Crosby and Kyle Connor fight after reverse hit

[elmaco]

So much juice left in Crosby but he knows he's never tasting the cup again. As a rival fan, I love he's going to be a Penguin forever, but kinda sad he's fading away on a team that ran out of gas.

Who knows, maybe he'll waive if things get too awful.

 

[ZJuice]

This is not a reverse hit.
Literally my first penalty ever in contact hockey was by doing this, I got called for interference

 

[Grifter3511]

Yeah Sid pick a fight with the guy who was voted to be the most civil and gentlemanly player in the league. The guy who gets like 4 penalty minutes per season. And you didn't even win the fight. The sequence was: get dumped on your ass by a clean play by a soft player because you weren't paying attention, throw hissy fit, get ass kicked.

I don't thing those words mean what you think they mean.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

This is not a reverse hit.
Literally my first penalty ever in contact hockey was by doing this, I got called for interference

This is a common play in hockey, two guys going in for a loose puck, someone bumps the other, and it is commonly referred to as a 'Reverse Hit'. Whether it's interference depends on a other factors, how far away was the puck, did the hitter change course, how forceful was bump etc. This is pretty borderline and mild, I'm leaning toward no interference.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Glad Sid lost his balance he would have smoked KFC

Crosby got punched in the face and went down. The next player who gets "smoked" by Crosby will be the first.

Puck is right there. If this is interference, then there are many interference calls per game that aren't being called.

 

[qc14]

Sid starting a fight over a clean hit, can't say I'm not surprised

 

[Coffey]

if Crosby goes to Colorado with Mack, the spazzing/60 will reach astronomical levels.

 

[ijuka]

Yeah, that's interference, not reverse hitting. Reverse hitting is, as the name suggests, done against hits.

 

[Romang67]

Moving in the same direction and block.
There's nothing there saying you can stop and hit someone.

That's a player skating and slowly down, thus slowing down the opposing player

Everyone knows you can't hit a player who doesn't have the puck that's 100% interference.

NHL let's it go because they let other shit go and sometimes it causes a nice little scrum, or something.

You're making assumptions that aren't supported by the rulebook. Again, the interference rule is saying you have the right to your ice. It additionally says this:

A player is always entitled to use his body position to
lengthen an opponent’s path to the puck, provided
his stick is not utilized (to make himself “bigger” and
therefore considerably lengthening the distance his
opponent must travel to get where he is going); his
free hand is not used and he does not take
advantage of his body position to deliver an
otherwise illegal check.

That section of the interference rule is specifically saying that you can't take advantage of your body position to "deliver an otherwise illegal check." There is no reason to have the word "illegal" in the rule if you aren't allowed to deliver a check.

You can deliver a check to protect the ice you're on. Because you have ultimate right to that ice (again, unless you're setting a pick).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it really does seem like you're allowed to the ice at your own feet at virtually any time, even if you're doing things that are unexpected and perhaps even go against the flow of the game.

It seems like he's trying to set up and read for a bounce but even if he were just refusing to play the puck out of some kind of general protest or outstandingly poor strategy he's still allowed to be there. You'd have to prove that the act of him stopping involves intentionally interfering with the player coming in behind him which seems like a tough ask to call a penalty there, even if you can infer that he should know somebody is coming.

players who are irresponsible with this "currency" won't last long in the league but the spirit of this seems to protect players' rights and subsequent safety in 50/50 battles and insulate against bad actors cutting corners to draw penalties. Ultimately this is a physical sport and nobody should be dissuaded from literally standing their ground, whether that contact is expected or not.

Yep. I don't think people generally actually read the rules they talk about. The only time a player doesn't have the ultimate right to the space they occupy is in when they're in the opponent's crease.

 

[JetsFan815]

I am a firm believer that these "reverse hits" should be interference penalties no matter what, not just his hit but every single "reverse hit". Dangerous and blindsiding.

 

[Bradely]

Me think Sidney is getting old! Lol....

I am a firm believer that these "reverse hits" should be interference penalties no matter what, not just his hit but every single "reverse hit". Dangerous and blindsiding.

Florida 19 would be sitting all game

 

[HTFN]

I am a firm believer that these "reverse hits" should be interference penalties no matter what, not just his hit but every single "reverse hit". Dangerous and blindsiding.

The alternative is a lot more people going into the boards. It’s a reaction to counter pressure and this game 100% allows pressure in those zones, variations of staying sturdy like this is literally how they make it to the NHL in the first place.

The only reason it’s “blindsiding” is because the conventions of the game allow the hitter to expect to throw contact and not really pay for it, and stopping short sucks that momentum away. Crosby’s not protecting himself, he expected some weak contact and got popped for going through the motions. That’s much better than the other way around.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Always enjoy the Crosby tantrums.

 

[ijuka]

That section of the interference rule is specifically saying that you can't take advantage of your body position to "deliver an otherwise illegal check." There is no reason to have the word "illegal" in the rule if you aren't allowed to deliver a check.

Why did you leave out the part before the one you quoted? Namely:

A player may “block” the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction.

Is the reason you didn't quote this because it hurts your narrative? I wonder what "moving in the same direction" means?

This clearly is referring to cases where one player is ahead of the other while heading to the puck. That's very different from one player stopping and reversing to hit against the player behind him. At that point, they're no longer moving in the same direction.

I wonder what your excuse is to not quote this part.

 

[Antropovsky]

Sorry, Sid, you're on your own. Were you expecting help from your "team"?

Not on a Dubas team!

 

[Romang67]

Why did you leave out the part before the one you quoted? Namely:


Is the reason you didn't quote this because it hurts your narrative? I wonder what "moving in the same direction" means?

This clearly is referring to cases where one player is ahead of the other while heading to the puck. That's very different from one player stopping and reversing to hit against the player behind him. At that point, they're no longer moving in the same direction.

I wonder what your excuse is to not quote this part.

Because I was specifically talking about the only part of the interference rule that refers to delivering a check? Which specifies that a check is allowed if it's not illegal? In the part you quoted where I was talking about delivering a check? In the post where I was responding to a person who claimed that laying a hit on a player who doesn't have possession of the puck is interference?

I dunno, I thought it was evident why I highlighted the part about laying a check.

Your claim is that stopping to deliver a check is interference. If you stop, in a way that does not move you laterally and does not constitute a pick (which would require you to not have "body position"), you have right to the ice you ocuppy, as per the second paragraph of the "body position" section of the interference rule.

What gives you the idea that you no longer has right to the ice you occupy because you stop in front of a player? It's written verbatim in the rulebook that you have right to the ice you occupy if you aren't setting a pick, which you can only do if you do not have "body position" to begin with. If you are skating in front of a player, moving in the same direction as he does, you can't set a pick as you already have body position.

To really lay it out for you, so you don't come up with more theories about why I posted the parts I posted:

1. A player who lays a reverse hit is moving toward the puck, just as the chasing player is. Thus, he has "body position" as specified in rule 56.1.

2. A player has right to the ice he occupies, which means he can stop skating and still have "body position".

3. There are two examples of checking a player where that would be deemed interference.

3a. Taking advantage of his body position to deliver an "otherwise illegal check" (this one is particular makes it pretty obvious that you're allowed to take advantage of your body position to deliver a legal check).

3b. When a player lays a pick (which you can only do if you don't have body position, as per the pick section of rule 56.1).

What a weird question. "In the post where you show how you're allowed to check a player player without the puck if you have body position, you don't post the part about how you establish body position. Are you trying to hide something?" No, I'm assuming we're talking about a player with body position because otherwise it's textbook interference. In future posts, would you like me to specify that I'm talking about the NHL rulebook and not the NBA rulebook?