That wacky offside ruling was wrong…explained

The New York Rangers apparently stole a game from the Buffalo Sabres on Friday night when an offside ruling negated a last minute goal.  After the tying goal had been reviewed and ruled legitimate, the Situation Room in Toronto called in and said that they had to review the play for offside.  They then overturned the goal, restored 26 seconds to the game clock and the game went on with the Rangers ahead 2-1.

In what seemed like a bizarre turn, Saturday the NHL released a statement that the offside call that negated the last minute Buffalo goal was wrong. Here’s the statement from NHL Senior Vice President Colin Campbell:

"“The original call on the ice, ‘good goal,’ should have stood because video replay could not definitively determine that the stick of Buffalo player Victor Olofsson touched the puck before Rasmus Dahlin tagged up. In instances when video replay cannot definitively determine a play, League policy is to stay with the original call on the ice.” – Colin Campbell,NHL SVP"

What?  Here’s video of the play in question.

If you are a hockey fan, at first the NHL statement makes absolutely no sense. If you watch the play, Tage Thompson (#72) passes the puck to Victor Olofsson who pushes it across the blue line.  He then touches the puck already inside the offensive zone around the time that Rasmus Dahlin (#26) touches up on the blue line.

Here’s the rule:

Rule83.1 Off-side – Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone. The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

However, a player actually 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 blue line. It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made.

If a player legally carries, passes or plays the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone.”

Under this definition, the play is definitely offside.  But in 2005, the NHL made it possible for players to tag up on a delayed offside. Here’s the wording.

 “The Tag-up Rule” will permit play to continue if offensive players who preceded the puck into the zone return to the blue line and “tag” it.”

It appears that somehow, the league is saying that since Olofsson did not touch the puck inside the zone he didn’t have possession and therefore it was a delayed offside. That meant it would be offside if Olofsson touched the puck before Dahlen tagged up or it would be onside if Dahlen tagged the blue line before Olofsson touched the puck.

Because they couldn’t tell if Olofsson had touched the puck before Dahlin had tagged up on the blue line, it wouldn’t be possible for them to overturn the ruling on the ice that the play was onside.

This is clearly not what the delayed off-side rule was intended for.  The flaw in the tag up rule is it doesn’t define puck possession when it enters the offensive zone.  Just because a player has possession of the puck, but it isn’t on his stick shouldn’t mean that it wasn’t offside.  We get it, but we are confused.

Gerard Gallant had this to say.  “I still think it was the right call. I don’t understand the possession part of it…in my opinion, it’s offside.  When you get that picture of the puck over the line…to me it’s offside.”

After the game he had said that at the time they believed that the goal wouldn’t count and would have challenged it as offside.  Today he admitted that if the ruling had gone against the Rangers based on Campbell’s interpretation, it would have been a tough situation since it would have resulted in an overtime power play for the Sabres in a 2-2 game.

At any rate, the way the Sabres are going, the Rangers would have won in overtime or a shootout anyway.

Marty Biron should get some credit for being one of the first to point out the missed call in the Sabres’ postgame show.  He knows the rules.

Whatever.  They will clarify the rule when it affects the seventh game of the Stanley Cup Final.