EP40 Charging Penalty

[Avsfan1921]

Jump I guess u can say isn't as egregious, but it's jumping back into the player.

I slowed it to .5 and don’t think he left his feet prior to the contact. Looks clean to me in a charging context but if he did leave his feet beforehand it was minuscule and certainly not as clear cut as the petterson one as far as leaving his feet. I think this is still considered interference but I love it.

 

[rea]

I wasted too much time, it’s not worth it…

I’m almost home so at least it made my travel day go quicker.

Fwiw I will actually agree there is no jump on this one though

I think I was just using it as a showcase of how I deem jump into. There's one where you can see the point is to initiate contact, whereas the other feels like it's trying to avoid the hit. Also yea, none of this stuff riles me up, it does seem to affect others though. Haha

 

[Bizzare]

I think I was just using it as a showcase of how I deem jump into. There's one where you can see the point is to initiate contact, whereas the other feels like it's trying to avoid the hit. Also yea, none of this stuff riles me up, it does seem to affect others though. Haha

I’ll just wait for someone to show me another similar play where the player in Petey’s “situation” gets penalized.

 

[rea]

How's about this one?

 

[BB79]

Neutral-no penalty there

He's defending himself from an incoming check. The only negative I have is he left his feet. It's the playoffs, let them play. I say no penalty if I'm the ref.

 

[Avsfan1921]

How's about this one?

His right foot is clearly still planted on contact to me

 

[bambamcam4ever]

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"

Petersson is traveling in a perpendicular direction to Foegele when he jumps, in what world is that "into"?

 

[rea]

His right foot is clearly still planted on contact to me

Iono. Think the spraying ice and the terrible quality hide the fact hahaha. There was a diff angle on another one but yea it's all good. It's fine if that's what the ruling is, so long as going forward, any instances of the same actions also get called. Also, gl in OT

 

[Avsfan1921]

Iono. Think the spraying ice and the terrible quality hide the fact hahaha. There was a diff angle on another one but yea it's all good. It's fine if that's what the ruling is, so long as going forward, any instances of the same actions also get called. Also, gl in OT

Thanks, I don’t even know if I like the call on a personal level, I can just see why it was called! It’s funny to debate though as I don’t think I’ve ever seen something like this play in over 20 years of watching. And that’s why I don’t like the argument of “find where it’s ever been a penalty”. I can’t think of a play like this called or not.

 

[rea]

Thanks, I don’t even know if I like the call on a personal level, I can just see why it was called! It’s funny to debate though as I don’t think I’ve ever seen something like this play in over 20 years of watching. And that’s why I don’t like the argument of “find where it’s ever been a penalty”. I can’t think of a play like this called or not.

Same, this is why there should be a consensus and decisive answer from the league going forward, as it has to apply to all the situations that are similar. A more definitive wording in the rules would probably help too lol

 

[theVladiator]

I am leaning towards no penalty here.

Trying to interpret the text of the rulebook is not the way to go IMO, because if the game were to be called by the letter of the rulebook, there would be 100 penalties in a game. Ideally one would need to take a look at the calls in situations similar to this one. Problem is, I simply do not remember seeing this kind of thing before. So, I am left with looking at the purpose of the charging rule. In my view, it aims to curb excessively violent hits, and this one just seems rather tame.

 

[zar]

Technically, a charging penalty.

That being said, I can see why Canucks fans are upset about it. Can’t say I’ve ever seen this type of reverse hit before, and therefore never seen a penalty called for such a play. If the roles were reversed, I would have been pissed if an Oiler were penalized in that scenario.

It was a big call in a big game.

 

[Bizzare]

Technically, a charging penalty.

That being said, I can see why Canucks fans are upset about it. Can’t say I’ve ever seen this type of reverse hit before, and therefore never seen a penalty called for such a play. If the roles were reversed, I would have been pissed if an Oiler were penalized in that scenario.

It was a big call in a big game.

Where is the distance travelled though…

Only one who travelled any distance was Foegele.

 

[zar]

"...as a result of distance traveled..."

Why are so many people ignoring the second paragraph?

I see where you are going with that and definitely could AND SHOULD be interpreted that the hitter has travelled the distance but it could be interpreted that the hittee has travelled the distance.

Personally, I would lean more to them enforcing it the way you are reading the rule but it can be interpreted differently.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I am leaning towards no penalty here.

