Edmonton is No Good X: Up and Down Like a Toilet Seat

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's a video of the play: https://www.sportsnet.ca/videos/nhl/...cdavid-offside

Question should be is where was the linesman and why wasn’t it whistled down immediately?

[FleeceGang]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They ARE the same call. And the McDavid call was correct.

But they aren't the same call, in the rule book delayed offside is a subsection of offside and has different parameters. Delayed offside, simplified for the Makar play, only cares about physically touching the puck once all team mates have cleared the zone, possession does not matter. Where as Offside from an individual standpoint relies on if the player has possession AND control of the puck regardless of if the player proceeds the puck into the zone.

For context, possession is determined by whoever last touched the puck and control is defined as the act of propelling the puck forward with stick, foot, or body. Additionally, control and possession need to be maintained until the puck crosses the blue line at which point possession and control mean nothing as it is just a live puck.

I would say that Connor definitely had possession since he last touched the puck, and also had control because he propelled the puck consciously into the zone without anyone else touching it. He only loses control when O'Reilly makes contact with Connors stick right before Connor re-engages contact with the puck maybe a foot inside the line. But again, that distance doesn't matter since the puck is already in the zone "cleanly".

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Finally, with respect to your 'Don't get me wrong, seeing the Oil blow a lead and lose after a called back goal was the highlight of my night' comment, I had to laugh because you have posted a grand total of 4 times, and have played the 'I hate the Oilers as much as the next guy' card twice. LOL

Haha, yeah definitely don't post much but I guess when I do I'm coming to the, for lack of a better word, "defense" of the Oilers (someone has to because they have none on the team) and have to make sure my true allegiances are stated. Can't be labeled an Oilers sympathizer now can I! For the record, I grew up quite closely with one of BJ Semen's grandsons so the seeds of love for the Flames and deep hatred for Edmonton were planted very early in life. I tend to look at hockey from a numbers and logic stand point which sometimes conflicts with my emotional connection to the sport. Can't always have the homer goggles on and sometimes need to leave the bias out of it.

[Backstop]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1409628534377795585

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

But they aren't the same call, in the rule book delayed offside is a subsection of offside and has different parameters. Delayed offside, simplified for the Makar play, only cares about physically touching the puck once all team mates have cleared the zone, possession does not matter. Where as Offside from an individual standpoint relies on if the player has possession AND control of the puck regardless of if the player proceeds the puck into the zone.

For context, possession is determined by whoever last touched the puck and control is defined as the act of propelling the puck forward with stick, foot, or body. Additionally, control and possession need to be maintained until the puck crosses the blue line at which point possession and control mean nothing as it is just a live puck.

I would say that Connor definitely had possession since he last touched the puck, and also had control because he propelled the puck consciously into the zone without anyone else touching it. He only loses control when O'Reilly makes contact with Connors stick right before Connor re-engages contact with the puck maybe a foot inside the line. But again, that distance doesn't matter since the puck is already in the zone "cleanly".

By propelling the puck, he didn't have possession - literally.

And as you also said, "O'Reilly makes contact with his stick right before 'Connor' re-engages contact with the puck". Read what you wrote. McDavid did not have possession when he crossed the blueline. Offside.

The rest of your post is just a word salad, hoping to make a case with random shrapnel. You said in Makar's case, 'possession doesn't matter'. Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, the play would have been offside. It wasn't offside because he didn't have possession.

Same thing is true with McDavid - if he had possession, he wouldn't have been offside. But he didn't, so he preceded the puck over the line.

Those are the (very simple) facts.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Backstop

https://twitter.com/user/status/1409628534377795585

I agree, the NHL has the best officials in the world. They are worth every dollar that it takes to bribe them.

[Enoch Root]

Here is the official wording:

"a player controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered off-side, provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the leading edge of the blue line".

Watch the video - he does not have possession and control of the puck. He lifts his stick before reaching the blue line, then his stick and O'Reilly's stick make contact, joisting a bit, then he recovers, and he regains possession of the puck inside the circle. It must be 15-20 feet between letting go of the puck and regaining possession.

You have to be seriously biased to believe he had possession and control.

[Enoch Root]

LOL. The opposing argument: McDavid IS controlling it because HE IS REALLY TALENTED!!

[Groot]

McDavid did not have possession, went offside, and then the Blues player touched the puck between the circles before McDavid does again. It's clearly offside.

Comparing it to Makar is absolutely irrelevant as the two plays are nothing alike, and the only reason it even came up is because of homer Edmonton announcers during the game and then Oilers fans using it as some ridiculous means to falsely show the NHL screws the Oilers.

