The NHL rule NO ONE understands 

When I saw the title, I thought it was going to go over goalie interference too 😂

Dead set. So many confusing calls.

Goalie interference sucks because it’s often so subjective :/

@@ryansheets3951 Same here

Facts!!! Bro we were up 3-2 in a close game and these dudes sat on our goalies leg and scored with 22 seconds 💀

Yep Yep

Except it fails to point out that the play is actually offside because the puck "possessor" fully crosses the leading edge of the blue line before the near player "tags up".

@@mhicaoidh1 I see it's stated in the rule he posted at 0:30. (i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the *same instant* (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone Key phrase being same instant, meaning all players have to be tagged up at the same time to negate the offside and in this clip we see that the person possessing the puck is no longer touching the blue line when the near player was still offside.

Even the casual ones need to understand

@@mhicaoidh1 That's right, at least based on this video, the situation is clearly offside. On the other hand, I would like to know when the puck is "loose"... in the referee's hand before face-offs? Or can it be "loose" and "in possession" at the same time...

It's "offside". Can't stand american hockey spelling.

@@Outta-hz1ej It's a hockey channel, not a spelling competition. Also, nobody cares about what you can't stand. I can't stand baseball. Nobody cares. Anything about the offside???

@@Outta-hz1ej and I can’t stand when people breath with their mouth. Does anyone give a shit?

@@Outta-hz1ej offsides makes more sense because there are two “sides”….not two side

@@dacrosber lmao that doesn’t matter or make sense. There’s one “side” on each end of the ice and going offside never involves both “sides” simultaneously. You only go offside on one side of the ice so calling it “offside” absolutely makes the most sense. That’s like trying to correct someone who said, “he put the puck in the net” and telling them, “actually it’s he put the puck in the nets” because there’s 2 nets on the ice. It just doesn’t make sense and the other side of the ice has nothing to do with an offside, so using that to justify saying “offsides” is silly. The ice having two sides is an irrelevant factor in an offside happening. Either way it doesn’t matter at all. As someone else said it’s hockey and not a spelling bee. Call it offside, call it offsides or call it anything you like and I got no problem with it; but trying to say everyone should call it “offsides” using your logic makes no sense.

Ehh I'm fine with current ruling, especially as the rules state a player can't put himself offside by controlling the puck. Which is why in your example the player wouldn't be offside

@@Trepur349 The rule doesn't exactly state that a player can't put himself offside by controlling the puck. Here's what it actually says: "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." He did not cross the line ahead of the puck, therefore this rule does not apply. And here is what 83.3 Delayed offside states: "If an off-side call is delayed, the Linesman shall drop his arm to nullify the off-side violation and allow play to continue if: (i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or (ii) The defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone." Neither was the case in this situation. Obviously the defending team did not play the puck out of the zone and the zone was never cleared by Anaheim at the same time. This should've been offside

@@Trepur349 If theres something to fix, its the McDavid situation where McDavid became offside because of a poke check making him no longer 'in control of the puck' even though he was the person who had possession (last to touch) A player in possession of the puck shouldn't become offside when entering the offensive zone on basically any scenario - maybe his teammates are offside, but if he is the lead offensive player, he should be onside (which is mostly what the rule tries to do, which is why it lets people skate backwards and precede the puck into the zone). If there's an issue here. its that the guy who was trying to 'check up' to get onside was making contact with a defender and arguably participating in the play and that player certainly thought he was part of the play. Most of the time, when guys are doing this they are away from a defender and clearly not participating - in this instance, the defender is trying to skate back to defend and being impeded by making contact with the offensive player trying to get onside. This is participating in the play even if its unintentional and should probably make the play offside. Sans contact, focusing on the touch seems like an odd technicality for the rule to focus on, and it should probably just say that a player who is offside in a delayed offside situation can't do anything except cross the blue line, and any participation or contact with other players makes the play offside (because it forces the defense to treat the offside player like he's potentially onside instead and creates an advantage for his teammates even if he never touches the puck).

well, apparently they ruled that there was no conclusive evidence that Fowler was in an off-side position until Henrique legally tagged up. I slowed down the slow-motion to .25 speed, basically watching it frame by frame and it is indeed extremely close. Much closer than it looked initially.

