heard some discussion from the announcers or others about the change of possession and whether that should have nullified any advantage gained had Spurgeon been offsides.

[PCM]

7 hours ago, dagies said:

But it seems reasonable to apply some, ah, reason to the situation and you've laid out a good case study for it.   I'm still burned by what is considered incontrovertible evidence, because I don't think what the public has had access to meets the criteria.

I agree. The only person on the ice in position to make the call was the linesman, and he called the zone entry good. To overturn the call using a far-away, lower-resolution camera that didn't have a good angle and wasn't designed for this purpose makes no sense. While one of the images tends to support the offsides ruling, in my opinion, it doesn't provide the indisputable evidence the NCAA says is required. 

I've done some high-resolution screen captures from the ESPN broadcast. When you zoom in on specific areas of the blue line, you can see the distortion and lack of detail in the images, which is made worse by a view through the netting. The monitor I use for photo editing is much larger and far superior to the one the on-ice officials used to view the images. If someone had to take these images into court and use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I'm confident an expert in digital imagery could explain why they leave plenty of room for doubt and are far from being indisputable.

The NCAA needs a rule to clearly define cutoff point beyond which an offsides review is moot. Any goal scored off the zone entry which is indisputably offsides should absolutely be disallowed. If the defending team gains control of the puck, there should be no review after that point. I would also argue that once the attacking team loses possession of the puck, the offsides review should become moot.

This way, if there's some real-time doubt about whether the zone entry was offsides, the officials know that any goal scored beyond a certain point will be counted regardless of whether the zone entry was indisputably offsides. 

[TNF]

There is also the hypocrisy to deal with late in games. Refs historically put their whistles away midway through the 3rd period. Some of the infractions that are typically let go involve obstruction\interference in front of the net which directly take away quality scoring opportunities. This is all done under the mantra "let the players decide the game on the ice".  I'm fine with this up until we stop the game for 7 minutes and review a play frame by frame looking for any evidence to overturn it which is the opposite of "let the players decide the game on the ice". So either we should put the whistles away and shelf the replays with it or keep the replays but have the refs continue to call a consistent game. 

Best option...no automatic replays. Each team gets 1 video challenge and if they win it they get a second challenge. Barring technical difficulties all video replays must be conducted within a 3 minute timeframe. The call stands unless there is indisputable evidence (which should be made public post game) to overturn it or the 3 minutes time limit is met. 

[PCM]

14 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

In a scenario like that one it's really hard to see how the initial offsides (it wasn't, by the way) could have played any role in the play and further supports PCM's logic.  

I don't watch much NHL hockey, but during the course of an NCAA regular season, we learn to live with the fact that the officials aren't perfect. We've all seen plays blown offsides that didn't appear to be offsides. We've seen goals scored as a result of a zone entry that appeared to be offsides, but wasn't called.

Hockey's a fast sport and the officials can't always be in position to see everything. As I said in my blog, sometimes they don't even see what they thought they saw. As much as we dislike the blown calls, we put up with them because they tend to even out. It becomes a matter of how far back in time we want to go to achieve the perfect outcome. 

For example, consider the goal Hoff scored off the faceoff. Could BU argue that UND won the faceoff because the puck wasn't dropped fairly? Every time a goal is scored as a result of a team winning a faceoff, should it be reviewed to make certain the puck drop wasn't to one side's advantage? After all, it was a mistake by an on-ice official that created the scoring opportunity. 

We could spend a lot of time going back in time to review possible officiating errors that gave one team an unfair advantage over the other. My position is that as much as possible, we should resist the temptation to do this. 

[iluvdebbies]

 

 

31 minutes ago, PCM said:

I agree. The only person on the ice in position to make the call was the linesman, and he called the zone entry good. To overturn the call using a far-away, lower-resolution camera that didn't have a good angle and wasn't designed for this purpose makes no sense. While one of the images tends to support the offsides ruling, in my opinion, it doesn't provide the indisputable evidence the NCAA says is required. 

