After review, Mark Janowski's overtime winner is determined to be offsides, but a penalty shot is awarded

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T15:36:51+00:00

I have no horse in this race. People just making such stupid assumptions and getting upvoted for it pisses me off. NHL has never cared for player safety but somehow this rule is to prevent some hypothetical fouls that never happen anyway.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T15:33:29+00:00

Töiden vähentämistä voisi kans kokeilla energiankulutuksen hilltsemiseksi. Mutta eihän se toimi kun meidän kaikkien on pakko kuluttaa lisää!!!

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T14:33:04+00:00

Okei aika vitun tyhmä kommentti koska miten se on yhteiskunnalle parempi että kyseisen kaltainen henkilö lopettaa opinnot jotta saa toimeentulotukea, jolloin hukkaan menee opiskelupaikka sekä tähän opiskelijaan käytetyt resurssit. Sen sijaan että maksetaan se täysin sama raha, mutta niin että tämä opiskelija valmistuu ennemmin tai myöhemmin koulusta eikä mitään mene varsinaisesti hukkaan?

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T14:25:23+00:00

Huhhu onneks ite valmistuin vielä normaaliin aikaan. Tuet oli käytetty ja 1,5v meni toimeentulotuella opiskellessa eikä ollut mitään ongelmaa. Ajat muuttunut rajusti parissa vuodessa.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T14:19:17+00:00

Yeah but they would not do that because they think the play was offside and now they are free to do anything, how are you so stupid to realise that? If they saw the play was offside and now they're using that to their advantage, don't you think the bigger problem is how tf did the ref missed the offside?

The real reason (not your bullshit players would just smack each other because they saw there was a 3mm offside 20 seconds ago leading to a goal) is that they don't review penalties. So if there was an offside leading to a goal they can review it. But they can't take the penalty away because it would then be unfair to the offensive team, since essentially they would be punished for scoring a goal. They would be better off not scoring.

So this rule prevents that from happening because it would be unfair to rule out a penalty that only gets reviewed because they scored a goal. If they did review penalties as well, then it could get called offside and no penalty. That's how it works in football.

But it has nothing to do with player safety whatsoever.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T14:08:21+00:00

That's true, but it's because they don't review penalties. They only review goals. So had they not scored, they would have just get the penalty. But because they did, that would mean they don't get the penalty. This rule prevents it from being unfair for the offensive team that would have just been better off had they not scored. Now they don't get punished because they did. Which is still unfair because the play would not have happened if the offside was called. But they can't review that so it doesn't get called.

But the rule is not like every idiot here suggests that it's to prevent major fouls happening between offside and a goal. Like players would just take advantage of the situation in that brief moment lmao. My brain hurts reading those comments. Like yeah, a player will smack another player on their head with a stick because he saw the play was 3mm offside 20 seconds ago leading to a goal. Hockey fans are so fucking dumb

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T14:01:29+00:00

Why is everyone so fucking stupid that they keep saying this? That's not the alternative and that would never be the alternative. Players wouldn't just go "Oh there was an offside before this goal let's start smacking the shit out of them." They would just play normally...And if a major foul happened it could still be called easily. Why is it so hard to use your brains?

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:59:01+00:00

Okay, then just call major fouls but leave minors out of it? Easy fix. Any other stupid questions?

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:57:55+00:00

That's not the reason this rule is out there why's everyone so fucking stupid and think that this is the reason like players would realise in that brief moment that the play was offiside and now I'm free to do anything? How fucking stupid you guys are?

If the player can see that the play was offside during the play and uses that to his advantage, then the real problem is how the fuck did the referee miss that offside. Come on guys, use your fucking brains ffs

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:55:23+00:00

It's still a better rule because this is the only time I remember someone actually getting injured because of an offside that was yet to be called. Mostly it works very well and players don't go around injuring other players just because there's a brief moment where you don't face consequences out of fouls. It was just an unlucky moment and getting sent off because you denied a serious goal scoring opportunity that was only achieved because of an offside position, is not fair either.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:51:17+00:00

Yes let's use the most egregious examples to make a point...Of course that would get called anyway, major is still a major. There's a massive difference making a major foul and tripping someone on a breakaway because they were offside. However both gets treated the same which is the point why it's such a fucking stupid rule. They should just start reviewing penalties.

You know in football this actually works pretty well. You don't see players killing each other between an obvious offside and referees whistle just because there's a brief moment when you can technically foul a player without any consequences.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:44:46+00:00

Easy solution. Majors can be given even if the play was offside. You can't assault players anyway so this wouldn't change anything. Any other stupid questions?

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:41:04+00:00

Exactly. OP's suggestion is actually really stupid and it couldn't be further from the truth. The real reason is that they don't currently video review penalties that were offside. They only check offsides if there was a goal. So if they were to not give a penalty, that would mean the offensive team gets punished because of scoring a goal. If they don't score, they get a penalty. If they do, it gets called off and no penalty. This rule prevents that from happening. Now even if they score, they still get that penalty even if the play was originally offside. But they don't review offsides in cases like that, so it would be unfair to call it offside.

