I will die on the hill that this was offside. He did not push it off his stick intentionally, he was just carrying the puck in and got lucky. I also guarantee when he retires if someone asked he’ll admit that
Dr_Psycho_809
The thing is , in sure you alllllll know, he didn’t have full control and poked the puck, so it’s one of those , did have have the puck under control ? Not yet ? Then he had time to get off sides and not be called. Yeah it was tricky but we all saw then get screwed in the past.
StupidGenius11
You’d need to change the definition of « having control of the puck », not the offside rule. If the league deemed Makar wasn’t in control of the puck, it doesn’t matter if Nichuskin made it back out of the zone or not.
jutdvnkpoyrsschuu
If that’s the way the NHL defines possession then most of the hits are interference
7 Comments
No. However, it should not be challengeable.
Change rules until edmonton wins…
To what?
I will die on the hill that this was offside. He did not push it off his stick intentionally, he was just carrying the puck in and got lucky. I also guarantee when he retires if someone asked he’ll admit that
The thing is , in sure you alllllll know, he didn’t have full control and poked the puck, so it’s one of those , did have have the puck under control ? Not yet ? Then he had time to get off sides and not be called. Yeah it was tricky but we all saw then get screwed in the past.
You’d need to change the definition of « having control of the puck », not the offside rule. If the league deemed Makar wasn’t in control of the puck, it doesn’t matter if Nichuskin made it back out of the zone or not.
If that’s the way the NHL defines possession then most of the hits are interference