@@mikejunt I mean, in this situation it's the defender who pretty much forces Henrique into an off-side position to avoid a collision. I don't think there is a rule for this, but if we're talking about changing rules to make them make more sense, I think there should be a rule that states that if an attacking player is forced into an off-side position by a defender, he should not be considered offside at all and simply have to tag up before he can rejoin the play.

I’d say the definition of a loose puck is one where neither team has possession or control of the puck

@@seanclarke6581 The definition of "possession" makes that impossible, except for the moment a puck is dropped at the faceoff. Also, from the context of the rulebook, the term "loose puck" has to do with not being frozen by a goaltender. I could keep digging through the book to see if there's anything else, of course.

In this instance, no part of the "IF" statements in the rule were ever true. According to the rule, the linesman should not allow play to continue, but he also should not call off-side. This rule is terribly written.

@@drewgonfly I think I know what you're referring to (the different wording in the different sections). I think Eck's (and the NHL's) interpretation is good, but I agree that you can easily argue what you're saying based on the wording of the rule. I don't understand how it hasn't been fixed yet.

Never had a issue in the 2010's. It's obviusly this new brand of players who haven't read the rules.

You are correct. All players must clear the zone simultaneously. The winger was still offside when the puck carrier crossed into the zone. But there's other elements of this play that I disagree with the NHLs interpretation. - By definition the puck carrier had possession and control of the puck when it crossed the blue line. When the puck crossed the blue line, a player was offside. At that point the play is either immediately blown down for the offside, or it is a delayed offside. Now the rule for an offside does not say anything about touching the puck. So one could argue that because the puck carrier had possession and control of the puck inside the attacking zone while there was an offside player it should have been immediately blown down. - But let's say you don't buy that argument and you say that it's a delayed offside. A delayed offside must meet one of two conditions. The defending team is allowed to bring the puck out, (which clearly is not the case) or, the attacking team is clearing the zone. I'm not sure that a player with possession and control of the puck inside the zone can be logically viewed as "clearing the zone". It's definitely not the spirit of the rule. - But lets say you don't buy that argument either and it is a delayed offside. The rule specifically states that during a delayed offside, if any player attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, the play shall be blown dead. He doesn't have to touch it, just attempt to. In this instance while the delayed offside was in effect, the player was skating towards the puck and his stick was moving towards the puck in an attempt to touch it. That should have blown the play down for the offside.

Amen and if nothing else he was surely attempting to get the puck during the delayed offside before his team mate cleared the zone which should also make it offside

@@benczarnecki9406 wrong

@@weirdchamp4601 oh okay thanks for letting me know

@@weirdchamp4601 how is that wrong? If you try to get the puck, in the zone, during a delayed offside, that is intentional offside, no?

Didn’t they add/implement a rule that your body if still over the line even if your skates are both over it would still be okay? Meaning just because the puck carriers skates were not touching the blue ice but his back/butt was then it’d still count has him not actually entering the zone yet? Even then you still might be right about the fact he would’ve extended the delayed offside even with that rule(?) in mind. !Edit!: I got the rule wrong!! It only effects the skates, the skate still has to be on or above the line, no other body part will do.

Glad it helped!

It was offside.

@@gregprinzen9769 oh fr? we should tell the refs then

Help me make sense of it. Because in the rules it says "attempts to gain possession of a loose puck..." But then the person explaining follows up with "the time at which the player makes contact with the loose puck". Also, when a player is skating into the blue line with the puck wheater he is touching or not touching the puck, isn't that considered "attempting to gain possession" for each scenario?

@@EckHockey Dude, you need to post another video on this. This had nothing to do with the Makar goal because possession or control had nothing to do with this. Whether it was delayed offside or regular offside, it WAS offside because Henrique didn’t touch up. This is the most basic form of offside. ALL players need to clear before ANY players can enter. It’s not even a debate.

But he wasn’t

It was Henrique tagging up

Exactly this.

Additionally, Henrique didn’t even tag up, by the time the puck is touched again, he’s still offside.

@@poejavelski148 doesn't he need to tag up outside of the blueline in a delayed offside situation, or just touch the blue? Either way, looked like the wrong call

You could be correct that in reality the play may have been offsides by an inch or two. However I think the important part is that the call on the ice was on-sides. Meaning there has to be definitive proof in the video review that it was offsides to overturn the ruling on the ice. From the 2 best angles (the blue line cameras, shown in this video at 0:11 and 0:28) you can't clearly see both the relevant skates of Henrique and Fowler at the instant that it would be offsides. Without definitive video evidence to overturn they have to stick with the ruling on the ice.