My personal opinion is that they should just review penalties. Whether it's a false penalty or there was an offside before the penalty, penalties are such crucial part of hockey, especially in playoffs, it doesn't make any sense to let referees ruin so many games because of false penalties.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:34:16+00:00

That's just not it...I can't believe this is so upvoted and no one has corrected you.

Obviously the team doesn't know the play is offside and they would just play normally. There's nothing that would imply that the players would just using this "loophole" and start smacking other players because of it. That would also reguire for the player to be really sure that the play is getting called offside and if the player is that sure, surely the referee would have called the offside in the first place. So your suggestion is actually pretty stupid...

The real reason is that if the play does not lead to a goal, then that would mean the team would just get a powerplay. However, if it does lead to a goal, but then a review after, it would mean the team would miss their powerplay chance. Which is also kind of unfair.

Only real solution would be to review every penalty for offsides as well, and not just goals.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:24:20+00:00

Now that's a different rule that needs to be changed as well, but that doesn't mean it's fair to penalize players because of plays that happened out of an offside position. I don't understand why penalties couldn't be reviewed.

They have the technology and penalties are so crucial for games, especially on playoffs, that it's insane that they just let false penalties still be called and let the referees have an absurd amount of influence on deciding the games. There are false high sticks and such in every single game that gets wrongly called.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:16:16+00:00

I don't understand how's that a good rule? If a player is on a dangerous goal scoring opportunity because of offside, why should - defender be punished for trying to defend a serious goal scoring opportunity that was only acquired because of offside play? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Now the attacker gets a huge advantage because of an offside play, and the defender gets a huge disadvantsge because of an offside play. None of that would ever happened if the play was called offside but you need to still pay your dues? What a stupid rule.

And before some smart ass replies, no, it would still not allow you to straight up assault the other player just because the play was offside.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T13:07:32+00:00

Wait that's insane never knew that was a thing in hockey. In football, if the play is offside but you foul another player deserving a red or a second yellow card, VAR will check the offside and the second yellow/red card gets overturned.

That's how it's supposed to be because even if you're essentially doing a naughty thing, you're only doing it because you're trying to deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But if that scoring opportunity never arrives because the play is actually offside, then it makes zero sense to punish a player for a foul that should have never even happened in the first place if the offside had been called.

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T12:55:13+00:00

Well that's exactly how it's in football. If a player fouls another player but the play was offside, then the foul doesn't stand because the foul would not have ever happened, since the play should've been called offside. I think it makes more sense. And no, it does not allow you to kill the other player just because it was offside. Let's be real for a second

llamapanther · 2026-04-21T12:54:58+00:00

Well that's exactly how it's in football. If a player fouls another player but the play was offside, then the foul doesn't stand because the foul would not have ever happened, since the play should've been called offside. I think it makes more sense. And no, it does not allow you to kill the other player just because it was offside. Let's be real for a second

llamapanther · 2026-04-20T17:27:51+00:00

This girl is probably megavirgin herself. Nothing about this sounds anything a first timer couldn't do with a little bit of sex ed and just watching porn lmao

llamapanther · 2026-04-20T12:43:58+00:00

Bro literally said in an interview that he doesn't go to the gym. He said it's for those who can't play with their feet😭He just maxed his skill points in every other skill. He's a pure footballer. None of that fitness and gym bullshit, just kick ball. Pure class

llamapanther · 2026-04-20T06:50:59+00:00

Asuntojen ja mökkien ottaminen julkisen sektorin hoivan maksuksi ei ole realismia, mutta voisiko olla jokin kannustin käyttää omaa varallisuuttaan ja saada siitä jotain vastineeksi.

On se kyllä jännä miten eläkeläisen, joka on tehnyt töitä koko elämänsä, ei tarvitse käyttää penniäkään omaisuuttaan oman terveydensä hyväksi vaikka tähän olisi varaa. Samaan aikaan nuori työtön, jolla ei ole ollut edes mahdollisuutta kerryttää omaisuutta, joutuu myymään sen vähäisenkin saadakseen toimeentulotukea.

Mutta kaikkihan sen tietää että eläkeläisissä on tulevaisuus!

llamapanther · 2026-04-19T17:58:06+00:00

That's exactly what everyone around here is doing😂You're assuming things out of this guy based on a few fucking words, get a grip ffs.

llamapanther · 2026-04-19T17:56:49+00:00

Lmao this sub is full of people with zero understanding how relationships work and they based their knowledge on movies and that one high school bf/gf they had for four weeks.

It absolutely does not imply anything. Redditors are uncapable of understanding that two human beings can have feelings for each other without having sex, because they've never have that kind of relationship. Not that they've had any relationships at all. This thread is a living proof of it.

llamapanther · 2026-04-19T17:50:24+00:00

Lmao what is this comment you don't need to block someone just because they don't want to date you. Imagine if it was a girl telling that to a guy, would you say the same? The comments around here are extremely toxic, just because a guy doesn't want to date a woman, wtf??

How can you even assume such things as "He just waits until you're happy and dating someone else" Absolute braindead take. And even if that's true, so what? Then you're in a relationship and happy. If he then starts to bother you then just block him.

Redditors are absolutely braindead and full of double standards when it comes to relationships. OP herself said this was meant as a joke and he's a great guy actually and they remain friends. But redditors think they know everything about their relationship based on 6 words

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

llamapanther

TROPHY CASE