Trying to interpret the text of the rulebook is not the way to go IMO, because if the game were to be called by the letter of the rulebook, there would be 100 penalties in a game. Ideally one would need to take a look at the calls in situations similar to this one. Problem is, I simply do not remember seeing this kind of thing before. So, I am left with looking at the purpose of the charging rule. In my view, it aims to curb excessively violent hits, and this one just seems rather tame.

Good post, some people are too caught up in the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the rules

 

[Bizzare]

I see where you are going with that and definitely could AND SHOULD be interpreted that the hitter has travelled the distance but it could be interpreted that the hittee has travelled the distance.

Personally, I would lean more to them enforcing it the way you are reading the rule but it can be interpreted differently.

You can’t be serious now… come on.

Can’t believe how many times Raffi Torres got shafted, penalized and suspended for charging twice when the other player should have been called.

 

[zar]

You can’t be serious now… come on.

Can’t believe how many times Raffi Torres got shafted, penalized and suspended for charging twice when the other player should have been called.

I didn’t say I agree with it and did say a couple times that I would rather that play not be called a penalty but it can be interpreted that way with the way it’s written and that’s likely why it was worded in such a manner.

If it was to be that only the hitter has travelled the distance then the 2nd paragraph likely would have been written…

Charging shall mean the actions of a player, who has travelled a distance, to violently check an opponent in any manner. A charge may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

[Bizzare]

I didn’t say I agree with it and did say a couple times that I would rather that play not be called a penalty but it can be interpreted that way with the way it’s written and that’s likely why it was worded in such a manner.

If it was to be that only the hitter has travelled the distance then the 2nd paragraph likely would have been written…

Charging shall mean the actions of a player, who has travelled a distance, to violently check an opponent in any manner. A charge may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

If you want to get technical about the rule book… do I have a tripping scenario for you

Honestly it’s clear how it’s written in the rule book it implies the player being penalized is the hitter who travelled distance

 

[rea]

This reminds me of when I played minor hockey, and I got a game misconduct for hitting a guy at center ice from behind cuz he slipped and twirled his back to me lol. I dunno what the rules are nowadays, but in the 90s in Saskatchewan, that rule was made to protect kids from going headfirst into the boards, but I guess by word of the rule it was deemed a major for me and I get sent to the showers .

 

[MessierII]

That many people don’t know the rules?

 

[zar]

If you want to get technical about the rule book… do I have a tripping scenario for you

Honestly it’s clear how it’s written in the rule book it implies the player being penalized is the hitter who travelled distance

I guess we can agree to disagree with how the rule can be interpreted.

For the record, I voted that this should not have been a penalty because in the spirit of the rule and watching the play, I don’t feel that Pettersson was necessarily “jumping into” Foegele and I think the rule was written to protect an unsuspecting player from being hit in such a manner and not a player who was attempting to make a hit and got the worst of the contact. I think it was a good hit.

 

[Bizzare]

I guess we can agree to disagree with how the rule can be interpreted.

For the record, I voted that this should not have been a penalty because in the spirit of the rule and watching the play, I don’t feel that Pettersson was necessarily “jumping into” Foegele and I think the rule was written to protect an unsuspecting player from being hit in such a manner and not a player who was attempting to make a hit and got the worst of the contact. I think it was a good hit.

Humour me if I drop my stick and 10 seconds later you trip on it. Could that he considered tripping with how the rule is written?

 

[zar]

Humour me if I drop my stick and 10 seconds later you trip on it. Could that he considered tripping with how the rule is written?

If the stick is not in your hands, it’s not your stick anymore. No penalty.

Based on the way it’s written, the player did not “place their stick” to get penalized.

 

[Bizzare]

If the stick is not in your hands, it’s not your stick anymore. No penalty.

Not true, because If you pick up another players stick on the other team and use it… it’s a penalty (or at least no goal … ) just ask Bobby Ryan.

Edit: goal actually stood, misremembered… shouldn’t have though. Letang is an example of a player who has been penalized for playing with an opponents stick.

 

[zar]

Not true, because If you pick up another players stick on the other team and use it… it’s a penalty (or at least no goal … ) just ask Bobby Ryan.

I was just busting balls there.

The player didn’t” place their stick in a manner to trip the player”, so no penalty.