@@mhedden033 true

They ruled that both players skates were touching the blue line at the same time

I have to agree with you, while the explanation of the rule is brilliant and well done, the player controlling the puck definitely was not touching the blue line with his skates and he is fully in the zone by time the other player touches up.

I was going to comment this. Video offers some clarification but misses this

just FYI onside and offside are not plural words, no need to add an "s" at the end :)

@AureliusR and nobody really cares. Let em call it what they want, it works both ways. It diesnt change anything contextually

it's not something on hockey, but your comment reminded me of a 49ers game where the OL man pushed Nick Bosa on his own QB and Bosa got a roughing the passer... The OL chose to possibly hurt his own QB just to get that flag, which I think it's so stupid and unfair to the opposing team, but yeah, the situation you mentioned reminded me of this.

@@AureliusR I'm so sorry for you to hear that you felt the need to comment that. Hope things get better for you

@@derekfrazer4015 Incorrect. But go off, son.

Edmonton seems to get shafted on many calls

The Makar goal was a bad call and bad interpretation of the rule by the NHL. In my opinion.

@@tchevrier Why's that? Just curious.

@@garretehrick6137 The long answer is as follows. First, an offside is simply defined as a having a player precede the puck into the attacking zone. There is no doubt that this occurred. So at that point the play should have either been blown dead immediately or the linesman should have singled for a delayed offside. The linesman did neither. He signalled the play was onside. That was the first mistake. Secondly, for a play to be considered a delayed offside, which is what the relay room decided (not the linesman) one of 2 conditions must be me. 1) the defending team must be in a position to bring the puck out of the zone without any delay or pressure from the attacking team. This was clearly not the case here. 2) the attacking players are in the process of clearing the zone. Clearly the winger was clearing the zone, but was Makar? By definition Makar was in control and possession of the puck. And while he wasn't in the zone, the puck was clearly in the attacking zone. So is it a legitimate argument to say that Makar didn't need to clear the zone even though he had control and possession of the puck inside the zone? I don't believe so, but lets say that didn't apply to him and we have a delayed offside condition. Third, the rule states that during a delayed offside, if ANY MEMBER of the attacking team attempts to gain possession of a loose puck the play shall be blown dead for the offside. He does not need to touch, he just needs to attempt to get the puck. Clearly Makar was trying to get the puck during the delayed offside. He was skiing towards it, he was reaching for it. That seems pretty clear that he was attempting to get the puck. And if that's the case, then the play should have been blown dead. Now This Ducks/Sharks play was a bad call for yet another reason. During a delayed offside, all players of the attacking team must clear the zone at the same time. This did not happen in this play.

That’s the original intention of the rule, but we’re so far beyond that as to make it irrelevant now. Just look at all the “did he lift his skate or not” calls. If we were talking about intention to gain an illegal advantage, that would never even have been a thing.

They got it wrong though, the play was offside. Not because of when he touched the puck, but because the player with the puck fully crossed the blue line before the offside player tagged up. They were so focused on when he touches the puck and when the other guy tagged up that they missed the fact that the puck carrier entered the zone too early!

@@durrrrl3435 I completely agree with you on that. I think the replay officials were focused on when the puck was touched because of the Makar play, and completely forgot about if everybody was onside simultaneously.

@@tchevrier 👍

@BDH BDH yeah idk about the timer either, just a thought haha

No. NHL rules are correct. Fans just continue to misinterprete them. This rule has been called correctly very consistently and I can show you 5-10 other examples called exactly the same way.

Its not uncommon for there to be weird rules loopholes that even professional players of a sport don't understand correctly. MLB players constantly get a few rules, like the runner's interference/the 1st base running lane wrong, much to their protest. That rule is decades old, and players still screw it up several times a season and don't understand why.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

@@SJKid39I agree and I’m kind of concerned with how much people commenting actually played hockey here, because the rule makes 10000% sense

@@vog- except it doesnt and it bring issues with other rulings and definitions in the game.

