GDT Game 2: 4/15/16 | 7:00PM CST | v Hawks | NBCSN/FSMW/Y98

[cprice12]

I actually don't mind that they can review offside calls. If they have the ability to get a call right, they should. To me, the only issue there is whether it was conclusive or not. That it took 5 minutes to make a decision makes it hard to believe that it was conclusive.

Offsides is not a judgement call though - you either are or you are not. It was very close and needed to be examined from multiple angles and therefore it took awhile but the right call was made.

That isn't the intent of the rule though.
The intent of the rule is to correct blatant missed offsides calls that should have been caught by the naked eye. The league has said as much and they hinted that the offside review procedure may have to be looked at again because of how ticky-tack things are getting.

I've said this many times before, I HATE the offside review. Hate it. And I believe you and I agreed that it is a bad thing not long ago. To me, offsides is a judgement call that shouldn't be reviewable...UNLESS, a goal is scored on the rush when someone is offsides...say on a two on one and one is offsides but it is missed and they score 2 seconds later. But this whole going back 10-15 seconds (or however long it may be) to review the entry into the zone because a player was offsides by an inch (that had no bearing on the play whatsoever), which no official could be expected to see with the naked eye, is dumb.

Yes, it was technically offsides....by a hair. And when they showed the replay, it looked offsides to me, but I didn't know if they would consider that "conclusive".

I hate replay in baseball as well...but I don't mind it in football, for whatever reason.

I actually have more of a problem with Shaw's goal that they allowed AND the embellishment call on Fabbri.

Shaw's stick pushes Elliott's pad and he does make contact with Elliott. Not a lot, but he does make contact and it did effect Elliott's ability to keep the puck out and is why there was a gap between his pad and the post there for the puck to go in. But the stick is the main thing for me. Yes, Shaw gets shoved, but it wasn't a hard shove and the shove had little if nothing to do with Shaw's stick making contact with Elliott's pad and moving it back towards the net. There are actually two contradictory rules in the rulebook about goaltender interference that Kerber tweeted out. One basically says you can't make contact when the puck is going in, the other says you can make incidental contact. So it's all depends on which rule the officials want to go by.

The call on Fabbri was complete BS. When you call embellishment, it has to be obvious and it wasn't. It wasn't obvious because it wasn't embellishment...or at least it didn't look like it at all to me. I couldn't believe that call. It was like the officials didn't want to award a PP late in the game, so they chickened out and called embellishment as well. That was weak as hell.

Parayko had the tying goal on his stick with the empty side of the net, but since he is a righty, he had a real tough angle.

Real rough game for the Blues to lose. But you know, game #1 & #2 in 2014 were real tough games for the Hawks to lose...especially the one where Tarasenko scored with just a few seconds left to tie it up before winning in OT.

These are the kinds of thing you have to put behind you, which I think they will.
Chicago should feel very fortunate not to be down 2-0. They benefited from two razor thin calls late in the game that won the game for them.

[theohall]

Rags-Pens game - skate in the air before puck enters zone. Not offsides. Good goal. If that's not offsides, then neither was Lehtera. Just be friggin' consistent game to game.

It's so damn frustrating and interesting that the rules never mention the skates actually being on the ice - just their position in relation to the blueline. Have they been misinterpreting the rule all along??

[dmiles2186]

I've had a good long time to get over the game. I'm still angry the Blues lost, no doubt. In fact, it was about as classic a Blues performance in the playoffs as you could imagine; one call goes against them and then it just unravels in such a (Franking) fury.

Here's the thing though: if this team wants to prove they're different from the one's that have come before, tomorrow is the time to start that. If this team wants to prove they can not only beat the Hawks but win the Stanley Cup, tomorrow is the time to start that. The Hawks have been there and done that and if a call like the offsides one were to happen against them, they aren't going to fold like the Blues did very often. I hope instead of the Blues feeling like they got screwed, they use it as fuel starting at 2 PM tomorrow to push to a win. If they're ever going to make that step, they need to accept a defeat last night, put it in their back pocket, and move on. I really, really hope that's what we see over the next few games.

[Kerfuffle]

That isn't the intent of the rule though. The intent of the rule is to correct blatant missed offsides calls that should have been caught by the naked eye.

Every team has to abide by the rule. The refs spent a good 5 min on this call looking at every angle to get it right.

I've said this many times before, I HATE the offside review. Hate it.

You wouldn't hate it if it cost you a Stanley Cup. This is what happened to us 2 years ago before offsides could be reviewed. If this goal didn't count the game would not have gone to OT and the Hawks would have won the game in regulation. It still stings knowing we should have one more banner hanging up there right now. Thankfully with the new rule that won't happen again.

And I believe you and I agreed that it is a bad thing not long ago.

No we did not. We disagreed and I always wanted the offsides reviewable. What I did agree with you on is keeping the 'too many men' thing non-reviewable IF the league put in some line around the boxes that refs could use as a point of reference.

I actually have more of a problem with Shaw's goal that they allowed AND the embellishment call on Fabbri.

