EP40 Charging Penalty

[Fatass]

No, I’ve been over this as well. I see him intentionally trying to reverse hit by turning his back and jumping immediately prior to contact. There is no logical reason for a player to turn their back and jump like that other than reverse hit. IMO.

Players turn from ir duck under contact all the time. They jump up too. Like I said earlier. It’s a call we’ve never seen before and (imo) all the league officials have been instructed so we never see it again. It’s a roughing call; not charging.

 

[bleedgreen]

I thought it was brutal initially but once I saw the replay I get it. He really over exaggerated the jump imo.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Players turn from ir duck under contact all the time. They jump up too. Like I said earlier. It’s a call we’ve never seen before and (imo) all the league officials have been instructed so we never see it again. It’s a roughing call; not charging.

The bolded is exactly what i said in my original post in this thread, the talking point is the “jumping into” and is the subjective part of the hit. You believe he was jumping up to get away from contact, i believe he was trying to reverse hit him. I’ve stated the reasoning I think the jump looks like intentional contact by him. How do you feel jumping straight up is him trying to get away?

 

[Cursed Lemon]

People obsessing over the word "into" are gonna have a really bad time when they start trying to apply the rest of the charging rule literally as well.

"Penalty on #73, two minutes for making a body check 'as a result of distance traveled'."

 

[bambamcam4ever]

People obsessing over the word "into" are gonna have a really bad time when they start trying to apply the rest of the charging rule literally as well.

"Penalty on #73, two minutes for making a body check 'as a result of distance traveled'."

This is a good point, why the spirit of the rule is important.

When you read the entirety of the charging rule, it's clear the intent was not to penalize guys jumping straight up

 

[Cursed Lemon]

This is a good point, why the spirit of the rule is important.

When you read the entirety of the charging rule, it's clear the intent was not to penalize guys jumping straight up

Except here's the problem. I guarantee that no one, not an actual soul, can find an example of a charging call levied against a player (in the NHL anyway) due to throwing a hit "as a result of distance traveled". The spirit of the rule in this regard would imply that it's dangerous to skate full-force halfway across the rink to absolutely obliterate someone but we all know that isn't a call anyone ever makes at the pro level.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of hits called for "charging" that involve jumping, even when the hits are not especially violent.

We can argue all day what the spirit of the rule is, but the precedent of the rule is unambiguous - charging is basically synonymous with jumping.

 

[ItWasJustified]

No. It doesn’t. Foegele is well within his legal right to attempt a hit here. That doesn’t make him fair game to be hit back illegally. It literally does not matter.

Well, that's where our opinions differ then. I don't think Pettersson did anything illegal.

 

[Three On Zero]

No. It doesn’t. Foegele is well within his legal right to attempt a hit here. That doesn’t make him fair game to be hit back illegally. It literally does not matter.

That’s where you are wrong, Pettersson didn’t hit him. Foegele ran into Pettersson

Pettersson was penalized based on bracing for a hit, not throwing a hit

Well, that's where our opinions differ then. I don't think Pettersson did anything illegal.

He braced for a hit with zero lateral movement, hard to justify that as “hitting” Foegele

 

[cc]

I think we've all witnessed players who are about to be hit into the boards who jump up to brace for the hit. Would that mean they would be subject to a charging penalty as well? Absurd call

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Except here's the problem. I guarantee that no one, not an actual soul, can find an example of a charging call levied against a player (in the NHL anyway) due to throwing a hit "as a result of distance traveled". The spirit of the rule in this regard would imply that it's dangerous to skate full-force halfway across the rink to absolutely obliterate someone but we all know that isn't a call anyone ever makes at the pro level.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of hits called for "charging" that involve jumping, even when the hits are not especially violent.

We can argue all day what the spirit of the rule is, but the precedent of the rule is unambiguous - charging is basically synonymous with jumping.

I have seen it called in the NHL before for skating across the rink to deliver a check, but the truth is that based on precedent charging isn't really a penalty at all, as it's called a fraction of a percent of the time at best.

Ovechkin used to skate full speed and jump into his hits and was never called.

