- Jul 22, 2005
Wtf was that.
I think they need to scale back reviews to where it was 5 years ago. Only goal/no-goal, and for that they should get the technology that soccer uses.
Goalie interference is too much of a subjective call. They’ll never be able to come up with a black and white definition of GI, so it will always been a crap shoot.
Offsides is just a total mess. There is no corrective mechanism if an onside play is blown dead for offside. Secondly, they run into the problem where the offside entry occurs and a goal isn’t scored on the initial rush but instead 20, 30 or more seconds after the offside. Finally, should we really be concerned that a skate was a millimeter off the ice or inside the blue line on a rush that produces a goal? I say no. The linesman are pretty good, especially given the speed of the game, at getting the obvious ones. We don’t need to be taking goals away when you have to go to super slow mo and blow up frames and zoom in to figure out if a play was offfsode.
I'm not sure having a clear goal nullified qualifies as help or entitles Pete DeBoer to any griping at all. I wouldn't get rid of the blue lines but I'd impose a time structure on the basis of reviewing an offsides after a goal. If X amount of time elapses after zone entry, or defending team possesses the puck once, there's no basis to review the call at the blue line.The refereeing was absolutely terrible going both ways. The Bruins probably got some help but it’s the type of thing that evens out over the course of a season usually. I don’t blame DeBoer for being pissed though.
The solution to fixing offsides is to get rid of the blue lines.