Toggle sidebar

EP40 Charging Penalty

Charging or no?

  • Canuck Fan - No penalty should have been called

    Votes: 62 24.9%

  • Canuck Fan - Charging penalty is correct

    Votes: 3 1.2%

  • Oiler Fan - No Penalty should have been called

    Votes: 6 2.4%

  • Oiler Fan - Charging penalty is correct

    Votes: 16 6.4%

  • Neutral - No Penalty should have been called

    Votes: 75 30.1%

  • Neutral - Charging penalty is correc

    Votes: 66 26.5%

  • Petey didn’t deserve a charging penalty but he did deserve a different penalty

    Votes: 21 8.4%
  • Total voters
    249
The only argument that it isn’t that can be made is the “jumps into” argument of the rule. Posted below is the rule for reference.

I argue that jumping up to hit a player is indeed jumping into.

-he initiated reverse hit
-he left the ice well prior to contact

Therefore it is a charging penalty by definition

IMG_0555.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: JoeMc, HockeyWooot, FiveFourteenSixOne and 12 others
Avsfan1921 said:
The only argument that it isn’t than can be made is the “jumps into” argument of the rule. Posted below is the rule for reference.

I argue that jumping up to hit a player is indeed jumping into.

-he initiated reverse hit
-he left ice contact prior to contact

Therefore it is a penalty

View attachment 872479
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer, just because “he didn’t initiate contact” doesn’t mean he didn’t jump into him and it is legal.

Are we really good to set the precedent that you can jump a foot in the air to take a hit lol
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: FiveFourteenSixOne, The Nuge, Just Linda and 6 others
Avsfan1921 said:
The only argument that it isn’t that can be made is the “jumps into” argument of the rule. Posted below is the rule for reference.

I argue that jumping up to hit a player is indeed jumping into.

-he initiated reverse hit
-he left ice contact prior to contact

Therefore it is a penalty

View attachment 872485
Click to expand...
To me this reads you have to skate and jump into someone, or charge the opponent.

Otherwise any hit where a player skates is a charge…

Avsfan1921 said:
You keep saying this. You have yet to show a similar situation.
Click to expand...
Give me the criteria you want to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever and bdub24
Bizzare said:
To me this reads you have to skate and jump into someone, or charge the opponent.

Otherwise any hit where a player skates is a charge…


Give me the criteria you want to see.
Click to expand...
To the first part, “jumps into in any manner” in this context is why I believe it’s a charge by definition.

To the bolded, a hit that was initiated where a player leaves their feet intentionally before contact. And yes I know there’ll be some out there where the call is missed, it’s still a charge. And likely not the same circumstance (reverse hit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just Linda
Avsfan1921 said:
To the first part, “jumps into in any manner” in this context is why I believe it’s a charge by definition.

To the bolded, a hit that was initiated where a player leaves their feet intentionally before contact. And yes I know there’ll be some out there where the call is missed, it’s still a charge.
Click to expand...
So the problem is you think EP40 initiated the hit, and I don’t… Foegele initiated the contact. EP40 owns the ice he is in.

Then at the end you say you won’t even accept it if I find a similar situation, so what the hell is the point?

You going to find another one where it was called for every instance I locate? This is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast and bambamcam4ever
Play it at live speeds guys.

Pettersson literally plays the puck a second before....
 
Bizzare said:
So the problem is you think EP40 initiated the hit, and I don’t… Foegele initiated the contact. EP40 owns the ice he is in.

Then at the end you say you won’t even accept it if I find a similar situation, so what the hell is the point?

You going to find another one where it was called for every instance I locate? This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON ATTEMTING A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Nuge, Norwegianoiler and Slurpeelover27
Avsfan1921 said:
Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?
Click to expand...

Technically no one's feet is touching the ice anyways.
 
Avsfan1921 said:
The only argument that it isn’t that can be made is the “jumps into” argument of the rule. Posted below is the rule for reference.

I argue that jumping up to hit a player is indeed jumping into.

-he initiated reverse hit
-he left the ice well prior to contact

Therefore it is a charging penalty by definition

View attachment 872485
Click to expand...
He jumped straight up, not into the guy.

And how many charging penalties should be called per playoff game if "skating into" another player is charging?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ace of Hades
Avsfan1921 said:
Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON ATTEMTING A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?
Click to expand...
So then a hit where a defender jumps along the boards before being hit meets your criteria no?

Yes.. he is safer when jumping … you’re not arguing that are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever
Avsfan1921 said:
Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?
Click to expand...
Maybe I’ve missed it as I haven’t followed the other thread. Does anyone have any examples of jumping on a reverse hit being called a charging penalty?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever
bambamcam4ever said:
He jumped straight up, not into the guy.

And how many charging penalties should be called per playoff game if "skating into" another player is charging?
Click to expand...
It certainly isn’t a normal circumstance, reverse hits usually have more movement towards the player no doubt so there’s not a lot of precedent. But he knew he was going to get hit and decided to jump up and hit him instead. There’s no other reason to jump here. He’s not trying to get out of the way.
 
RobsonStreet said:
Maybe I’ve missed it as I haven’t followed the other thread. Does anyone have any examples of jumping on a reverse hit being called a charging penalty?
Click to expand...
No, because I imagine it's never been called.

People need to step back and realize that the NHL rules are vague for a reason, to give officials the leeway to call whatever they want.

But if you do step back and think about the English language just a bit, the charging rule probably has something to do with a player charging at another. When a player jumps into a hit while "charging" at another player (see: Tom Wilson) it is a penalty.

Likewise, in basketball, a "charge" (technically a player control foul) is when a player moves into the spot than a defender has established. You cannot be called for a "charge" for jumping straight up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVDV
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom