EP40 Charging Penalty
- Thread starter Bizzare
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
He's likely going for a bump with his chest and shoulders square to EP the entire way to finish his check. EP turns his back to him and he leans backwards while bracing for impact, his right skate comes off the ice because he's trying to avoid major contact rather than dish it and he gets toppled over.
Sometimes you’re the hammer, sometimes you’re the nail.
EP40 did nothing wrong, but Foegele 100% took the worst of it.
BLNY
Registered User
Like I said, his instincts are to turn his body and protect himself in anticipation of the oncoming contact, I just don't like that he jumped.
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 2,409
- 2,867
I don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to a tripping post. I will look back to see if I can find what you are talking about there.
In regards to the fundamental disagreement on who hit who, I am asking you to justify why you think he is merely hust staying in his space. Break down how jumping in the air alone changes the amount of potential danger. If he’s hit in a planted area, yes, but that wasn’t going to be the case. So he sees the player coming, turns his back and jumps, why? In your words he’s not defending the ice, he’s merely staying in his space… after turning his back to a known player bearing down on him, and jumping in the air to maintain his space.
Edit: we’ve had so many back and forths today that I truly don’t know the Tripping thing you are referring to. If it’s the Mcdavid thing, I could care less to “defend” it because it has no bearing on this, I’ve never commented on it and don’t care about what else has happened in this series. To ask me to “defend” something I have not engaged with you about is odd. If you want my opinion, yes he sold it, but that’s neither here nor there on this topic.
If he’s along the boards and jumps sideways where Foegele hits his shoulder … do you care?
Herr you go, phone is going to die because this shit plane has no charger. Don’t miss me while I’m gone I’ll respond later.
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 2,409
- 2,867
I’ve edited my last post in response to what I think you are referring to in regards to the “trip”. Feel free to correct me if I’ve missed what you are referring to.
I'm not dealing in hypotheticals and I'm not sure I'm even picturing this imaginary scenario properly. If you're saying he does some wildly unsafe jump that leads to himself getting injured, I'd say he's a dumbass. If you're saying he somehow manages to do the 180 turn away from Foegele, jump sideways and only make contact with his shoulder, I'd still say it's a stupid play because he's jumping into contact, increasing the likelihood someone gets injured. There's no reason to jump. At all. Players have to stop turning their back to hits because it's dangerous for them.
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 2,409
- 2,867
It depends, if I think he’s trying to reverse hit and leaves his feet then yes, if he’s clearly jumping to get out of the way, no.
“I’ll leave one for you though @Avsfan1921 since you want to debate weird scenarios. If a player breaks their stick and drops the second half and another player falls over it 30 seconds later.. it’s a tripping penalty right? If you don’t agree you can at least understand why it would be called though right?”
I’ve copied and pasted your question as it wasn’t included in the above for some reason:
Obviously no, it’s not a penalty, nor does this scenario have any bearing on a potential charge. And to the bolded the only scenario I’ve brought up this entire time is the one this poll is made on. You’re the one bringing up different scenarios. I’m discussing if a player leaves his feet in an attempt at body contact, it is a charge in my view.
FissionFire
Registered User
That jump is as clear of a Charging penalty as you’ll see. Doesn’t matter who initiates you can’t jump into a hit/reverse hit.
Kronwall did this a lot and got called more than a few times, like that Havlat hit in the playoffs. Usually they just call it interference but it’s a textbook charge.
Kronwall did this a lot and got called more than a few times, like that Havlat hit in the playoffs. Usually they just call it interference but it’s a textbook charge.
Has no baring at all from what I can see .
Kronwall is not standing still and jumping straight up as another player charges into him .
This situation does not occur all the time like you seem to imply . I follow a lot of hockey every year, watch both SHL and NHL and I can't recall this type of incident .
BTW Just stating that "it is an obvious penalty" or the opposite is not an argument , its just an opinion, show me the exact same situation or someone discussing this exact situation , otherwise it's not very interesting.
I think that well over 90% of all hockey fans seeing this hit, say between 2 teams in the swedish league would be like, "what in the hell is Swedish hockey doing" if they saw this and found out it was a charging penalty.
People can micromanage anything to fit their team's narrative and that doesn't fit the definition of what a charge is.
LOL, it was mostly because just wrote that "BTW Just stating that "it is an obvious penalty" or the opposite is not an argument , its just an opinion, show me the exact same situation or someone discussing this exact situation , otherwise it's not very interesting."@matsqq All these other posts also saying the same thing yet you only laugh at mine.
