Not time to worry. Time to ask questions? Absolutely. It's ALWAYS time to do that.
- John Jaeckel

Not a fan of Hartman Kero Kane. Good kids that are solid NHLers but that is a lot for Kane to carry.

I just don't know what "off side" is any more....
- tompo1015

Apparently, neither do the officials.

From the 2017-2018 Official NHL Rule Book
Rule 83.1 (page 134 of the 229 page PDF):

"If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue."

Apparently, it was determined by the morons wearing stripes that Seabrook carried or passed the puck into his zone.

Wonder what the NHL definition of "carry" is? Apparently nothing more than it touching you. Thought "carry" meant you HAD TO HAVE CONTROL of the puck, not have it bounce off you.

(frank)tards.

Not a fan of Hartman Kero Kane. Good kids that are solid NHLers but that is a lot for Kane to carry.
- bhawks2241

Kane didn't have too much zest last night.

I kept asking myself if he misses Nick Schmaltz THAT much.

If it's speed that he needs, should have got Hinostroza up to slide from RFD and on his line. I have a feeling he would have looked better on their vs. those quick teams than AA and Hartman.

Also, will Q have the luxury of keeping Saad-Toews-Panik together with this lack of depth or will they have to split them up to help with the balance?

Just set yourself up for dissapointment when a play goes into review. Saves time on cleaning up and fixing another drink.

Tired, overworked, achy back, took a asses over elbows wipe on the ice while coaching last weekend. Otherwise OK.

Do you live in EDM? Been there several times in a past life. Used to overnight in Nisku on my way up to Yellowknife . . .
- John Jaeckel

Nisku is right next to my house (5 minutes down the road).

yeah its called this league has no clue what offsides is...neither the coaches, players or refs
- bogiedoc

it wasn't considered offsides because the puck entered the zone off of Seabrooks skate after Zucker had crossed the blue line into the offensive zone.

I thought the Kane line picked up their game once Wingels (and then Kero) joined and they played with a bit more skating speed. It wasn't long after that they scored (the 1-1 goal). I don't know if moving AA meant Q deployed them differently, but Hartman also got his butt going a lot better later in the game, compared to the early part.

Last night could have went so much better and 5-2 wasn't an indication of the play. The Hawks were oh so close often, but Minnesota has that knack for making the extra effort. Cross ice pass to Saad, knocked out of the air. Toews with a chance in the slot (which he held onto too long) and diving dman gets a stick to partially block. AA hits both damn posts...

That offside call was the turning point and the team imploded and took the loss, but that was a game that could have been 5-2 Chicago if the bounces went the other way.

it wasn't considered offsides because the puck entered the zone off of Seabrooks skate after Zucker had crossed the blue line into the offensive zone.
- MnGump

But technically it should have been ruled that ONLY if the puck (and players) started in the offensive zone, and Seabrook brought it out AND back in. Since the puck and players started in the neutral zone, it didn't matter if Seabs brought it back in. That is the part the officials got wrong.

But technically it should have been ruled that ONLY if the puck (and players) started in the offensive zone, and Seabrook brought it out AND back in. Since the puck and players started in the neutral zone, it didn't matter if Seabs brought it back in. That is the part the officials got wrong.
- powerenforcer

I was looking at the rule book and didn't see that detail... basically just says offisides unless defensive team brings puck back into their own zone.

I was looking at the rule book and didn't see that detail... basically just says offisides unless defensive team brings puck back into their own zone.
- MnGump

It literally says "legally carries or passes" - a carry and pass on offside has always meant the player is in possession / control of the puck. That's where the issue comes from because no one can claim Seabrook has any control during that situation.

https://windycitychronicl...ckhawks-fall-to-wild-5-2/

I thought the Kane line picked up their game once Wingels (and then Kero) joined and they played with a bit more skating speed. It wasn't long after that they scored (the 1-1 goal). I don't know if moving AA meant Q deployed them differently, but Hartman also got his butt going a lot better later in the game, compared to the early part.

Last night could have went so much better and 5-2 wasn't an indication of the play. The Hawks were oh so close often, but Minnesota has that knack for making the extra effort. Cross ice pass to Saad, knocked out of the air. Toews with a chance in the slot (which he held onto too long) and diving dman gets a stick to partially block. AA hits both damn posts...

That offside call was the turning point and the team imploded and took the loss, but that was a game that could have been 5-2 Chicago if the bounces went the other way.
- breadbag

I think this is what we often forget about Panarin. He played 90+ % of games both seasons and these injuries to Schmaltz are worrisome. Looks like Line 2 may begin to be a revolving door. Anisimov has looked sluggish up to this point. Hartman will be a nice player, but not the player that will create a shot or take the load off Kane without Kane's help.

But....this is why they play 82 and not 20 or 50 games. Tomorrow night will tell us a bit more about the make up of this roster. The pizza's on D have to stop being made however....

I was looking at the rule book and didn't see that detail... basically just says offisides unless defensive team brings puck back into their own zone.
- MnGump

You were looking at the official "NHL Rulebook for the Minnesota Wild". Look at 83.2. Plain as day.

