Penalty or not? Player is hit, said player that is hit high sticks opposing teams player?

[PensandCaps]

Obviously it should not be a penalty if you get headshotted.

 

[KevinRedkey]

I think it's within the "spirit" of the rule, to call this a non-penalty, despite there being no specific verbiage to exclude it.

Now, if the same thing happens again, and there's a penalty - then I'd be more concerned.

 

[Yatzhee]

Letang seems to get him in the head. As the officials point out, if it wasn't for Letang's action, there is no high stick.

That's targeting the head, that's a 5 minute major and a game ejection. Not even debatable. The video doesn't lie.

So, if Pens fans want the double minor on Peterka, then you have to want the 5 minute major and game ejection of Letang as well.

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

I dont think it should be a penalty, but just to demonstrate how stupid the NHL is, the same exact situation was called a penalty against the Sabres a couple games ago. There is zero consistency in NHL refereeing.

Twice in this game, the refs let obvious penalties go because the offending team was already short-handed. Happened to both teams. Either call the penalties or don't. It's so frustrating every single game.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Is a nasty open ice hit but under the current rule completely legal.

High sticking penality should not have been receded.

 

[Yatzhee]

Is a nasty open ice hit but under the current rule completely legal.

High sticking penality should not have been receded.

Incorrect.

Rule 48.1 declares an illegal check to the head as "a hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable."

It is clear the hit to the head was avoidable. Peterka changed no direction, Letang however positioned his arm and shoulder to make Peterka's head the main point of contact. That's a 5 minute major and a game ejection, followed by a DoPS hearing.

 

[LakeLivin]

Why do people keep saying that ‘the player must control their stick at all times’? The rules absolutely do not say that:

It’s not a penalty. It fails at ‘carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders’. This isn’t difficult.

___________________________________________________________________________
60.1 High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80.
A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick . . .
___________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, if "carried" is interpreted as implying (not unreasonably imo) some degree of proactivity in the stick being up, or negligence in preventing the stick from being up, I could see a basis for the reversal. That interpretation could be seen as incongruent with "Players must be in control and responsible for their stick" but as others have pointed out, the rule doesn't specifically state "at all times". So how to balance the two principles? A couple examples of the problem with interpreting the rule as meaning "in control and responsible for their stick at all times" and ignoring how "carried" is interpreted:

Teams A stick lifts a Team B players stick out of his hands, it flies 30 feet through the air and whacks a Team A player in the nose, drawing blood. 4 minute minor on the Team B player for not having control of his stick?

Team B player is knocked unconscious and drops his stick when he collides with a teammate. Team A player picks it up and knicks a teammate's cheek, drawing blood. 4 minute minor on the Team B player for not having control of his stick?

Those examples are of course ridiculous, but they illustrate the problem with interpreting the rule as some here imply. Imo this is one more rule the league needs to clean up.

 

[Profet]

Player A must control his stick at all times.

Except when you can make it like you are following through with the puck. Then you can get crazy.

 

[JPeeper]

I saw this happen and was flabbergasted when they called a double minor on the play. Of course, after the review all was right with the world, but for a moment there I was about to rage.

I believe they called a double minor so they can review it, like just to be able to review it they have to call a double minor. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I believe that's why they did it. They do it with majors some times so they can review it as well.


Also, if anyone actually paid attention to the ref when he made the call (seemingly 90% of the people in this thread haven't), he said it wasn't a penalty because the contact initiated by Letang was what caused Peterka's stick to fly up and hit the Pens player. Whether that is the written rule or not, that makes 100% sense and should be the rule going forward. How are they supposed to have control of their stick if they're getting smoked out of no where (it was a clean hit)? That makes no sense.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The "in control of your stick" thing is ridiculous. It's like a defender shoving someone into their own goalie, and then the shoved player gets a penalty because "you should be in control of your body at all times". There are conceivable situations where that simply can't apply.

 

[King'sPawn]

So is it?

Player A is checked by player B on the opposing team. Player A then hits Player C from the opposing team in the face with a high stick as he was falling to the ice.

Penalty on Player A or not?

Were you asking from a philosophical perspective as far as how guilt and morality is variable? Or are you asking from a technical perspective according to the rule book?

Because it's a penalty either way and the player needs to control their stick better.