That’s literally the rule. I’m so blown away people are that dumb to not understand it being delayed. It’s exactly the same as a delayed penalty. They shouldn’t change anything. Y’all just need to learn the sport instead of watching highlights all damn day. It’s so damn easy and basic. Anyone who don’t understand it is just dumb. Very dumb. The rule is you can’t cross the line until the puck do. Play just isn’t stopped until your team makes a play on the puck WHILE YOURE OFFSIDE. Meaning if I go offside and my team hasn’t touched the puck since I’ve went offside. I have until my team touches the puck in their zone to get back across the blue line and then come back into the zone onside. It’s so simple. Another easy example. If you miss time a dump n chase , they don’t just call offside right away. You can stop and go back over and come back in while somebody who did time it right goes after it and then they could score and it counts. It isn’t offside because my team didn’t touch the puck in their zone while I was offside. If you still don’t understand than PLEASE do hockey a favour and go watch another sport. Real hockey fans understand this very easily and simply. How tf do you actually expect us to change the rules so you morons can understand such a simple rule

Nobody should of been confused. This is the same thing as the Macar (sorry for the spelling) goal in the playoffs last year.

AMEN 🙌 . This league has no clue what they are doing.

There should be no confusion normally a delayed off side takes place when the puck is dumped in, what confuses people on this play is that at live speed it appears the player carried the puck across the line which in slow motion he didn't.

@@csolivais1979 this IS confusing because for all time hockey its always been you cant cross the blue line before the puck, period....I have refed in many leagues and thats how everyone in the whole of the hockey world understands it....NHL and buttman strike again with their stupid rules...

He wasn’t entirely in the offensive zone. His back foot was still on the blue line

By the time Fowlers skates are fully in the zone, Henrique has tagged to blue line or at the very least it's inconclusive which mean call on the ice stands, good goal.

On this play it was really close between Fowler's skates completely clearing the blue line and Henrique breaking the plane back to the blue line. I think the 2 best camera angles on the blue line both can't see each players relevant skates at the exact moment that Fowler completely crosses the blue line. Which is why even if it is offsides by an inch there isn't good evidence from the 2 best camera angles to definitely say it was offsides and overturn the call on the ice.

There may be an angle somewhere that shows they were both touching the blue line at the same time, but the frame by frame of that high angle shows all three skates in question inside the zone before the initial offside player could tag up. I'm not saying the call made was incorrect as I haven't seen all the angles. I'm just offering my opinion based on the video I saw.

@@mhedden033 That's fair. The review needs to be conclusive for a call to be overturned. That said, the way this rule is framed seems pretty confusing. Like I get it's not really, as Eck has clearly explained it, but I think it contradicts itself. Just make the rules simple to understand and without much room for interpretation and that doesn't ruin the integrity of the game. NHL needs an overhaul on some of their rules anyway, since they are consistently inconsistent.

Good game, yes. I’m a Ranger fan and the Devils needed that win more than we did.

Hope it’s a playoff matchup this year

@@DM-bb8uzit’s the ducks and the sharks bro

@@viper8421they’re talking about rangers and devils

@@tw1nn319 ohh ok

It’s “new” because the NHL made it up last year…

Because this video is blatantly wrong.

When they decided to use replay :)

Never had changed this had been the rule for a long long time

I've been watching hockey for fifty years and this has always been the rule.

@@howie9751 sorry Howie your not the only old timer here, it’s been over 60 years for me. Off side has had changes, there was a time when there was no such thing as clearing the zone during a delayed offside, and other small changes over the years. goggle NHL rule changes through the years, examples>1986-87Delayed off-side is no longer in effect once the players of the offending team have cleared the opponents' defensive zone.< >2020-21A player's skate will not have to be in contact with the blue line in order to be considered on-side.

@@Holeysocks464 I wasn't counting the player's skate rule as it was minor. but you appear to be right about clearing the zone. I always thought that was the rule, never thought it wasn't. Thanks for the info.

If Fowler had fully crossed before henrique had tagged up then this play would be offside. To me its extremely close but I think Henrique does Tag up in time.

@@SJKid39Pause at 1:42. Not a chance he tagged up. All this analysis when he was still offside even after trying to tag up 😂

That's what I thought too, but they ruled that there was no conclusive evidence that Fowler fully crossed the blue line before Henrique had tagged up and after slowing the footage down to .25 speed, I kinda have to agree that it was incredibly close - too close to overturn the call on the ice.

@@poejavelski148 I'm not 100% convinced. It's very close but I'd rule call on the ice stands because not conclusive.