And, based on what you wrote, "unless defensive team brings puck "BACK" into their own zone. The puck was never in the zone to begin with. What is so hard to understand about that.

Not time to worry. Time to ask questions? Absolutely. It's ALWAYS time to do that.
- John Jaeckel

Time for sarcasm? Yes, there's always time for sarcasm!!!

It literally says "legally carries or passes" - a carry and pass on offside has always meant the player is in possession / control of the puck. That's where the issue comes from because no one can claim Seabrook has any control during that situation.
- L_B_R

Well it seems a bit of a grey area. What exactly does "Legally carries or passes" mean? Clearly he didn't "pass" it, but I mean he did possess the puck when he lost it and it went off his skate into the zone, correct? Could that be construed as "legally carries"? Not sure. He was the last one to possess and touch the puck, so whatever that's worth.

I think this is what we often forget about Panarin. He played 90+ % of games both seasons and these injuries to Schmaltz are worrisome. Looks like Line 2 may begin to be a revolving door. Anisimov has looked sluggish up to this point. Hartman will be a nice player, but not the player that will create a shot or take the load off Kane without Kane's help.

But....this is why they play 82 and not 20 or 50 games. Tomorrow night will tell us a bit more about the make up of this roster. The pizza's on D have to stop being made however....
- nickmo2699

I wonder if AA still has any lingering affects from that late season leg injury. He has never been a quick player but he has some speed when he gets going. I'm no expert, but to me, he looks like he is not skating his full speed so far.

Time for sarcasm? Yes, there's always time for sarcasm!!!
- DarthKane

I have been waiting for you to crank it up a notch!

Well it seems a bit of a grey area. What exactly does "Legally carries or passes" mean? Clearly he didn't "pass" it, but I mean he did possess the puck when he lost it and it went off his skate into the zone, correct? Could that be construed as "legally carries"? Not sure.
- MnGump

The term "carries" implies that you have possession of the puck. The league botched the call. At the end of the day, Seabrook screwed up on the play and the Wild pretty much deserved the goal, but that extra penalty on a wrong call was a slap in the face.

Kane didn't have too much zest last night.

I kept asking myself if he misses Nick Schmaltz THAT much.

If it's speed that he needs, should have got Hinostroza up to slide from RFD and on his line. I have a feeling he would have looked better on their vs. those quick teams than AA and Hartman.

Also, will Q have the luxury of keeping Saad-Toews-Panik together with this lack of depth or will they have to split them up to help with the balance?
- TyCamScore

Wonder if he isn't very happy with his linemates. I think he needs someone with speed or someone who can also hold the puck and make plays on his line. Hartman nor Kero nor Anisimov can really do that consistently.

Hard for him to get into a rhythm if his line loses the puck 5 sec after entering the zone.

Time for sarcasm? Yes, there's always time for sarcasm!!!
- DarthKane

But then you'll be too tired to (frank) cows... or something

Are we still certain it will be Hartman playing with 8 and 88 when 8 returns to the lineup?

The term "carries" implies that you have possession of the puck. The league botched the call. At the end of the day, Seabrook screwed up on the play and the Wild pretty much deserved the goal, but that extra penalty on a wrong call was a slap in the face.
- breadbag

Not disagreeing in the least. League should iron out that wording though by maybe including something along the lines of "puck must be in possession of defensive player in order for offsides to be nullified"... or cannot simply carom off a defensive player...

Well it seems a bit of a grey area. What exactly does "Legally carries or passes" mean? Clearly he didn't "pass" it, but I mean he did possess the puck when he lost it and it went off his skate into the zone, correct? Could that be construed as "legally carries"? Not sure. He was the last one to possess and touch the puck, so whatever that's worth.
- MnGump

Did he ever even possess the puck? Last one to touch makes zero sense. Carries or Passes is pretty clear.

Two most applicable definitions of carry: "to get possession or control of" and
"to transfer from one place to another." If anyone thinks Seabrook did either of those than you haven't had enough coffee this morning. There is not really room for interpretation in that rule. For the NHL to read ambiguity into it is a complete joke and demonstrates their complete lack of professionalism and their in ability to run a professional sports league.

Well it seems a bit of a grey area. What exactly does "Legally carries or passes" mean? Clearly he didn't "pass" it, but I mean he did possess the puck when he lost it and it went off his skate into the zone, correct? Could that be construed as "legally carries"? Not sure. He was the last one to possess and touch the puck, so whatever that's worth.
- MnGump

Whenever they're deciding on a normal onside/offside, they determine if the attacking player has control of the puck as they cross the line, correct? Why would it be any different here?

I track micro stats like carry-ins. Do you know what the number one rule is? That it only counts as a carry-in if the player has control of the puck. That's just hockey 101. There is no grey area when it comes to a carry because to have possession the player has to have control.

3-1-1. Team has some issues, (who doesn't) but looks solid. Are we a playoff team, sure. Clearly we aren't the power house we used to be, but this team is still very good. Last nights game just needs to be deleted from memory. Move on.