I've done some high-resolution screen captures from the ESPN broadcast. When you zoom in on specific areas of the blue line, you can see the distortion and lack of detail in the images, which is made worse by a view through the netting. The monitor I use for photo editing is much larger and far superior to the one the on-ice officials used to view the images. If someone had to take these images into court and use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I'm confident an expert in digital imagery could explain why they leave plenty of room for doubt and are far from being indisputable.

The NCAA needs a rule to clearly define cutoff point beyond which an offsides review is moot. Any goal scored off the zone entry which is indisputably offsides should absolutely be disallowed. If the defending team gains control of the puck, there should be no review after that point. I would also argue that once the attacking team loses possession of the puck, the offsides review should become moot.

This way, if there's some real-time doubt about whether the zone entry was offsides, the officials know that any goal scored beyond a certain point will be counted regardless of whether the zone entry was indisputably offsides. 

There is. Once the puck leaves the offensive zone.....the play cannot be reviewed.

 

 

 

[PCM]

1 minute ago, iluvdebbies said:

There is. Once the puck leaves the offensive zone.....the play cannot be reviewed.

Which, to me, makes no sense. The decision should be based on whether the attacking team gained an advantage in scoring a goal by being offsides. Once the attacking team loses that advantage -- either because it lost possession of the puck or the other team gained possession -- there's really no reason to review the goal.

As I said, the NCAA has already created a precedent for allowing a goal to stand when a member of the attacking team is in the crease in violation of the rules IF he didn't interfere with the goalie. In other words, even if a player on the other team technically violated a rule and the officials didn't call it, the goal still stands because the violation had nothing to do with how the goal was scored.

That one simple rule change has resulted in a great deal of controversy being eliminated from the game. We used to spend a lot of time looking at stop-action images of skate blades in the crease to determine when it happened in relation to the puck's position and whether the actions of a defending player were responsible for the attacking player's skate being where it was. No more. 

In 2004, a Maine skate in the crease helped Denver win a national championship. It was at that point the NCAA decided it was ridiculous to disallow a goal based on a violation the officials didn't call for the action of a player who played no role how the goal was scored. 

[iluvdebbies]

6 minutes ago, PCM said:

Which, to me, makes no sense. The decision should be based on whether the attacking team gained an advantage in scoring a goal by being offsides. Once the attacking team loses that advantage -- either because it lost possession of the puck or the other team gained possession -- there's really no reason to review the goal.

As I said, the NCAA has already created a precedent for allowing a goal to stand when a member of the attacking team is in the crease in violation of the rules IF he didn't interfere with the goalie. In other words, even if a player on the other team technically violated a rule and the officials didn't call it, the goal still stands because the violation had nothing to do with how the goal was scored.

That one simple rule change has resulted in a great deal of controversy being eliminated from the game. We used to spend a lot of time looking at stop-action images of skate blades in the crease to determine when it happened in relation to the puck's position and whether the actions of a defending player were responsible for the attacking player's skate being where it was. No more. 

In 2004, a Maine skate in the crease helped Denver win a national championship. It was at that point the NCAA decided it was ridiculous to disallow a goal based on a violation the officials didn't call for the action of a player who played no role how the goal was scored. 

I've been waiting for them having to review if the puck came out of the offensive zone or not....so they know if they can review the potential offsides.

[PCM]

19 minutes ago, iluvdebbies said:

I've been waiting for them having to review if the puck came out of the offensive zone or not....so they know if they can review the potential offsides.

It's really a question of how much the NCAA wants to punish a team for a call its trained, best-of-the-best, hand-picked officials missed and how much money it wants to spend to install the technology required to provide the indisputable evidence it says it needs to reverse an on-ice decision made in real-time by one of its officials. 