 

[cc]

Except here's the problem. I guarantee that no one, not an actual soul, can find an example of a charging call levied against a player (in the NHL anyway) due to throwing a hit "as a result of distance traveled". The spirit of the rule in this regard would imply that it's dangerous to skate full-force halfway across the rink to absolutely obliterate someone but we all know that isn't a call anyone ever makes at the pro level.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of hits called for "charging" that involve jumping, even when the hits are not especially violent.

We can argue all day what the spirit of the rule is, but the precedent of the rule is unambiguous - charging is basically synonymous with jumping.

Untrue
Mark Schefele was penalized and even suspended for charging Jake Evans due to distance traveled resulting in a violent collision.

Rempe alone has had a few charging calls due to distance traveled.

 

[Avsfan1921]

That’s where you are wrong, Pettersson didn’t hit him. Foegele ran into Pettersson

Pettersson was penalized based on bracing for a hit, not throwing a hit


He braced for a hit with zero lateral movement, hard to justify that as “hitting” Foegele

Cool. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. I’ve relayed ad nauseam how I see it as a hit. I’ve asked multiple people multiple times and will now ask you: How does turning your back on a known incoming check and jumping directly upward just before impact act as bracing for impact, minimizing the blow, or any other form of defensive posture in relation to getting hit?

 

[Three On Zero]

Cool. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. I’ve relayed ad nauseam how I see it as a hit. I’ve asked multiple people multiple times and will now ask you: How does turning your back on a known incoming check and jumping directly upward just before impact act as bracing for impact, minimizing the blow, or any other form of defensive posture in relation to getting hit?

How does is constitute a hit? No lateral movement, no motion at all towards a player going for a hit

 

[God]

Except here's the problem. I guarantee that no one, not an actual soul, can find an example of a charging call levied against a player (in the NHL anyway) due to throwing a hit "as a result of distance traveled". The spirit of the rule in this regard would imply that it's dangerous to skate full-force halfway across the rink to absolutely obliterate someone but we all know that isn't a call anyone ever makes at the pro level.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of hits called for "charging" that involve jumping, even when the hits are not especially violent.

We can argue all day what the spirit of the rule is, but the precedent of the rule is unambiguous - charging is basically synonymous with jumping.

What? I can assure you that the rule is written with this specifically in mind because that's what we're taught growing up when hitting starts to get introduced, and charging is synonymous with skating (usually with more than 3 strides as a rule of thumb) to make a hit. Jumping is a secondary consideration.

And like, 99.9% of charging penalties are called as a result of distance travelled. The 0.1% is the Pettersson hit, so it's literally without precedent.

 

[Avsfan1921]

How does is constitute a hit? No lateral movement, no motion at all towards a player going for a hit

I’ve explained how I’ve arrived on this at least six times, the last one probably only a page back if you’d like to review, maybe even on this one. I’ve yet to receive one answer to the question I’ve posed to you and others, if you’d care to answer?

Edit: my reasoning for seeing this as a hit is on both this page and last.

 

[cc]

Cool. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. I’ve relayed ad nauseam how I see it as a hit. I’ve asked multiple people multiple times and will now ask you: How does turning your back on a known incoming check and jumping directly upward just before impact act as bracing for impact, minimizing the blow, or any other form of defensive posture in relation to getting hit?

turning your back avoids contact to the face which is squishier than a helmeted head. Also, if you do get hit from behind, you can extend your arms to protect you from falling.

Jumping reduces the chance of getting toppled over or catching a rut and increase the likelihood of being propelled forward instead. Furthermore, most hits target the upper body. By jumping, you potentially change the point of impact and reduce the chance of experiencing whip-lash

 

[Avsfan1921]

turning your back avoids contact to the face which is squishier than a helmeted head. Also, if you do get hit from behind, you can extend your arms to protect you from falling.

Jumping reduces the chance of getting toppled over or catching a rut and increase the likelihood of being propelled forward instead. Furthermore, most hits target the upper body. By jumping, you potentially change the point of impact and reduce the chance of experiencing whip-lash

Thank you, my counterpoints would be:

you state whiplash but the opposite seems true from a quick google search. Getting hit from behind would cause this occurance more often from hits from behind, not from the front if this is correct.

Avoiding contact to the face sure seems like a stretch as well, how many facial injuries happen due to a body check?

And by jumping, I agree it changes the point of contact, which makes it more dangerous as you have no control on how you land or how your body reacts/contorts after contact.