Edmonton is No Good

All 3 of the above are indisputable facts and should be treated as such. Thank you for your time.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

LOL. The opposing argument: McDavid IS controlling it because HE IS REALLY TALENTED!!

In other news, my singing potato is the best singer in the world. To make it fair for my potato's musical brilliance, I am petitioning the Royal Conservatory of Music to change the definition of ‘singing’. Sitting in silence will now count as singing, and my potato does that better than anybody. QED.

See how much fun you can have when you get to change the rules for yourself!

[FleeceGang]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

By propelling the puck, he didn't have possession - literally.

You are confusing the term possession with control. As stated before, possession is given to the last person to touch the puck. In both situations Makar and McDavid had possession since they were last to touch the puck. For the McDavid situation the question is more about control.

Word for word what is stated in this years rule book is that control is defined as

"The act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or feet. Control of the puck is not lost when contact with the puck is made by an opponent, the boards or the net, provided the player in control of the puck continues propelling the puck."

Connor had control of the puck until O'Reilly hit Connor's stick just after the blue line making it so he could not continue to propel the puck. No where in the definition does it indicate that "Control" expressly means physical contact. If a player is controlling the puck with his feet there are instances of contact but it's not perpetual, same with moving the puck by hand. I would argue there is a proximity of control where as long as the puck is within a range it can be deemed to be in control of the last player who touched it. You can't say someone dumping the puck has control of the puck because they last propelled the puck up the ice but stick handling through a defender definitely counts as control in my eyes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

You are confusing the term possession with control.

That's irrelevant. By the letter of the rules, you have to have both.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

LOL. The opposing argument: McDavid IS controlling it because HE IS REALLY TALENTED!!

Or it doesn't matter because he is McDavid, just like the media have been preaching, he should have the right of way. So, it's not offside because he is McDavid, the best player in the world.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Or it doesn't matter because he is McDavid, just like the media have been preaching, he should have the right of way. So, it's not offside because he is McDavid, the best player in the world.

that is literally the argument he was making

"don't talk to me about possession - it's McDavid! He's so awesome that he has possession even when he doesn't"

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

You are confusing the term possession with control.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

that is literally the argument he was making

"don't talk to me about possession - it's McDavid! He's so awesome that he has possession even when he doesn't"

Yup! All McDavid needs to do is stare at the puck and he has possession.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's Connor.

[CaptainCrunch]

He didn't have control of the puck, he propelled it, if we're going by that theory then when a player dumps the puck in the corner, he has possession til someone else takes it.

The Oilers and their fans spend too much time whining and crying about officiating, and the whole woe is us narrative propelled by the worst media and worst play by play team in hockey history.

Conna will never win because he's a whiny cry baby.

[topfiverecords]

With every action in an Oiler game Monster Truck and DeBluey can't control themselves and must add in a comment regarding penalty called or no penalty called on the play. It's disgusting. No other crew does this.

Player x went down on the play ...no penalty called on the play! ...a missed call! ...should have been a call! ...shocked there was no call there! ...that shouldn't have been a penalty! ...fans wanted a call! ...team wanted a call!...he's looking for a call! ...McDavid wondering why that wasn't a penalty! ...McDavid's dog looking for a call there! ...pretty sure Skinner was brushed by a thread of the opponents jersey that should have been a penalty! ...Woody can't believe that wasn't a call!!

No penalty on the play!

None forthcoming!

[McG]

Originally Posted by Backstop

https://twitter.com/user/status/1409628534377795585

So because Mavi complained, bettman has to comment?

Edit: oops on the date! Everything else stands!

We are going to end up with the “conna” offside but he’s not because he complained followed up by the Mavi “right of way” rule, and then a penalty because Mavi grabbed someone’s stick and fell over rule.

Is there anything this amazing phenomenon can’t do?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by McG

So because Mavi complained, bettman has to comment?

Check the date on the tweet.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Conna will never win because he's a whiny cry baby.

True, but mostly he'll never win because he plays for the worst and most embarrassing franchise in pro sports. If I were McDavid, I'd be demanding a trade to a contender ASAP before my prime years are completely wasted.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh trust me son, I was talking to a cashier at Sobeys who knows Conna's uncles, sisters, boyfriends, dog walkers real estate agent, and he stated that no matter what if the Oilers don't make the finals he's out of there and he has one team on his trade list and that's the Flames, his favorite childhood team.