If you’re a true NHL fanatic, you’ve seen it far too often. Even casual hockey observers know the pain: the endless wait for an NHL Situation Room review of a potential blueline offside that could erase a goal in an instant.
Almost every time, the review drags on—like the infamous 2016 Sharks–Blue Jackets incident that took eight full minutes—while officials analyze angle after angle to decide whether a skate blade crossed the blue line a fraction of a second too soon or whether a three-inch puck barely stayed in contact with it.
Perhaps it’s time to impose a firm time limit on such reviews. If, after 60 seconds, the video evidence cannot conclusively overturn the on-ice call, then the original decision should stand.
But while thinking about these endless blue-line offside reviews, it has occurred to us more than once: who actually cares about offsides? Is there a way to eliminate them?
Obviously, no one wants a game full of long-bomb passes from deep in the defensive zone into the offensive end—that would turn hockey into a tennis match. But that can easily be prevented by reintroducing the old centre-ice red line rule (abolished in 2005), which prohibited a player from receiving a pass that crossed both their own blue line and the centre red line.
Once the puck crosses the red line, though, why not let players enter the offensive zone ahead of it? In a sport begging for more goals and creativity, allowing attackers to precede the puck could spark imaginative tic-tac-toe plays, unpredictable scrambles, and highlight-reel chaos. That sounds far more exciting than watching two motionless teams while a group of analysts in a distant control room debate a play that often has zero impact on the goal.
When the two-line pass rule was abolished, the goal was to improve flow and reduce the neutral zone trap. Twenty years later, nervous-Nellie coaches still cling to their defensive systems. So much for that idea. If speeding up play in the neutral zone made sense, shouldn’t the same logic apply to the offensive zone—where the real action happens?
Why eliminate one offside restriction to boost flow, yet cling to another that slows it down?
It makes no sense. Testing HockeySpy.ca’s proposal in minor pro leagues or NHL preseason games would quickly determine whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
After all, eight extra minutes of offensive excitement surely beat eight minutes of waiting while NHL staffers, hidden away in an office building, review the play as if they’re analyzing grainy moon-landing footage. Admittedly, our suggested rule change won’t bring an end to reviews—it will only change what’s being reviewed, as the two-line pass will now be under scrutiny. But pairing it with our suggested 60-second time limit would go a long way toward reducing fan frustration.
Eliminating the blue-line offside makes sense.
Larger, more successful sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball have all adopted radical changes in recent years to further improve their products. Hockey shouldn’t be afraid to experiment with innovation that makes the game faster, fairer, and more entertaining.
But then again, this is the NHL. Change in this league moves slower than a Zamboni in reverse.
It won’t happen.
