[PGT] Flames shut out by the Hurricanes 4-0

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can someone explain to me how that was ON side? Just watching tape delayed right now, maybe they will explain it later?

Well Ron Maclean said it was definitely onside so I guess that seals it.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can someone explain to me how that was ON side? Just watching tape delayed right now, maybe they will explain it later?

Delayed offside tag up. While puck was in zone before McGinn tagged up, gauthier didnt playe the puck until McGinn tagged up. He didnt have possession. Still think its bs but whatever. I'm back to not caring about reffing.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can someone explain to me how that was ON side? Just watching tape delayed right now, maybe they will explain it later?

Puck exits the zone, Gauthier puts it back in resulting in a delayed offside until McGinn tags up, both players re-enter the zone onside before touching the puck. Sportsnet cutoff the replay showing McGinn tagging up resulting in a lot of confusion. Bit of a weird one but the right call was made, unfortunately it seemed to tilt the momentum of the game.

[AC]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can someone explain to me how that was ON side? Just watching tape delayed right now, maybe they will explain it later?

The puck left the zone, the Carolina player smacks it back in causing a delayed offside but doesn't touch the puck again inside the zone until he and the 2nd Cane tagged up.

[AC]

For the record, Ward agrees with the review:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1206001451421405185

[Vinny01]

Definitely a disappointing game. Hope it is a blip and nothing more. I remember a 7 game win streak (that included a coach stick toss at practice) that seemed to save the 2018 season but unfortunately they let that season slip away

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can someone explain to me how that was ON side? Just watching tape delayed right now, maybe they will explain it later?

As far as I understand it, the call is based on whether or not you consider the play at the line a dumping (onside), or if the player had control (offside).

Rich Sutter talked about this in the second intermission, and I agree with him that this is a judgment call which goes both ways; I think most of the time that is called an offside. I think what actually happened was that the officials missed the puck coming out in real time, and at the challenge excused it on the premise that it could be interpreted as "onside" if the player chipped the puck in, and did not maintain control. All around it's a frustrating call, even if it can be justified by the rules.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Well Ron Maclean said it was definitely onside so I guess that seals it.

If it was the Oilers he would spend the whole segment talking about how much of a travesty it is.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by AC

For the record, Ward agrees with the review:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1206001451421405185

Good. Let the team know it happened, it's fine, move along. Take it out on the next opponent. If he stewed about the call it might distract. It's over, that game sucked, move along.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by AC

For the record, Ward agrees with the review:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1206001451421405185

Honestly, we'd be livid at Ward and crew if he didn't at least challenge the goal. It was borderline onside, so really, you can't fault them for challenging. It's unfortunate that Hamilton's goal went in. While Rittich could've definitely saved that shot, 3 Calgary players just let Dougie walk right in to the slot.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Inferno

If it was the Oilers he would spend the whole segment talking about how much of a travesty it is.

Well, if it was the Oilers, we wouldn't have this debate. The call would've been reverse saying that replay show the play is offside and there's no goal!

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Well, if it was the Oilers, we wouldn't have this debate. The call would've been reverse saying that replay show the play is offside and there's no goal!

And they would have somehow got a powerplay out of it for winning the challenge.

[TheScorpion]

These Flames have a ton of terrific middle-six forward pieces but I still think they could use someone a little more proven instead of Mangiapane on the top line with Tkachuk and Lindholm.

I keep circling back to Kyle Palmieri. I think he'd be the James Neal the Flames wish they'd gotten two summers ago. He's not slow, he has a good shot, and he's smart.

If you can give up Bennett or Kylington and a pick for Palmieri... that's a guy who can really help the Flames this year and next, and potentially further than that.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Inferno

And they would have somehow got a powerplay out of it for winning the challenge.

Inconclusive evidence that the play was onside and the goal hurt McDavid’s feelings so no goal and 2 minute bench minor to the opposition.

[Moneyhands23]

I bet we win 4 in a row next!!!! GFG!!!!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by OldSam

A little concerned about the shutout, but not really...

Frustrated. Not concerned. The Flames got stymied by an excellent goaltending performance.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

I bet we win 4 in a row next!!!! GFG!!!!

Just four?

[Duffalufagus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As far as I understand it, the call is based on whether or not you consider the play at the line a dumping (onside), or if the player had control (offside).

Rich Sutter talked about this in the second intermission, and I agree with him that this is a judgment call which goes both ways; I think most of the time that is called an offside. I think what actually happened was that the officials missed the puck coming out in real time, and at the challenge excused it on the premise that it could be interpreted as "onside" if the player chipped the puck in, and did not maintain control. All around it's a frustrating call, even if it can be justified by the rules.

I think it more simple than that. Touching the puck in the zone during a delayed offside results in a dead play. Possession analysis is unnecessary. The puck was not touched until both players tagged up ending the delayed offside.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I think it more simple than that. Touching the puck in the zone during a delayed offside results in a dead play. Possession analysis is unnecessary. The puck was not touched until both players tagged up ending the delayed offside.

That’s part of the explanation, but I don’t believe for a second that the linesman saw the puck come out and then re-enter the zone. The ruling was justified on the replay on the premise that the Canes player “dumped it in.”

Nine times out of ten when the official sees the puck exit and re-enter the zone in a situation that unfolds as quickly as that, he calls it offside, and there is no controversy..

[Duffalufagus]

Well, here is the rule:

http://www.hockeycentral.co.uk/nhlrules/Rules-83.php

I can see an argument that it should have been blown offside based on him “attempting” to get the puck notwithstanding the guy tagged when (after?) he started doing so.