New Offsides review rule

[tnt]

With Andy Murray challenging a call in Friday's game for offsides, I was wondering how that would have played out had it not been clearly onside.  If they would have found it to be offsides at the line instead, would they then have to run through all of the zone time footage to determine if Western had taken possession at any point?   Seems like that could make for some long drawn out reviews if play goes on for a while.   Perhaps on any close play at the line, the linesmen are tasked with tracking possession, but there again you have some subjectivity on what is possession.  I would hope it isn't incumbent on the coach that has a goal overruled for being offside to challenge the possession end of it.  Just made me curious, as I was thinking we might have had a long delay after the review on Friday. 

[Vegas_Sioux]

You’d think they’d have too other was Berry will challenge that WMU at one point gained control of the puck. 

[stoneySIOUX]

53 minutes ago, tnt said:

With Andy Murray challenging a call in Friday's game for offsides, I was wondering how that would have played out had it not been clearly onside.  If they would have found it to be offsides at the line instead, would they then have to run through all of the zone time footage to determine if Western had taken possession at any point?   Seems like that could make for some long drawn out reviews if play goes on for a while.   Perhaps on any close play at the line, the linesmen are tasked with tracking possession, but there again you have some subjectivity on what is possession.  I would hope it isn't incumbent on the coach that has a goal overruled for being offside to challenge the possession end of it.  Just made me curious, as I was thinking we might have had a long delay after the review on Friday. 

It was pretty clear that it was onside, but yes, as I understand the rule, had WMU gained possession (which they did not), the play would have been ruled as a goal regardless if the play was initially offsides. 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, stoneySIOUX said:

It was pretty clear that it was onside, but yes, as I understand the rule, had WMU gained possession (which they did not), the play would have been ruled as a goal regardless if the play was initially offsides. 

I was just wondering about the process of determining whether a team gains possession or not.  Unless they have someone tracking that, it could be a long delay to determine that.  Don't trust the memory of the officials either way. 

[The Sicatoka]

9 minutes ago, tnt said:

I was just wondering about the process of determining whether a team gains possession or not.  Unless they have someone tracking that, it could be a long delay to determine that.  Don't trust the memory of the officials either way. 

They use the replay to look for any change of possession backwards from the goal. Once the defensive team has that, that's as far as can be reviewed. Basically, if you're defending and get possession you'd better clear it. 

"Change of possession" is what it would take to get a whistle on a delayed penalty. 

[cberkas]

6 hours ago, tnt said:

With Andy Murray challenging a call in Friday's game for offsides, I was wondering how that would have played out had it not been clearly onside.  If they would have found it to be offsides at the line instead, would they then have to run through all of the zone time footage to determine if Western had taken possession at any point?   Seems like that could make for some long drawn out reviews if play goes on for a while.   Perhaps on any close play at the line, the linesmen are tasked with tracking possession, but there again you have some subjectivity on what is possession.  I would hope it isn't incumbent on the coach that has a goal overruled for being offside to challenge the possession end of it.  Just made me curious, as I was thinking we might have had a long delay after the review on Friday. 

I think they first look to see if it's onsides, then look for the possession by the defending team.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

16 minutes ago, cberkas said:

I think they first look to see if it's onsides, then look for the possession by the defending team.

Either way it still comes out the same in the wash.

[I Ranger]

Is this a new rule implemented this year? I thought it was just a suggestion to the rules committee as this isn't a rule change year. The rules can only be changed next year or am I mistaken?

[The Sicatoka]

Everyone's questions answered in one easy mouse click. 

 

[cberkas]

45 minutes ago, I Ranger said:

Is this a new rule implemented this year? I thought it was just a suggestion to the rules committee as this isn't a rule change year. The rules can only be changed next year or am I mistaken?

Yes it is.

[The Sicatoka]

49 minutes ago, I Ranger said:

Is this a new rule implemented this year? I thought it was just a suggestion to the rules committee as this isn't a rule change year. The rules can only be changed next year or am I mistaken?

I have the video queued up to the point where this new rule, and its immediate implementation, is discussed. 

[bigskyvikes]

53 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Everyone's questions answered in one easy mouse click. 

 

Dam!! That still makes me sick! 

What if?

What if?

That Sioux team was clickin! 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

Everyone's questions answered in one easy mouse click. 

 

So are we to believe that the officials are checking for possession every single zone entry?  If they say it isn't reviewable if possession had been gained, then they must predetermine if there was possession, otherwise they would be reviewing something that isn't supposed to be reviewed.  These guys can't get a basic call right, how do we expect them to keep track of possession every single zone entry?

[bigskyvikes]

47 minutes ago, tnt said:

So are we to believe that the officials are checking for possession every single zone entry?  If they say it isn't reviewable if possession had been gained, then they must predetermine if there was possession, otherwise they would be reviewing something that isn't supposed to be reviewed.  These guys can't get a basic call right, how do we expect them to keep track of possession every single zone entry?

Yes, but only during a review of offsides and a goal. 

The Sioux game in Fargo last season shows how cut and dry this rule is and how it was needed....IMO

[tnt]

27 minutes ago, bigskyvikes said:

Yes, but only during a review of offsides and a goal. 

The Sioux game in Fargo last season shows how cut and dry this rule is and how it was needed....IMO

They aren't going to know a goal is coming, therefore they have to check possession after every zone entry. 