Fabbri was a bad call but I believe the ref called it cause he did the barrel roll and the ref didn't buy it. But I thought it should have been a Blues power play there. But keep in mind you guys got a HUGE break when Bouwmeister slashed Kane on his right hand during his breakaway causing Kane to lose the puck. Should have been a penalty shot but no call.

As for the Shaw goal we won't agree on it so not worth it but I'll just add there were two reviews of it- both the war room in Toronto and then a challenge by Hitch again and they upheld it both times.

[cardsfan04]

I've had a good long time to get over the game. I'm still angry the Blues lost, no doubt. In fact, it was about as classic a Blues performance in the playoffs as you could imagine; one call goes against them and then it just unravels in such a (Franking) fury.

Here's the thing though: if this team wants to prove they're different from the one's that have come before, tomorrow is the time to start that. If this team wants to prove they can not only beat the Hawks but win the Stanley Cup, tomorrow is the time to start that. The Hawks have been there and done that and if a call like the offsides one were to happen against them, they aren't going to fold like the Blues did very often. I hope instead of the Blues feeling like they got screwed, they use it as fuel starting at 2 PM tomorrow to push to a win. If they're ever going to make that step, they need to accept a defeat last night, put it in their back pocket, and move on. I really, really hope that's what we see over the next few games.

Agreed. I'd really like to see them stomp Chicago tomorrow to send a message, and also because that sounds like fun.

[cardsfan04]

That isn't the intent of the rule though. The intent of the rule is to correct blatant missed offsides calls that should have been caught by the naked eye.

Every team has to abide by the rule. The refs spent a good 5 min on this call looking at every angle to get it right.

I've said this many times before, I HATE the offside review. Hate it.

You wouldn't hate it if it cost you a Stanley Cup. This is what happened to us 2 years ago before offsides could be reviewed. If this goal didn't count the game would not have gone to OT and the Hawks would have won the game in regulation. It still stings knowing we should have one more banner hanging up there right now. Thankfully with the new rule that won't happen again.

And I believe you and I agreed that it is a bad thing not long ago.

No we did not. We disagreed and I always wanted the offsides reviewable. What I did agree with you on is keeping the 'too many men' thing non-reviewable IF the league put in some line around the boxes that refs could use as a point of reference.

I actually have more of a problem with Shaw's goal that they allowed AND the embellishment call on Fabbri.

Fabbri was a bad call but I believe the ref called it cause he did the barrel roll and the ref didn't buy it. But I thought it should have been a Blues power play there. But keep in mind you guys got a HUGE break when Bouwmeister slashed Kane on his right hand during his breakaway causing Kane to lose the puck. Should have been a penalty shot but no call.

As for the Shaw goal we won't agree on it so not worth it but I'll just add there were two reviews of it- both the war room in Toronto and then a challenge by Hitch again and they upheld it both times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Toronto only reviewed it to see if the puck crossed the line, not for interference. Toronto reviews every goal, but I don't think that interference is something they look at. I think they only look to make sure the puck went in, that it wasn't a high stick, and that it wasn't kicked while interference is left to the referees on the ice. Can somebody confirm this? I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

The referees on the ice then reviewed their own call to see if they got it right. I'm not saying they would blanketly decide that they were right. But, somebody not saying they made a mistake isn't necessarily great evidence that they got it right.

[theohall]

Toronto reviewed for goal.
Refs reviewed for goalie interference after the challenge.

Offsides are reviewed by the linesman.
Refs to the goalie interference reviews.

That was the deal with the refs union to "not take too much away" from the on-ice officials, instead of making everything done by Toronto.

If it took that damn long to make an offsides call, it's inconclusive. Rags scored a goal on a very similar zone entry, only they called it onsides. Which one is "right?" They can't both be right so someone got screwed - either the Pens today or the Blues last night. Which one deserves getting screwed, Kerfuffle? The offsides rule is not consistently enforced from one game to the next. They need a time limit and if they can't overturn the on-ice call within that limit, the on-ice call stands.

[cardsfan04]

Toronto reviewed for goal.
Refs reviewed for goalie interference after the challenge.

Offsides are reviewed by the linesman.
Refs to the goalie interference reviews.

That was the deal with the refs union to "not take too much away" from the on-ice officials, instead of making everything done by Toronto.

If it took that damn long to make an offsides call, it's inconclusive. Rags scored a goal on a very similar zone entry, only they called it onsides. Which one is "right?" They can't both be right so someone got screwed - either the Pens today or the Blues last night. Which one deserves getting screwed, Kerfuffle? The offsides rule is not consistently enforced from one game to the next. They need a time limit and if they can't overturn the on-ice call within that limit, the on-ice call stands.

That's what I thought, and that significantly diminishes the, "well they reviewed it and upheld it twice" argument. It got reviewed for interference once . . . by the person that made the initial call. Did Roger Goodell write the contract between the NHL and its officials?

[Kerfuffle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Toronto only reviewed it to see if the puck crossed the line, not for interference. Toronto reviews every goal, but I don't think that interference is something they look at. I think they only look to make sure the puck went in, that it wasn't a high stick, and that it wasn't kicked while interference is left to the referees on the ice. Can somebody confirm this? I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

No you got it right - Toronto decides if goal and refs decide if interference. The point I was trying to make was that 2 reviews were done - some other boards are saying Shaw batted the puck into the net with his right hand. Others are saying the play was already dead when crossed the line. And Toronto would have checked for that and ruled it was in. As for goalie interference it's a judgement call and obviously Hawks and Blues fans will see it differently.

