Yeah that’s offsides. Skate blades are like 3 mm wide.
Looks onside to me and either way, definitely not clear enough one way or the other to overturn the call on the ice (from that photo and the replays I saw). Mind you, maybe the NHL has different angles to view.
I hate the Sharks as much as anyone and still think they shouldn't even be in the 2nd round but that's offside. If the Flames were in the Sharks position I would be livid if that goal was allowed. Burke on 960 right now says it's not even controversial. Says it's the rule and you have to call it even if it's incidental.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 05-09-2019 at 07:32 AM.
Mind you, maybe the NHL has different angles to view.
They do. They have one on ice level right down the blue line.
I don't have a problem with the call but I also wanted Colorado to lose. But if I didn't care who won I don't think I would have a problem with it either.
I find it embarrassing that the flames couldn't get Mackinnon off his game. It see so easy to get under his skin
Did they lay a hit on him the entire series? Wasn't Tkachuk supposed to be one of those guys that gets under the skin of opposing players? I wouldn't be surprised if he was delivering coffee to the Avs locker room prior to games as he turned into Mr. Nice guy. There's been plenty of Flames 1st round disappointments over the years but 2019 was definitely the most bizarre. They literally stopped being the regular season Flames the moment the playoffs started as Smith started playing great (this was a good thing) and the team around him kind of stopped doing everything that brought them regular season success.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
As someone that lives here in Colorado, THANK YOU SHARKS! I can work in peace now.
With that being said, GO BLUES!
The salt on 92.5 this morning is delicious. The Fan won’t discuss it since it’s not Broncos related but I’m quite enjoying how upset the guys who clearly know zero about hockey are on altitude. The bandwagon is already empty.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Did they lay a hit on him the entire series? Wasn't Tkachuk supposed to be one of those guys that gets under the skin of opposing players? I wouldn't be surprised if he was delivering coffee to the Avs locker room prior to games as he turned into Mr. Nice guy. There's been plenty of Flames 1st round disappointments over the years but 2019 was definitely the most bizarre. They literally stopped being the regular season Flames the moment the playoffs started as Smith started playing great (this was a good thing) and the team around him kind of stopped doing everything that brought them regular season success.
During the the regular season... Mackinnon was literally crying when playing against the Flames (yelling and crying to his coach even)... and we beat them all three times... then comes the playoffs and we are intimated by him in Games 2-5 to the point where he is absolutely dominated us - we just lost our mojo and will to play, but I'd argue that it wasn't isolated to just the playoffs... we were off our game arguably from the all-star break forward. This is when coaching needed to occur... we needed a Torts (after the Bule Jackets 1st period of game 1 against Tampa - down 3-0) style pep talk. McKinnon was also looking good against the Sharks until game 5 when the Sharks learned how to play against him and frustrate him - something the Flames did all season with him.
They do. They have one on ice level right down the blue line.
I don't have a problem with the call but I also wanted Colorado to lose. But if I didn't care who won I don't think I would have a problem with it either.
I didn’t care who won, as I dislike both teams, however see that call as awful, given the information we have
If the NHL has the angle you speak of, why not show it? It would save a lot of faces. Is it from the bench side or opposite side?
Are you a hundred percent sure they have cameras at the blue line, at ice level, on each side of the rink? If so, how? I would love to see proof
Again, the best view I have actually seen is insufficient in my mind to overturn a call on the ice. I can only buy that they didn’t botch this if they prove they made the right call
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
I hate the Sharks as much as anyone and still think they shouldn't even be in the 2nd round but that's offside. If the Flames were in the Sharks position I would be livid if that goal was allowed. Burke on 960 right now says it's not even controversial. Says it's the rule and you have to call it even if it's incidental.
The difficulty is that while Landeskog is clearly off side when the puck enters, if he touches the blue line, then he's deemed to have tagged up. So long as nobody else entered the zone before he did so (and it seems nobody had), the play should have been on side.
Now, one of the theories about the off-side rule is that it does say a player who intends to leave the ice rather than tag up is off side until he steps completely off the playing surface. There is, however, no indication that this caveat negates the usual requirement to tag up. If it does, then the call was correct. But we don't know, and that's not the explanation the league used. The explanation they gave was that Landeskog failed to tag-up, and there is no way on earth the video review could definitively make that claim.
I'm glad the Avs lost, but that was the wrong call.
I can only buy that they didn’t botch this if they prove they made the right call
I agree... show us the video. With all the botched calls from goalie interference in these playoffs... going from any little bump overturns a goal to wanting the on ice call to stand and only blatant contact overturns a goal. With all the "put the whistle away" talk to lets call a penalty for the trailing team in the last few minutes for even the minor(est) of all penalties and calls.
I know.... NHL... here is a crazy thought.... If it's a penalty in the first game of the season, It's a penalty in the last game of the season and throughout the playoffs. How do you build a team if you're a GM.... do you build it with skill, finesse, and speed... because those are the skills that will get you into the playoffs.... OR do you build it big and tough because when they throw all the rules out during the playoffs, that's what will get you to go on a run... Maybe Edmonton was right... if they could only just get in. So if you barely squeak in with a tougher team - look out... because you can hook, hit, and slash your way past the top teams to the quarter finals.
Are you a hundred percent sure they have cameras at the blue line, at ice level, on each side of the rink? If so, how? I would love to see proof
Not flush with the ice but at ice level. Similar to what's been shown but lower.
Something like this:
Spoiler!