Anyway you made my day , laughed a lot
If contact is coming at you and you jump, you've jumped into contact. That answers your post where you get hung up on the word "into"LOL, it was mostly because just wrote that "BTW Just stating that "it is an obvious penalty" or the opposite is not an argument , its just an opinion, show me the exact same situation or someone discussing this exact situation , otherwise it's not very interesting."
Well the rule is called CHARGING and if you showed this situation to some random people and then asked : "which of these two players is CHARGING" you guys will probably get an answer you might not like.
Here is a quote from a ref on Reddit
"or perspective: I’m a high level national referee in the Netherlands, where we use the IIHF rulebook. Our rule is written a bit differently but it is, in practical effect, the same as the NHL’s.
We spend a lot of time in training seminars discussing charging. It’s probably the one rule we talk about the most. Because it’s hard to see and you probably need to understand why the rule exists as much as what the words say.
The basic gist is that: a player who travels an excessive distance to deliver a check by definition has such an unfair positional advantage over his target that this is a frequent source of severe, life threatening injury.
Why is that? Well first, vision. The player with the puck has a lot of distractions around them. Even if they’re playing “heads up” hockey, it’s very easy to lose track of any of the 9 other skaters on the ice. An opponent can take advantage of this by coming from far outside the immediate area of play, lining a guy up, and putting him in the hospital. Maybe for the rest of his life.
Second, speed differential. And this one comes into play in this hit. If the player with the puck is trying to make a play, even if they’re playing heads up and see you coming, you have such a tremendous speed differential that they cannot defend themselves at all: because of your speed, vector, and the distance you’re coming from, you have eliminated any ability on their part to use superior skating, flexibility, stick work, etc, to avoid your hit. Watching this hit, it really doesn’t matter what Evans does - he has absolutely zero ability to mitigate Scheifele’s check.
That’s the difference between a legal body check and a charge."
And EP40 is not coming with any speed at all, his opponent does , so all their reasoning about the charging penalty falls completely apart, one might think.
The Kronwall hit on Havlat can be reasoned with in this way, a clear charging, EP40:s "hit" seems not to fit in above at all
"or perspective: I’m a high level national referee in the Netherlands, where we use the IIHF rulebook. Our rule is written a bit differently but it is, in practical effect, the same as the NHL’s.
We spend a lot of time in training seminars discussing charging. It’s probably the one rule we talk about the most. Because it’s hard to see and you probably need to understand why the rule exists as much as what the words say.
The basic gist is that: a player who travels an excessive distance to deliver a check by definition has such an unfair positional advantage over his target that this is a frequent source of severe, life threatening injury.
Why is that? Well first, vision. The player with the puck has a lot of distractions around them. Even if they’re playing “heads up” hockey, it’s very easy to lose track of any of the 9 other skaters on the ice. An opponent can take advantage of this by coming from far outside the immediate area of play, lining a guy up, and putting him in the hospital. Maybe for the rest of his life.
Second, speed differential. And this one comes into play in this hit. If the player with the puck is trying to make a play, even if they’re playing heads up and see you coming, you have such a tremendous speed differential that they cannot defend themselves at all: because of your speed, vector, and the distance you’re coming from, you have eliminated any ability on their part to use superior skating, flexibility, stick work, etc, to avoid your hit. Watching this hit, it really doesn’t matter what Evans does - he has absolutely zero ability to mitigate Scheifele’s check.
That’s the difference between a legal body check and a charge."
And EP40 is not coming with any speed at all, his opponent does , so all their reasoning about the charging penalty falls completely apart, one might think.
The Kronwall hit on Havlat can be reasoned with in this way, a clear charging, EP40:s "hit" seems not to fit in above at all
As I said, I want examples of people being penalized for standing still , jumping straight up as another player comes charging on to them.
THAT would be interesting ...
THAT would be interesting ...
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 2,409
- 2,867
Not sure I’m following your train of thought here. Do you mind explaining how you feel this applies to the petterson incident? The rule very clearly states that you cannot jump into a player under any circumstance. At this point, I think the debatable part of this topic is weather he is intending to body check, or get out of the way/defend his ice.
This is a play that I don’t think any of us have seen an exact instance of before. Not a lot of precedent. If you can find instances of plays like this happening and not being called, we could analyze it further.
The reason we talk about it is because there WAS a penalty
This might have happened a lot of times before but NOT being called and nobody thought it was strange and nobody even lifted their eye brow...
This time there was a penalty and people reacted , even the commentator who probably have seen a lot of hockey reacted ...
It would be interesting to hear if there were any discussion about this afterwards with officials etc .
BTW, I am not here to win an argument, that would be childish, I am genuinely interested in this
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 2,409
- 2,867
I agree it’s interesting, nor am I trying to win any arguments here. Just laying out how I see it as charging.