Attempts to gain possesion of a loose puck applies to players in the offensive zone who are attempting to chase after a loose puck or the defending zone player who has the puck. The purpose of that part of the rule was to prevent players who actively need to Tag up from interfering with the play. In this context it doesn't apply to Fowler. This play is onside.

The puck wasn't loose - that's the key. The attacking player clearly possessed it - hence it was not loose. But, he had yet to *touch* the puck with his stick in the offensive zone.

You genuinely can't reach some people lmao.

@@EckHockey That's a bit unfair. I don't think the rulebook includes a clear definition of "loose puck," at least in this context, which opens the door for its other uses (eg a puck that is not frozen by the goalie). This of course, allows for all sorts of fun interpretations thanks to the definitions of "control" and "possession," especially if you get creative about what it means to "attempt to gain possession." The offside rule gets muddier and muddier the more you read it, but no one seems interested in doing a real analysis on its shortcomings. To your credit, though, you've gone deep enough to explain why this call went the way it did.

The problem is the wording itself. In this scenario there is no player attempting to gain possession of a loose puck because there is no loose puck or any attempt to gain possession. The player is maintaining possession without contact and there is no mention of this in the delayed offsides rule. Note the main part of offsides includes the word control alongside possession but the delayed offsides scenario doesn't use this word for any of its statements

No the player with the puck still had his back foot on the blue line

@@thefirstechlon5522 Not in every angle I can see. By the time Henrique gets his foot back the puck carrier is fully in the zone. 0:28 is hard to tell because we can't see Henriques feet but we can see his knee and there is plenty of white in between his knee and the blue line. 1:13 is probably the best look but, we can only see a tiny bit of the puck carrier's feet (Which the part we can see is clearly in the O-zone) but, based on where he is I would pretty confidently bet on his entire foot being in the O-zone already. And if you go by the TV angle at 1:38 that pretty much definitively tells you the puck carrier is in before the tag up.

@@cmac3530 Unless the skates in question are on the ice you can only use the blue line cameras to determine if they are onsides because at the TV camera angle lifting the skate or moving it forward look the same in relation to the blue line from an off angle. I think because the 2 blue line cameras are both unable to clearly see both relevant skates at exactly the instant that Fowler is entering the zone there wasn't enough evidence to definitely overturn the call on the ice. So, in reality it may have been an inch or 2 offsides but when reviewing the play there needs to be definitive proof to overturn the call on the ice, which there isn't from the 2 relevant angles.

​@@mhedden033 I can totally see them using that argument but, I don't know to me, not a fan of either team, based on the totality of all the angles together, this looks pretty clearly offside to me. I mean the angle at 1:13 we can't see the puck carrier's full skate but his ass is completely over the line when the offside player tags up and in other angles we can clearly see his ass is behind is skates. But, I also don't think someone can definitively say that the puck carrier definitely had his feet in contact with the blue when the player tagged up because that's just not what we're seeing here.

@@cmac3530 I think the reality here comes down to the exact skate positioning which, as Triple mentioned, is hard to determine from our angles due to parallax error. The league has the blue line cameras, but the on-ice call was onside, so they need *definitive evidence* that the play was offside, and probably just don't have a camera angle that definitively shows it.

Help me make sense of it. Because in the rules it says "attempts to gain possession of a loose puck..." But then the person explaining follows up with "the time at which the player makes contact with the loose puck". Also, when a player is skating into the blue line with the puck wheater he is touching or not touching the puck, isn't that considered "attempting to gain possession" for each scenario?

Was coyotes v. tampa.

That's really the simplest explanation. If he doesn't touch the puck, the ref can't call offside. By the time he did touch the puck, all other players were already back, even if barely, so it wasn't offside anymore.

Sure, sure, except the NHL just arbitrarily decided to re-interpret the rule WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE THEY WERE GOING TO DO THAT. Two years ago every single one of these plays was offside, 30 second review, no goal.

"they have to touch the puck for the play to be blown dead" - But that is wrong. It's right there in the rule that was displayed in the video. The puck does not need to be touched for the play to be blown dead. There are 4 conditions and only 1 requires touching the puck

But how far away from the puck would the player entering the zone have to be? If he “dumped” the puck a few inches infront of him would that be ok and not be considered possession? I think this way is better because it’s black and white, did he touch the puck or not. There’s no judgement call needed.

