EP40 Charging Penalty

[rea]

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.

Ultimately it is based on how everyone interprets and defines the wording of the rule. I get why there is a divide. But this is where the league actually has to put forth an actual definitive description and example and All instances have to be called this way. This goes as well for goalie interference, what a clusterf*** that's turning out to be ahha

 

[Bizzare]

I was just busting balls there.

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

Doesn’t say you have to place it in a manner to trip the player.

Just that it causes a player to trip.

 

[Bizzare]

Actually impressed by Oiler fans in this thread. I believe 4/7 think there should be no penalty. Can’t quite tell who all is an Oiler fan in the last voting option.

 

[ItWasJustified]

-he initiated reverse hit

No, he didn't.

 

[zar]

Doesn’t say you have to place it in a manner to trip the player.

Just that it causes a player to trip.

Yeah, it does.

57.1 TRIPPING - a player shall not place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent trip or fall.

57.2 MINOR PENALTY – a minor penalty should be imposed on any player who shall place his stick or any portion of his body in such a manner that it shall cause his opponent to trip and fall.

 

[Avsfan1921]

No, he didn't.

In my view yes he did. The player intentionally turns his back to another that he know is attempting to check him. He then jumps in the air just before contact. This is why I view him as initiating a reverse hit.

 

[matsqq]

Ultimately it is based on how everyone interprets and defines the wording of the rule. I get why there is a divide. But this is where the league actually has to put forth an actual definitive description and example and All instances have to be called this way. This goes as well for goalie interference, what a clusterf*** that's turning out to be ahha

You mean the NHL has sanctioned that this is the way this strange type of situation will be called forever ?

Just because the refs called it this way in this particular match with the little time they had to make the call? (flashes of a second)

Was there even a discussion after the game ?

I hope not because I still think they called it the wrong way ...

 

[Habssince89]

reverse hits are great, and I understand the issue with someone leaving their feet because of headshots. But jumping in the spot is more about absorbing the hit. As long as the head isn't targeted, these kinds of reverse hits shouldn't be an issue. I really don't like the call, but I'm glad it ended up being inconsequential to the game/series.

 

[matsqq]

Look at reddit, it is explained well there



"42.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. [Emphasis added]"

What exact distance did Elias travel ?

Until new information comes along this is now closed for me , should NOT have been a call ....

BTW Exactly the same as the other reddit link discussion I linked to before

 

[rea]

You mean the NHL has sanctioned that this is the way this strange type of situation will be called forever ?

Just because the refs called it this way in this particular match with the little time they had to make the call? (flashes of a second)

Was there even a discussion after the game ?

I hope not because I still think they called it the wrong way ...

No, but if they did, there'd at least be clarity about it, no debates. If they f***ed up come out n say they f***ed up. And if this is the first of its kind, than it will always be the point everyone comes back to in comparison. So call things, don't call things, just be consistent so everyone understands and follows the same rules, and be accountable, for if they f*** up, there's something to answer to. Leaving it open ended is what just gets everyone up in arms and debating about something no one knows the real answer to

 

[matsqq]

No, but if they did, there'd at least be clarity about it, no debates. If they f***ed up come out n say they f***ed up. And if this is the first of its kind, than it will always be the point everyone comes back to in comparison. So call things, don't call things, just be consistent so everyone understands and follows the same rules, and be accountable, for if they f*** up, there's something to answer to. Leaving it open ended is what just gets everyone up in arms and debating about something no one knows the real answer to

The right way to go about it is in my opinion NOT to make the first call take precedence - simply because it might be the wrong call made in just a fraction of a second.

Rather discuss it in the organization, refs, NHL etc and come to a conclusion - then use THAT as presedence and if appropriate change the wording in thre rulebook to be more clear.

Wordings in the rulebook are important - they are there for a reason .

It is actually what they are supposed to make the calls by .

If the wordings are in some way misleading they should change the rulebook or else we will wind up with a rulebook nobody cares to read.

 

[Dust]

See I don't necessarily agree that it was a Charging penalty, it fits part of the description of the rule, but not wholly. I do think that's 100% a penalty every day of the week though. I also don't think I've ever seen that play happen before, so maybe just christen up a new EP40 penalty for stationary jumping into a hit in open ice. Can call it the Jump Rope Rule.

Also I see a couple people trying to discretely hide in the "Neutral fan" categories of the poll that don't fit that description either. Just own it up and fix your poll selection there, poll selection is visible to all, you ain't fooling anybody

 

[matsqq]

See I don't necessarily agree that it was a Charging penalty, it fits part of the description of the rule, but not wholly. I do think that's 100% a penalty every day of the week though. I also don't think I've ever seen that play happen before, so maybe just christen up a new EP40 penalty for stationary jumping into a hit in open ice. Can call it the Jump Rope Rule.

Also I see a couple people trying to discretely hide in the "Neutral fan" categories of the poll that don't fit that description either. Just own it up and fix your poll selection there, poll selection is visible to all, you ain't fooling anybody

OK, but they need to have an actual rule or offence to pin it on.

They can't just say : this should probably be a penalty

 

[Dust]

OK, but they need to have an actual rule or offence to pin it on.

They can't just say : this should probably be a penalty

They'll just say it was Roughing. It's generic enough.

 

[bobholly39]

Should have been 5 minutes imo.

 

[ijuka]

I mean, it's a jumping hit, with both feet leaving the ice before the hit. Isn't it clear enough?

minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner.

But it's no surprise that people don't really care about rules.

 

[ItWasJustified]

In my view yes he did. The player intentionally turns his back to another that he know is attempting to check him. He then jumps in the air just before contact. This is why I view him as initiating a reverse hit.

Foegele was preparing to hit Pettersson before Pettersson prepared for the reverse hit.

 

[Janvonpobben]

Lets remind everyone here

 

[Avsfan1921]

Foegele was preparing to hit Pettersson before Pettersson prepared for the reverse hit.

Correct. And it matters not.

Lets remind everyone here

Yes bad, also irrelevant.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Correct. And it matters not.

It matters when we talk about who initiated the hit, because it was Foegele.

 

[Avsfan1921]

It matters when we talk about who initiated the hit, because it was Foegele.

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.

 

[Fatass]

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

So every time a guy jumps up onto the glass to absorb contact it should be called charging? Imo Petey could get roughing there but certainly not charging. Guys jump up to absorb contact all the time.

 

[Avsfan1921]

So every time a guy jumps up onto the glass to absorb contact it should be called charging? Imo Petey could get roughing there but certainly not charging. Guys jump up to absorb contact all the time.

No. I’ve went over this plenty. How I interpret it, it is not a penalty if a player is jumping. It is a penalty only if they are trying to administer a hit, not receive one. In my view petterson is trying to administer a reverse hit.

 

[Fatass]

No. I’ve went over this plenty. How I interpret it, it is not a penalty if a player is jumping. It is a penalty only if they are trying to administer a hit, not receive one. In my view petterson is trying to administer a reverse hit.

Very much a judgement then and not a proper implementation of the rule. Your interpretation would allow refs to call penalties on guys who are the targets of hits for doing nothing other than jumping up onto the glass to absorb contact. It was a bad call that we’ve never seen before and hopefully will never see again. Call it roughing (that’s what it actually was) but certainly not charging.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Very much a judgement then and not a proper implementation of the rule. Your interpretation would allow refs to call penalties on guys who are the targets of hits for doing nothing other than jumping up onto the glass to absorb contact. It was a bad call that we’ve never seen before and hopefully will never see again. Call it roughing (that’s what it actually was) but certainly not charging.

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.