Intentional Offsides

[justlivin]

Has there been a change in intentional off sides this year? Over the course of the year I have only seen this called 2 times and I watch over 75 youth games. I have asked several officials about this both before and during games and have not ever gotten a response other than no.

[muckandgrind]

Has there been a change in intentional off sides this year? Over the course of the year I have only seen this called 2 times and I watch over 75 youth games. I have asked several officials about this both before and during games and have not ever gotten a response other than no.

I think this is one of the toughest rules to apply in youth hockey because it is so subjective on the official's part. "Intent" on the player's part is key, but different officals can judge, or perceive, intent differently.

[inthestands]

No changes to the rule.

M&G is correct. This is one of the most difficult rules to call consistantly. If the officials make one call intentional, many times the opposing team will question the next few against them as well.

Especially for the younger officials, doing the lower age games, it's easier to not utilize the intentional offside ruling.

Although all rules are subjective to what people see, this one is impossible to call in a similar fashion over the course of a game and or season.

[RLStars]

Has there been a change in intentional off sides this year? Over the course of the year I have only seen this called 2 times and I watch over 75 youth games. I have asked several officials about this both before and during games and have not ever gotten a response other than no.

From the casebook, situation manual:

Situation 31
Team A has possession and control of the puck in their
Attacking Zone. During the play, the puck leaves the zone. A
Team A defenseman gains control of the puck just a few feet
outside of his attacking blue line. He looks and notices that
some of his teammates are still in the Attacking Zone and a
Team B player is converging in on him. Without any chance of
making a legal play, he passes the puck directly to a
teammate. Is this infraction considered to be intentional offsides?

Yes. Rule Reference 626(e) Note.
In this instance the attacking player deliberately shot the puck
to secure an immediate stoppage of play.

Situation 32
Team A has possession and control of the puck in their
Attacking Zone. During the play, the puck leaves the zone. A
Team A defenseman gains control of the puck just a few feet
outside of his attacking blue line. He looks and notices that
some of his teammates are still in the Attacking Zone and a
Team B player converging in on him. Without any chance of
making a legal play, he shoots the puck directly on goal. Is this
infraction considered to be intentional off-sides?

Yes. Rule Reference 626(e) Note.
In this instance the attacking player deliberately shot the puck
to secure an immediate stoppage of play.

Situation 33
Are there general off-side situations to help decide regular vs.
intentional off-sides?

Yes. Rule Reference 626(e).
Judge the intent of the attacking team. The onus is on that
team to create a legal play at the blue line. If it appears that
the team has knowingly gone off-side, an intentional off-side is
warranted. Otherwise, a regular off-side is the proper call.
A play where attacking players are barely across the blue line
going into the Attacking Zone, or within a stride of clearing
the Attacking Zone as the puck is crossing the blue line into
the zone would be examples of regular off-side situations
(timing issues). If an attacking player is bumped off-side, that
would be a regular off-side.

[inthestands]

Thanks RL for the rules clarification.

When you spread that explanation over the groups from squirts to bantams, and then incorporate officials ranging in age from 13 to 75 you can see the difficulty created.

This is one of those rules that seems impossible to call correctly and consistantly. Just my opinion.