No. The spirit of the rule is to prevent cherrypicking. Giving players an extra half to quarter second to get out of the zone when they're already in it does not violate the spirit of the rule.

@@euhobgoblin how could the rule be against cherry picking? Offsides is a binary variable. It's true or false. You either are or are not offsides so I'm not sure what you mean by cherrypicking. There are not supposed to be asterisk's or qualifiers on that status. Again, either you ARE or you ARE NOT offsides. That's the intention behind the rule. Clarifying those qualifying conditions to render the status of the play. The entire text in this section of the rule book is providing context into the true or false status of whether someone is off or onside. The only element of cherry picking was introduced when we started allowing video review for plays and that's when this minutia about these individual situations started becoming more prevalent...

@@andreb2019 huh? By "cherry picking" i mean when a player sits behind the D in the offensive zone waiting for a pass. The point of offsides is to prevent that.

@@euhobgoblin That's what I originally said. Off-sides is to prevent any attacking player from being in the offensive zone before the puck, or a player on their team with possession of the puck enters the zone.

yes, the NHL did offer an explanation and the ruling was that there was no conclusive evidence that Fowler was offside before Henrique first tagged up. I first thought "WTF, are you blind????" but when you slow down the video to .25 speed, it's a lot closer than it initially looked. I'm still leaning towards Fowler being off-side, but not sure enough that I would overturn the call on the ice.

@@maximilianmaier3950 Thank you, I had not seen their explanation. That ruling is the only explanation that really makes sense. I agree that it was likely offsides by an inch or two but from both blue line angles the two relevant skates you need to clearly point to being offsides are blocked by McTavish or outside the frame of view.

@@mhedden033 I initially thought it was clearly offside and only by literally watching it frame by frame I realised how close it actually was.

Except it wasn't the correct call because the puck carrier was fully over the blue line before his teammate touched up, thus extending the delayed offsides. He should've been called offsides.

No. Because makar didnt cross the line until his teammate got back onside. In this situation the player carrying the puck in crossed before his teammate got back onside. This should have been offside i have no idea how they messed this up. If the guy got back to the line before the puck carrier crossed with both skates then i agree its onside. Thats not what happened here.

@@eYeCeD7 Makar had the puck roll off his stick while his teammate was offside, then touched it when he came onside but was obviously unintentional. Same scenario here which is totally fine, it's not like the player who barely got onside had a huge impact on the goal.

@@Red790 what makes it different is both avs players touched up onside. Here it doesnt appear they did. Maybe they are claiming they did in the game though.

Why? The delayed offside cuts down on whistles and helps attacking play.

@@csolivais1979 people really advocating for hockey to be littered with offside just because they can't understand the delayed offside rule which has been in the game for a long time now lol.

Seriously the worst take I've ever heard. Clearly you've never played a game with instant offside, it's the most obnoxious rule ever to be implemented to the game of hockey. Just whistles every 2 minutes. Think about how many times this happens in a hockey game: The defending team chips the puck out of the zone and the offending team re-gains possession in the neutral zone before their players are able to fully exit the zone. Immediate whistle upon touching the puck.... Or he can wait til his teammates clear the zone basically giving the defending team possession of the puck. There is a reason delayed offside exists and it's not to just confuse people...

no ty small brain

That was the old rule. The new rule it doesn’t matter if the player is in the zone. It matters the moment “the player touches the puck in the zone”. If you zoom in on the video, the moment his stick made contact with puck inside the zone, the offside guy went and touched blue line.

No, because the player was in possession of the puck, thus not trying to gain possession of it. Also, it was considered a "loose puck" because he had just received the pass, so he wasn't fully in control of it. Plus, he didn't touch the puck before the other attacker "nullified" the offside. So, technically, all 3 offensive points were ok. Both defensive-oriented points were respected too, as they had nothing to do with a defensive player. I'm French Canadian and I can understand the rule, even though I haven't watched any Hockey in the last 15 years or so and I never played it. Also, I BELIEVE (but don't quote me on this) that there was a rule if the attacking player trying to exit the zone gets interfered with by a defensive player (for example, a crosscheck or something like this), that it "nullified" the offside, but I don't know if it still applies nowadays.

@Justin Street yes but the guy touching the puck has both feet in the zone before the other one clears putting himself offside

@@mickahelcote that is not how delayed offside works. This is the same thing as the Macar (sorry for the spelling) goal in last year's playoffs.

