Might have saved a goal there after Corey got nailed in the head.

 

Yep. Didn't even let Tere get a SOG.

I can't believe they overturned that. I sure didn't see enough to say he was offsides for sure.

I can't believe they overturned that. I sure didn't see enough to say he was offsides for sure.

 

I am a hockey novice, what is the exact rule for it to be considered offsides?

I am a hockey novice, what is the exact rule for it to be considered offsides?

 

Two Skates in the zone ahead of the puck being fully past the blue line.

If they leave this stand, St Louis is going to lose their minds. What a sequence.

That should be good.

Two Skates in the zone ahead of the puck being fully past the blue line.

 

1 skate was over the line so offsides?

Frustration not interference.

1 skate was over the line so offsides?

 

You can have one in, you can't have two in. One in is OK.

Wow, this is crazy.

 

Side note: This DJ is killing it with his choice of replay /challenge songs.

No, the debate was he had both skates in the offensive zone before the puck crossed the blue line. But by less than a split second. So close.

 

lol I apologize: So a skate on the line is or is not considered over? Because if not I'm not sure how it was offsides.

Right, because that's basically a "neutral zone" right on the line. If he kept one tippy toe on the line and then the puck crossed, he'd be fine. But with both skates in and not on the blun line, with the puck just crossing the line, it's off-sides.

 

I was wondering about it myself being unclear on the rule. He lifted his leg and it appeared to me that if you were looking straight on at the blue line, he could technically be onside because of the appearance of his leg still being above the blue line. Because of this I thought it would not be overturned.

 

Clearly, the rule is different. If you lift your leg, even though it may look onside to the naked eye, you are judged to be fully in the zone. Quenneville may have challenged it anyway, but I give a ton of credit to Matt Meachem for actually noticing this with such little time available to notice such things. Meachem saved the day, in my opinion.

Right, because that's basically a "neutral zone" right on the line. If he kept one tippy toe on the line and then the puck crossed, he'd be fine. But with both skates in and not on the blun line, with the puck just crossing the line, it's off-sides.

 

I'm not sure if I will ever understand hockey rules lol. It look like his skate was over the blue line but I assume since it was in the air and not on the ice he was considered off-sides

I'm not sure if I will ever understand hockey rules lol. It look like his skate was over the blue line but I assume since it was in the air and not on the ice he was considered off-sides

 

Any part of your skate as to be IN CONTACT with any part of the blueline or behind it. The reason he was offsides was because his trail skate came off the ice (therefore no longer in contact with the ice ON or BEHIND the blue line) before the entire puck crossed over all parts of the blue line.

 

At least that's how I've always understood the rule. I'm sure some website will publish that section of the rulebook soon enough, but if my interpretation is correct, the call is actually quite obvious when you see that VERY last replay they showed after the reversal had been made. All prior angles made it hard to tell if his skate was off the ice or not.

Edited April 16, 20169 yr by Chilihead90

And that's how you steal one on the road. Legit stole it.

 

Yup. In the end, the call was right, his toe was off the ice, but yeah, I'd be f***ing pissed if I were a Blues fan. It's gotta feel like deja vu for them, even though it's only tied 1-1. Kind of like a Cubs fan usually feels in the playoffs.

Any part of your skate as to be IN CONTACT with any part of the blueline or behind it. The reason he was offsides was because his trail skate came off the ice (therefore no longer in contact with the ice ON or BEHIND the blue line) before the entire puck crossed over all parts of the blue line.

 

At least that's how I've always understood the rule. I'm sure some website will publish that section of the rulebook soon enough, but if my interpretation is correct, the call is actually quite obvious when you see that VERY last replay they showed after the reversal had been made. All prior angles made it hard to tell if his skate was off the ice or not.

 

That makes more sense. I am sure a lot of Blues fans won't understand that

That makes more sense. I am sure a lot of Blues fans won't understand that

A very small percentage will. as soon as you lift that back skate off the ice you are in the offensive zone. That's his bad for not dragging it.

Every time St Louis tries to get under the Hawks skin, it completely backfires on them

Every time St Louis tries to get under the Hawks skin, it completely backfires on them

Look at their reaction on Shaws goal. Like frustrated children.

A very small percentage will. as soon as you lift that back skate off the ice you are in the offensive zone. That's his bad for not dragging it.

 

I live in STL and I am seeing a lot of "refs screwed us" posts on social media

I live in STL and I am seeing a lot of "refs screwed us" posts on social media

Sorry

https://twitter.com/mkmolnar/status/721510237233131521

 

That's a good goal?

Chicago fans would be doing the same thing if it were the other way around.

 

Also, I'm sorry for you living in St. Louis.

 

I'd be pissed if I had both of those calls go against my team too.

https://twitter.com/mkmolnar/status/721510237233131521

 

That's a good goal?

 

It was definitely over the line. Does it change anything when the goalie intentionally knocks the net off? I don't know.

It was definitely over the line. Does it change anything when the goalie intentionally knocks the net off? I don't know.

The ruling was Roussell didn't specifically kick the puck and the pegs were still down when the puck crossed the line. Really weird stuff. Dallas doesn't look good tonight.