Also, we've all seen times when the puck is out of the zone for maybe a second and then goes right back in onside. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by PCM

[BIGSIOUX]

love this conversation, but just to play devil's advocate.....

Are you sure you want more rules decisions to be made on referee's discretion? To me that seems like a bad idea, most guys have a hard enough time deciding between a 2 and a 5, can you imagine the conversation in the review box?

[Ray77]

I love the passion of our fans...but I'm glad we don't have this kind of passion...

Report: Elite Eight ref gets death threats from Kentucky fans

[Siouxphan27]

If play is stopped because of a whistle blown for a wrongly called offsides, is the technology soon available to hop in the Delorean and see into the future what may have happened on the rush?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I've also heard the argument that while we're reviewing offsides after goals why not go all the way back and review all dump-ins to see if the player actually gained the red line? Could be a really fun exercise of 'is the puck actually on his stick?'

[dagies]

1 hour ago, SJHovey said:

There was a similarly interesting situation in the Wild game last night, if any of you happened to catch it (including Oshie's game winner in OT).  The Wild were down one in the last minute and had pulled the goalie.  They entered the zone on a cross ice pass to Spurgeon, who then dumped the puck.  After some skirmishes along the end wall, a Washington player got possession and shot the puck up the center of the ice, about 7 feet off the ice surface.  Koivu reached up, while on the blue line, grabbed the puck and dropped it down onsides.  A few seconds later the Wild scored.  Toronto wanted to review for offsides.

At first there was a question of whether they were reviewing Koivu's catch, which was pretty close, but seemed like it should be onsides.  Then it became clear they were looking at the initial entry.

In a scenario like that one it's really hard to see how the initial offsides (it wasn't, by the way) could have played any role in the play and further supports PCM's logic.  I would have liked to have heard some discussion from the announcers or others about the change of possession and whether that should have nullified any advantage gained had Spurgeon been offsides.

I saw that and was curious how that would play out, too.   In the end, though, I agree with the logic employed to a certain extent.    The initial offsides (if it was really offsides but not called) may not have provided an advantage to the attacking team, but the play that followed would never have happened if the call was made correctly on the ice.   I do understand the logic here, and can understand the argument that says "yeah, but if the linesman had made the correct call in the first place we'd have never been scored on".  I think that is a valid argument too.   

I also agree with the larger question of "well, in hockey there are lots of examples of things that are let go, so why does a missed offsides get to retroactively affect the game?"   Someone, above, brought up a GREAT point.....especially late in games but even throughout officials will allow crosschecking, holding and interference in front of the net that would be called a penalty in other places on the rink.  Why is that allowed, but a missed offsides is reviewable?

Reason is called for and at some point reasonable people should find a concensus on how far back to go to review this sort of thing..

 

[PCM]

19 minutes ago, BIGSIOUX said:

love this conversation, but just to play devil's advocate.....

Are you sure you want more rules decisions to be made on referee's discretion? To me that seems like a bad idea, most guys have a hard enough time deciding between a 2 and a 5, can you imagine the conversation in the review box?

No, I don't want more discretionary decisions. That was illustrated late in the DU-PSU game when play was stopped to review whether a hit on a Pioneer defenseman was worthy of a major penalty. In real-time, the on-ice officials called no penalty. 

The game's outcome was still in doubt and calling a major late in the third period would have pretty much iced the game for DU. In my mind, the replay video showed there was no doubt it should have been a major penalty. But at the officials' discretion, it was ruled it was not a major penalty and play went on as if nothing had happened. DU was fortunate that the hit didn't cost it one of its best defenseman for the Frozen Four. 

I would be fine with handling zone entry calls the way they're made during the regular season. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by PCM

[TheHamIsDone]

6 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

I've also heard the argument that while we're reviewing offsides after goals why not go all the way back and review all dump-ins to see if the player actually gained the red line? Could be a really fun exercise of 'is the puck actually on his stick?'

At that point we might as well start reviewing faceoffs