 

[cc]

View attachment 873033
How much of what you state is your opinion, as your whiplash comment seems quite off from a quick google search. Getting hit from behind would cause this occurance more often from hits from behind, not from the front if this is correct.

Avoiding contact to the face sure seems like a stretch as well, how many facial injuries happen due to a body check?

And by jumping, I agree it changes the point of contact, which makes it more dangerous as you have no control on how you land or how your body reacts/contorts after contact.

Yup. You caught me. I didn't know what a whiplash was really. It sounded good in my head.

High hits contact face and head fairly often from checks. I think this there is enough evidence of this

I disagree that jumping makes it more dangerous unless the hit was very low. You can end up flipping over. Other than that, propelling forward from a hit while jumping doesn't seem all that dangerous to me.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Untrue
Mark Schefele was penalized and even suspended for charging Jake Evans due to distance traveled resulting in a violent collision.

Rempe alone has had a few charging calls due to distance traveled.

Alright fair play, I didn't know the Scheifele penalty was ruled as a charge.

The Rempe example, meanwhile, I'm glad you brought up.



This is not charging. I don't even know what else to say, it's just flat out not a charging penalty. It's boarding if anything, the rule book also has a specific entry for checking from behind.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Yup. You caught me. I didn't know what a whiplash was really. It sounded good in my head.

High hits contact face and head fairly often from checks. I think this there is enough evidence of this

I disagree that jumping makes it more dangerous unless the hit was very low. You can end up flipping over. Other than that, propelling forward from a hit while jumping doesn't seem all that dangerous to me.

I’ll concede that concussions due to high hits are unquestionably more common in your scenario, direct facial injuries such as broken facial bones, nose, etc. though are not common.

As far as jumping being more dangerous on low hits, in my view I would want to jump as getting hit low while planted has potential for major injury to the lower body imo.

At the end of the day, what I’m trying to show ( not necessarily to you as I don’t know your complete view on the topic) is that it’s not as egregious of a call as a lot of Vancouver fans are claiming. Our discussion has been about how we see his thought process in weather he’s avoiding or hitting and if we have to delve to that level, it’s not at all a cut and dry call either way.

 

[cc]

I’ll concede that concussions due to high hits are unquestionably more common in your scenario, direct facial injuries such as broken facial bones, nose, etc. though are not common.

As far as jumping being more dangerous on low hits, in my view I would want to jump as getting hit low while planted has potential for major injury to the lower body imo.

At the end of the day, what I’m trying to show ( not necessarily to you as I don’t know your complete view on the topic) is that it’s not as egregious of a call as a lot of Vancouver fans are claiming. Our discussion has been about how we see his thought process in weather he’s avoiding or hitting and if we have to delve to that level, it’s not at all a cut and dry call either way.

I just find these unicorn calls annoying. I know officiating is inconsistent in the best of the times but if it's literally unprecedented and unlikely to be called again, I think it takes that inconsistency to a new level

 

[bambamcam4ever]

So did McDavid just charge Silovs? @Avsfan1921

 

[Avsfan1921]

So did McDavid just charge Silovs? @Avsfan1921

Maybe, I didn’t see it. Did he?

Edit: I found the instance you are referring to. A case could be made imo but first and foremost goaltender interference. Among other things, it’s easier to say with 100% certainty that it is goaltender interference vs a charge. It should absolutely be a penalty regardless.

 

[Bizzare]

Maybe, I didn’t see it. Did he?

Edit: I found the instance you are referring to. A case could be made imo but first and foremost goaltender interference. Among other things, it’s easier to say with 100% certainty that it is goaltender interference vs a charge. It should absolutely be a penalty regardless.

Bouchard also “charged” Lindholm with about 30 seconds left in the first period. Can’t quite confirm due to camera angle but seems quite obvious.

 

[dabeechman]

Not a charge. No distance traveled. Jumping up, isn't jumping "into" Also not interference because like many pointed out, he never moved. Foegele skated into him.

Stand next to a car. Jump up. Did you jump into the car? No, and that is how I will interpret the rule. If that same car was approaching me at 20mph and I jumped up to brace for contact, I wouldn't say that I hit the car, I would say that the car hit me and at no point would it be my fault that I damaged that car.