[hockey216]

watch the tape. that's unbelievable.

[avssakic]

looked like it when it happened live but hard to tell for sure

[mike-dub]

watch the tape again. kesler's foot was still on the blue line. he has to be completely across the blue for it to be offside. it was a very close call though.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWMdMgRvGLQ

[DennisGreen]

I thought it was offside too originally but clearly his skate is on the line when the puck crosses. Very close but he's onside.

[Viperpiper]

His foots on the line..... Open your eyes

[a4u2fear]

yea, onsides, OBVIOUS

[stig99]

no controversy

goal was good .....

[pepper60000]

dude, it looks onside but so hard to tell...and your complaining about the call....seriously...Ive never played hockey seriously but I know sports and I know how hard calls like this are split second....

[DwightShrute]

at the 1:00 mark of the video it clearly shows the linesman got the call right!

[bigsmitty]

Good goal. Very heads up hockey play to drag the line.

[dbnmln]

Vn by 2 goals in game 2...even though I'm rooting for the B's

[Jones10]

Close but no cigar, it was a good goal.

[richcrazy]

def agree, seemed like it was for sure...rigged

[MoneyM1ke]

Good call by the linesman

[FindTheLock]

I am just happy the bruins lost that game. Hopefully there will be more scoring in game 2.

[Cicima6709]

good call by ref...not offsides. Let the boys decide it, not a rule that didnt effect the play

[muldoon]

How can there even be any debate. Replay clearly shows it was close but Kesler dragged his foot.

[Pivotpoint]

Tough call to make live. I had to watch it a couple times in slo mo to verify he was onsides. Originally thought back skate was off the ice, but you could see the snow coming from the ice as he dragged his skate. I had the Bruins big at +170. That was tough loss with 18 seconds left. Was looking forward to OT. Nothing better than OT in Hockey or MMA with a live dog.

[hockey216]

yup i just watched it again and i agree. definitely looked offsides when i first saw it though. was close. Thanks for the clarification!

[hockey216]

actually i recant my apology. i just freeze-framed a snapshot of the goal. clearly offsides. his skate was in the zone before the puck. look at this picture. immediately after this, puck enters zone. close call, but was definitely offsides.

[hockey216]

again with zones marked in case you got it backwards.

[hockey216]

here's another. this might show it even more clearly

[hockey216]

here's another. blue line slightly blurry because in fast motion, so i circled where the puck is. it's on the blue line and the vancouver skater clearly offsides.

[DwightShrute]

actually i recant my apology. i just freeze-framed a snapshot of the goal. clearly offsides. his skate was in the zone before the puck. look at this picture. immediately after this, puck enters zone. close call, but was definitely offsides.

first of all ....no such term as offsides. It would be like saying ... and it s a Touchdowns!

secondly, those pictures only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was onside and the play was good. If you can't see it then you need glasses.

Please look up the definition of offside. "In ice hockey, the current play is offside if a player on the attacking team enters the attacking zone before the puck itself enters the zone, either carried by a teammate or sent into the attacking zone by an attacking player.

There are two determining factors in an offside violation:

1. Attacking players' skate position: One of a player's skates is not in contact with or behind the blue line of the attacking zone before the puck enters that zone.
2. Puck position: The puck must completely cross the edge of the blue line nearest the attacking zone to be considered inside the attacking zone for the purposes of offsides.

[hockey216]

no such term as offsides. It would be like saying Touchdowns.

and that picture proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was onside

onside? do you not see his skate in offensive zone before puck crosses line? maybe you have offside rule confused. it doesnt matter if puck is on line. puck has to be ENTIRELY across the line and ENTIRELY in the offensive zone before a player's skate can ENTIRELY cross line and ENTIRELY be in zone.

His skate was in zone before puck crossed the line and was entirely in zone.

Either you don't know the offside rule, or you need glasses.

[DwightShrute]

here's another. this might show it even more clearly

this one is the best shot with proves he was onside

[hockey216]

and the burden of proof in nhl is not beyond reasonable doubt. if refs had to be 95% sure of everything before they blew the whistle, there would be no penalties and no whistles all game. And thank you for putting the definition. I see the puck on the line while the vancouver guy's skate is in the zone... do you not see this? his skate is entirely in the zone before the puck enters the offensive zone. how is this even debatable? it proves it 100% not just beyond reasonable doubt lol.


not trying to argue. trying to be respectful here. just really disappointed bruins played so well in game 1 and lost because of an offside call that wasnt made.

[hockey216]

vancouver guys skate clearly enters the zone before the puck does. puck is on the line when his skate crosses it. that is offsides, according to the definition you provided.

[DwightShrute]

vancouver guys skate clearly enters the zone before the puck does. puck is on the line when his skate crosses it. that is offsides, according to the definition you provided.

I am not trying to argue either. I know hockey and the rules. you dont understand the rule.

The Vancouver guys skate can legally enter the zone before the puck. But not both skates. Some part of him has to be touching the line at the minimum for it to be onside.

if he drags his last skate along the blue line and even a tiny bit of his skate is touching the line as soon as the puck completely cross the line, he is onside. There is no argument what so ever. You have just confirmed it with those pics.

[DwightShrute]

This shows it the best. The puck just fully crossed the line .... he still had his left skate on the ice and NOT fully across the line.

[beermankirk]

%$*%$*$*$%

[D3 Mighty Ducks]

This shows it the best. The puck just fully crossed the line .... he still had his left skate on the ice and NOT fully across the line

Judging by the picture its safe to say the Canucks got VERY lucky that Kesler was able to stay onside by a millimeter. Very fluky if you ask me but it was a good goal.

[DwightShrute]

Judging by the picture its safe to say the Canucks got VERY lucky that Kesler was able to stay onside by a millimeter. Very fluky if you ask me but it was a good goal.

looks at least 75 millimeters but I get the point.

[DennisGreen]

WTF is with people pluralizing offside and onside? (adding an S to you uneducated folks) No S on it you fcuks!

[D3 Mighty Ducks]

looks at least 75 millimeters but I get the point.

Even less than 7.5 centimeters. More like 2-3 centimeters tops. Once again, it was very lucky! But to win you need luck on your side..