Red
Registered User
He didn't jump into anything except maybe the air. He didn't initiate the contact in any way either. Into absolutely is a crucial part of the rule, not just semantics. So is the part that says distance travelled. You cannot charge someone when you are stationary, it's bonkers to think that you can.To be fair, you didn't circle the "jumps into" part of the definition. No question Petey had both skates in the air. Might be able to argue that he "jumped" rather than "jumped into" but think that's semantics when he lays out a guy with both feet off the ice.
It's a bullshit call that doesn't follow any reasonable or logical interpretation of that rule. It's also never been called this way so it was a completely novel interpretation of that rule last night invented by the refs. I don't know why people are trying to get themselves into a pretzel to defend and rationalize it.
As a lawyer, yes the rule is terribly drafted and vague. But you can draw out the meaning from what charging itself is and how it's defined in the second paragraph into the first paragraph. Reading this much into "jumps into" in the first paragraph is nonsensical since the first paragraph on its own would also penalize skating. The second paragraph description of distance travelled is required. There's also a ton of precedent on how the rule has been interpreted over the years. Complete bullshit call.