It's been announced numerous times during broadcasts we don't get to see every angle the NHL does. But I've also heard it been said too that the NHL doesn't have access to every angle we get to see on TV that would have been better than what they made their decision on.
Could they not take a page out of the tennis's handbook and get us those computer graphical images that we see all the time during tennis matches.... these images have the computer adjust for different camera angles.
The difficulty is that while Landeskog is clearly off side when the puck enters, if he touches the blue line, then he's deemed to have tagged up. So long as nobody else entered the zone before he did so (and it seems nobody had), the play should have been on side.
Now, one of the theories about the off-side rule is that it does say a player who intends to leave the ice rather than tag up is off side until he steps completely off the playing surface. There is, however, no indication that this caveat negates the usual requirement to tag up. If it does, then the call was correct. But we don't know, and that's not the explanation the league used. The explanation they gave was that Landeskog failed to tag-up, and there is no way on earth the video review could definitively make that claim.
I'm glad the Avs lost, but that was the wrong call.
If he tagged up with a toe but then moved the toe back in before the puck crosses, he's offside again, and I think that's what they were saying. So the pic with the inset showing the puck already across isn't the right one. You need the pic from right when the puck enters.
I still think the fact there were 6 guys on the ice, though not a proper basis for overturning a call, may have influenced their decision making.
Not flush with the ice but at ice level. Similar to what's been shown but lower.
Something like this:
Spoiler!
It's been announced numerous times during broadcasts we don't get to see every angle the NHL does. But I've also heard it been said too that the NHL doesn't have access to every angle we get to see on TV that would have been better than what they made their decision on.
That shot you show is not too different from what they showed on Sportsnet last night. Also far side, opposite the bench.
I even question that - I wonder what all these mysterious additional views the NHL claims to have are, and where they are stationing / hiding their cameras.
I haven’t heard the ‘NHL doesn’t get every angle’ claim
Is it a matter of, for example, NBC having a broadcast crew, CBC having a crew, and NHL having access to both? Therefore the CBC crew can say the NHL has angles that they don’t have?
Or is it a big brother style situation where there are many cameras that they just can’t tell you about or they will have to kill you. ( But just trust them, they got the call right.)
If only that Duchene goal 5 years ago never happened. Offside review is a plague on hockey.
Absolutely agree
I would like to see more use of referee discretion to make calls in line with the spirit or intent of the rule.
Why do you have offside? Loosely, let’s say so the offensive team can’t gain a positional advantage
In this case, the refs have to look at the replay, slowed down, look at a still shot, to determine if a guy with his back to the play, and who is stepping off the ice, had his skate blade touching the blue line or not, immediately before he left the surface.
He had nothing to do with the play at that point in time.
In fact, if you look at how the ‘too many men’ penalty is called, it is generally an issue with respect to changes only if the play is near the benches. They call it looser when the play is away.
The other situation with offsides is when guys are crossing the line and they overturn a goal based on a fraction of a second, or offside by a hair, not distinguishable in real time. Refs should have a limited time to view in real time, say 30 seconds, and if it is inconclusive, then call on the ice stands.
Video replay should be used for egregious offside misses, not hair splitting.
If he tagged up with a toe but then moved the toe back in before the puck crosses, he's offside again, and I think that's what they were saying. So the pic with the inset showing the puck already across isn't the right one. You need the pic from right when the puck enters.
I still think the fact there were 6 guys on the ice, though not a proper basis for overturning a call, may have influenced their decision making.
The pic with the puck already across is relevant because you can make a credible case that he's on the blue line after the puck entered the zone. Ergo, he tagged up and is on side. Ultimately, there is no possible way any of this is definitive - especially to a linesman watching on a 9" tablet screen - and that is the alleged requirement to change a call.
The pic with the puck already across is relevant because you can make a credible case that he's on the blue line after the puck entered the zone. Ergo, he tagged up and is on side. Ultimately, there is no possible way any of this is definitive - especially to a linesman watching on a 9" tablet screen - and that is the alleged requirement to change a call.
He has to be on the blue line before the puck enters the zone and stay there until it does, correct?
The call doesn't come from the linesman on the tablet screen in this case, does it? It comes from Toronto, no?
I haven’t heard the ‘NHL doesn’t get every angle’ claim
I can't remember specific games but I remember it being said more than once during intermissions that the NHL war room doesn't have access to every camera in the building and that it's unfortunate because sometimes a network camera has a better view of something than the league.
He has to be on the blue line before the puck enters the zone and stay there until it does, correct?
The call doesn't come from the linesman on the tablet screen in this case, does it? It comes from Toronto, no?
On the first - He was the only player inside the zone when the puck crossed the line. If he touched the blue line before any other attacking player entered the zone, then he's deemed to have tagged up and the play is onside. (This assumes the 'player leaving the ice' caveat doesn't negate the rest of the tag-up rule, but since the NHL didn't cite that in its review, I don't think it is applicable.)
On the second - for offside reviews, the linesmen review in concert with Toronto using the tablet. Same as the referees would on a goalie interference review.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 05-09-2019 at 11:39 AM.
If only that Duchene goal 5 years ago never happened. Offside review is a plague on hockey.
What if they use hawk-eye technology.... where they quickly display on the scoreboard the replay like they do in tennis.... with the words "onside" or "offside" - it's instant - and each team gets two (or a set number) per game (or period).... it takes NO time at all.... it's instant (5 seconds) - and remember, computer power is better then when this video was done.