@@mickahelcote He wasn't in control of the puck though. He just received the pass, he tried to gain control of it by reorienting it towards himself, but he didn't have control of the puck, so he was trying to gain possession of it.

100% agree

Except it's not under their discretion, it's still black and white, clear cut. Did the player touch the puck while a teammate was behind the leading edge? Offsides. Otherwise, nope.

both were onside and cut and dry. do you not understand the rule?

Do you mind elaborating? It’s possible I’m not understanding something, however this seems fairly cut and dry, if a bit strange

It's literally the rule book, precedent isn't needed to decide it properly.

Its being called as they intend but that doesn't make it clearly written. I know its written to be concise, they clearly are trying not to repeat words unless necessary but since they've created somewhat complex possible scenarios to properly read the rule book you have to read some lines skip others and bounce around the pertinent section till you've got the exact wordage you need for the specific play at hand. Biggest thing people I think are not thinking about is that regardless of what we see or think we see, the officials have to be 100% about overturning. Anything short of undisputed is enough to maintain the call on the ice though

He just received the puck, so he wasn't in full control of it, my guess (from someone who hasn't watched hockey in 15 years and isn't a fan of either teams, so not biased)

I think you missed the part of the video where he got his skate before before the other guy touched the puck. It wasn’t even the best camera angle, they have access to tons more angles than that too. Easy call, IF you know the rule and know what you are looking for. He explained very clearly that the McDaniel incident is different because it’s not delayed offside. You might want to get off your high horse and watch the video again, maybe on .5 speed would help?

@@derekstanyer I think you can't read or comprehend my comment at all

@@PunkR0ckz09 He has possession. The rule states if a player is attacking during a delayed offside they are offside. Case closed

@@timchumichuck306 He was trying to gain possession of the puck, you can't say he had possession of it because he simply touched it after his teammate made him a pass. If he would've juggled even once with it, then he would've had possession, he didn't. That's like a football player touching the football in the air and saying he had possession of it before it is fully in his hand(s)...

If you want to talk about the spirit of the rule, then the NHL completely blew the call without any question. The spirit of the rule is that attacking players are not permitted to enter the zone before the puck. And if they do, they must relinquish the puck and reset themselves by getting back onside before continuing play. That's the spirit of the rule.

@@tchevrier they got back onside before touching the puck in the zone, that is the tag up offside rule. No spirit involved really. As it was intended. As stated earlier, the only argument is possession or attempted, as opposed to touching the puck. That is not meant for full solo possession like this, in this case touching the puck matters, because no opposition players were messed with or effected. Fans think that possession matters because of that other part of the rule, it does not matter. That is for completely different occasions when an offside player disrupts opposition play, or attempts to possess the puck. Even shielding the puck from a defender in this case if he had. That would be against the spirit of the rule, has nothing to do with this play, and is the cause of confusion on experts and fans here. But he was left alone and everyone was onside when he touched the puck.

That doesnt make any sense then you can hammer the puck in a go after it near the bords, just as long as thoose who were inside when you hammered it bother to leave before you tuch it. Is that really what´s intended?

@@pegasisilver6249 it does NOT make sense, but that's the only way I could rationalize it based on the evidence of that goal. My initial reaction was that it was getting overturned without question, clearly the puck carrier was not physically onside at the point Henrique finally got back to the line. It looked like he touched the puck before Henrique even got back. It's a baffling call that doesn't make sense and if it is indeed legal according to the rules, it's something that I think needs to be changed.

I don't see what's confusing about the wording. It's pretty obvious that having possession of the puck and attempting to gain possession of a loose puck are not the same thing. otherwise the whole part about touching the puck would be completely redundant.

The player you think is "attempting to gain control over the puck" isn't. He already has possession.

My question as well. I suppose that's one of the many aspects of the rulebook that are left to ref's discretion.

Attempts to gain possesion of a loose puck applies to players in the offensive zone who are attempting to chase after a loose puck or the defending zone player who has the puck. The purpose of that part of the rule was to prevent players who actively need to Tag up from interfering with the play. In this context that part of the rule isn't meant to be applied to Fowler.

The interprrtation here is that he's not "attempting to gain possession" because he already has possession. This situation screams loophole to me and the wording of the rule needs to be changed imo to better reflect the generally understood intent behind the rule.