[cardsfan04]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Toronto only reviewed it to see if the puck crossed the line, not for interference. Toronto reviews every goal, but I don't think that interference is something they look at. I think they only look to make sure the puck went in, that it wasn't a high stick, and that it wasn't kicked while interference is left to the referees on the ice. Can somebody confirm this? I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

No you got it right - Toronto decides if goal and refs decide if interference. The point I was trying to make was that 2 reviews were done - some other boards are saying Shaw batted the puck into the net with his right hand. Others are saying the play was already dead when crossed the line. And Toronto would have checked for that and ruled it was in. As for goalie interference it's a judgement call and obviously Hawks and Blues fans will see it differently.

Oh, haven't heard any of those complaints. Goalie interference is the only reason I can think of to disallow it. The problem is 1) that's the most inconsistently called play in the NHL and 2) the rulebook has 2 different mentions of it that contradict each other. 1 suggests that the play last night should be a goal, the other that it should be disallowed. There's something similar for the offside rule too, but I think Lehtera was offside, so I'm less upset about it.

You're right that we'll never agree on it, but part of that is the ambiguity and inconsistency of the rule. Maybe what the NHL needs to do to turn last night into a positive going forward is to reexamine some of its rules for inconsistencies and contradictions. As is, both teams can make arguments completely supported by the rulebook for different outcomes, but only one side can get the outcome they want. That shouldn't be.

[ComradeT]

Shaw's "good" goal is a pile of horseshit. I first thought Shaw got pushed into Elliot initially but here are three screen shots that show Shaw's left leg in contact with Elliot's blocker and then pad before Shattenkirk pushes him. That's what caused Elliot to slide to his right as he went back trying to kick his pad out.

I don't have a frame by frame the refs have, and it took me less than 5 minutes to get this. This is a squarely missed call by the ref who didn't want to admit his mistake while he had no problem admitting the linesman's. Human nature at his finest. I would accept a "split second" argument before but not after the offside call that was overturned on, quite literally, a split hair. Officials have the technology to run this frame by frame - this is a clear as day evidence of interference with Moose.

(1) Initial contact - Shatty tried to push but missed.

Round 1, Gm 2- Blackhawks at Blues - NHL com (5).jpg (49.39 KiB) Viewed 3690 times

(2) Ell's blocker and shaft of his stick are how jammed and Shaw's skate is pushing against his right pad. Still not push from Shatty.

Round 1, Gm 2- Blackhawks at Blues - NHL com (4).jpg (47.77 KiB) Viewed 3690 times

(3) NOW comes the push, irrelevant as Elliot has been prevented from making the save a second earlier.

Round 1, Gm 2- Blackhawks at Blues - NHL com (3).jpg (46.27 KiB) Viewed 3690 times

[cprice12]

That isn't the intent of the rule though. The intent of the rule is to correct blatant missed offsides calls that should have been caught by the naked eye.

Every team has to abide by the rule. The refs spent a good 5 min on this call looking at every angle to get it right.

That isn't what I said.
The league itself has said that the way the coaches challenge for offsides is being used wasn't the intent of the rule at all when implemented. The intent of the rule was to correct the blatantly missed offsides calls, ones that should have been seen with the naked eye, not the ones that have to be slowed down and analyzed for 5 minutes to determine if someone was an eyelash offside. If you can't determine if it's offisides after a couple replays and 30 seconds of review time, then it's not something that should have been caught by the naked eye and the call on the ice should stand.

I've said this many times before, I HATE the offside review. Hate it.

You wouldn't hate it if it cost you a Stanley Cup. This is what happened to us 2 years ago before offsides could be reviewed. If this goal didn't count the game would not have gone to OT and the Hawks would have won the game in regulation. It still stings knowing we should have one more banner hanging up there right now. Thankfully with the new rule that won't happen again.

I'd like them to do away with reviewing offsides calls for more than 30 seconds. If they can't find enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice in 30 seconds, then they call on the ice should stand. THAT would be more in line with the intent of the review process.

As for the Shaw goal we won't agree on it so not worth it but I'll just add there were two reviews of it- both the war room in Toronto and then a challenge by Hitch again and they upheld it both times.[/color]

No, the first review in Toronto was to determine if the puck went in the net only (possibly before the whistle was blown). The 2nd review was a challenge where they reviewed goaltender interference.
There was no question that the puck went in the net.
The problem is the consistency of which interference is called and not called. It wouldn't have surprised anyone if that goal was overturned because I have seen goals overturned for far less than what Shaw did.
There is a rule in the rulebook that clearly defines what Shaw did as interference. I think it is rule 39a or something like that. And there is another rule that makes what Shaw did borderline or even ok.
I don't think anyone really knows what the goaltender interference rule is anymore because it varies greatly from game to game and ref to ref and I think you'll see this rule revised in the offseason...or it should be.