[BigGreyAnt41]

1 hour ago, tnt said:

They aren't going to know a goal is coming, therefore they have to check possession after every zone entry. 

They also don't know when they missed an offside call, which is really the purpose of the whole "defending team gained possession" rule change.  So if a goal is scored, they'll review the tape going backwards until they either see the defending team gaining possession, or the attacking team enter the zone, either onside or offside.  Then they'll know if it's a good goal or not. 

I would guess in most cases zone time isn't really all that long.  The situation in last year's tournament game was definitely the exception rather than the rule, in that we held the zone for a long time before the goal was scored.  And even that wouldn't take more than a minute to review to see if the other team gained possession during that time.  It's only during a challenge that this looked at, anyway.

[tnt]

1 hour ago, BigGreyAnt41 said:

They also don't know when they missed an offside call, which is really the purpose of the whole "defending team gained possession" rule change.  So if a goal is scored, they'll review the tape going backwards until they either see the defending team gaining possession, or the attacking team enter the zone, either onside or offside.  Then they'll know if it's a good goal or not. 

I would guess in most cases zone time isn't really all that long.  The situation in last year's tournament game was definitely the exception rather than the rule, in that we held the zone for a long time before the goal was scored.  And even that wouldn't take more than a minute to review to see if the other team gained possession during that time.  It's only during a challenge that this looked at, anyway.

Agree, that is the only way it can be done, but they will still be reviewing something they say is unreviewable.   I would say in that circumstance where a challenge is made that isn't offside and possession had also changed hands, the team asking for the challenge should get a penalty along with losing their timeout.  That way if a coach thinks it is offside from the outset, they should also be tracking whether their team gained possession, lest they get a penalty for being wrong on both counts. 

[The Sicatoka]

3 hours ago, tnt said:

They aren't going to know a goal is coming, therefore they have to check possession after every zone entry. 

The only time it matters is if a goal is scored.

Otherwise, the human error slides away unnoticed, unreviewed, as it is of nominal consequence. 

[The Sicatoka]

45 minutes ago, tnt said:

Agree, that is the only way it can be done, but they will still be reviewing something they say is unreviewable.   I would say in that circumstance where a challenge is made that isn't offside and possession had also changed hands, the team asking for the challenge should get a penalty along with losing their timeout.  That way if a coach thinks it is offside from the outset, they should also be tracking whether their team gained possession, lest they get a penalty for being wrong on both counts. 

From the goal you review backwards in time to either (A) possession change in zone, or (B) zone entry, not both. 

Under the current rule, from Bowen's goal you rewind until the BU defenseman takes a stride with the puck. <--- Possession change; good goal. 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

From the goal you review backwards in time to either (A) possession change in zone, or (B) zone entry, not both. 

Under the current rule, from Bowen's goal you rewind until the BU defenseman takes a stride with the puck. <--- Possession change; good goal. 

Gotcha.   That certainly eliminates a lot of extra viewing. 

[cberkas]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

From the goal you review backwards in time to either (A) possession change in zone, or (B) zone entry, not both. 

Under the current rule, from Bowen's goal you rewind until the BU defenseman takes a stride with the puck. <--- Possession change; good goal. 

Easier to just review the offside first then you don't have to look for a change in position if the play was onsides.

[The Sicatoka]

23 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Easier to just review the offside first then you don't have to look for a change in position if the play was onsides.

Think about what you just said: review the offside. See: UND v. BU, Scheel's Arena circa April 2017. That's still disputed. 

If the play was close enough to be allowed to go on at zone entry this solution is simple: Roll backwards from the goal. If the defender had the puck and failed to clear it's on him. 

What this rule will probably cause is linesmen to fail more to the "offsides" whistle and less to the "good" on zone entries. Why? If they let it go and the possession changes and the goal happens (the UND scenario) they'll hear about it from the coach that was "wronged".

Yes, imagine this rule in place in April 2017: From the Bowen goal, the tape rolls back to the BU defender having and losing the puck. End of review. Good goal. UND win. And BU coaches claiming "it was offside" to this day. <-- This scenario I believe will cause more "close" offsides plays to be whistled down than let go on.  

[cberkas]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Think about what you just said: review the offside. See: UND v. BU, Scheel's Arena circa April 2017. That's still disputed. 

If the play was close enough to be allowed to go on at zone entry this solution is simple: Roll backwards from the goal. If the defender had the puck and failed to clear it's on him. 

What this rule will probably cause is linesmen to fail more to the "offsides" whistle and less to the "good" on zone entries. Why? If they let it go and the possession changes and the goal happens (the UND scenario) they'll hear about it from the coach that was "wronged".

Yes, imagine this rule in place in April 2017: From the Bowen goal, the tape rolls back to the BU defender having and losing the puck. End of review. Good goal. UND win. And BU coaches claiming "it was offside" to this day. <-- This scenario I believe will cause more "close" offsides plays to be whistled down than let go on.  

They were looking at the zone entry when WMU challenged the goal, the broadcast shows what the refs were looking at. They were looking at the entry of the zone.

[southpaw]

2 hours ago, cberkas said:

They were looking at the zone entry when WMU challenged the goal, the broadcast shows what the refs were looking at. They were looking at the entry of the zone.

It's likely they had already looked for, or known live, that WMU had not gained possession. So you go to the offside portion.