Worst Match penalty/Major ever called (Cizikas NYI)

[BigDaddyLurch]

Again it’s a binary. Did he touch the puck or not? If not, the hit was illegal and the level of penalty will be determined by the type of hit and resulting injury.

This isn’t even an argument, it’s black and white. “But he almost touched it!” is not a defense. Onus is on the hitter to get it right.

...miliseconds...so just don't touch the puck and you can't get touched...great idea...and, btw, if THAT were the case, dozens of penalties A PERIOD would be called every game...IIHF hockey...

 

[tarheelhockey]

...miliseconds...so just don't touch the puck and you can't get touched...great idea...and, btw, if THAT were the case, dozens of penalties A PERIOD would be called every game...IIHF hockey...

Hockey allows for plenty of body contact without touching the puck. One thing you can’t do is check a guy who doesn’t have the puck. That is as straightforward as it could possibly be, and exists as a clear rule at all levels of the game.

If you don’t like it, take it up with the Rules Committee. I wasn’t the one who wrote the book, I’m just reading it to you.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I think that’s the problem, the contact between the chest and the head were simultaneous. I understand both sides but these hits need to be called majors. Head contact is still head contact.

Under the current rules though the order in which they're contacted doesn't matter. As long as the player hits squarely through the opponent's body, head contact is deemed unavoidable and therefore incidental.

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

Hockey allows for plenty of body contact without touching the puck. One thing you can’t do is check a guy who doesn’t have the puck. That is as straightforward as it could possibly be, and exists as a clear rule at all levels of the game.

If you don’t like it, take it up with the Rules Committee. I wasn’t the one who wrote the book, I’m just reading it to you.

...milliseconds is what you're arguing in this case...milliseconds...IIHF hockey...

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It’s not a ridiculously fine-toothed comb, it’s a binary yes/no.

Interference penalty, straight from the rulebook:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be deemed to be in possession.

56.2 Minor penalty — A minor penalty for interference shall be imposed:
(iii) On any player who deliberately checks an opponent, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck

56.4 Major Penalty — The referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5)

56.5 Game Misconduct — When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

This is simple.

- Did Bischel touch the puck? No
- Was Bischel checked? Yes Bing, interference minor
- Was it a full-blown violent body check? Yes Bing, now it’s a major
- Was Bischel injured? Yes Bing, now it’s a game misconduct

There isn’t any room for argument here. The rule is crystal clear and this play was unambiguous. Major + game is the correct call — you cannot legally body check a guy who hasn’t touched the puck.

By the letter of the rule, yes this logic makes perfect sense.

I would argue though that it is not how the rule is typically enforced in the NHL. This was a 50/50 puck that both players were making a play on.

Like many rules in the rulebook, though the rule reads as black and white, there's grey area in the way it's actually applied.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

Maybe I just don’t have my Isles Homer glasses on today, but that’s dirty… he’s making zero attempt at the puck and hits him right in the head.

 

[Three On Zero]

Under the current rules though the order in which they're contacted doesn't matter. As long as the player hits squarely through the opponent's body, head contact is deemed unavoidable and therefore incidental.

It wasn’t squarely through the body though, that’s the problem.

 

[Chaos]

I think what friedman and bukauskas said about it on their podcast have the right thought process in that it *was* a hit to the head and that the match penalty is ~harsh but at the refs discretion probably due to the hitter and that he didn’t play the puck.

they went on to say there’s not much of a way to say he had intent to injure and wont likely get suspended.

so, harsh? maybe. who knows how soon bichsel is cleared to play again. i don’t pretend to know the fine details of the rulebook. Actions->Intent->Results, it’s a pretty big grey area and probably a discretion call.. but should it be? maybe they need to redefine the rule a bit.

I think this is the correct take. As far as I know Cizikas has never been thought of as a dirty player. He just made a bad hit and got punished for it. I doubt he was trying to hit Bischel in the head, but he did.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It wasn’t squarely through the body though, that’s the problem.

The rule actually says "attempted to hit squarely through the body," which I think Cizikas did. But obviously it does leave it up to interpretation.

The general standard is you have to make significant solid contact to the core of a players body.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

The 5'10" player intentionally shouldered the 6'7" player in the head without leaving his feet. That makes sense...

The contact from what I can see is to the chest first and then the head due to the Bischel putting himself in a vulnerable position. That's on Bischel

Should have made the rare, "impersonating a pinata" call against Bischel, eh?

 

[emptyNedder]

It’s not a ridiculously fine-toothed comb, it’s a binary yes/no.

Interference penalty, straight from the rulebook:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be deemed to be in possession.

56.2 Minor penalty — A minor penalty for interference shall be imposed:
(iii) On any player who deliberately checks an opponent, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck

If it is truly binary, then every reverse-check is a minor penalty since the player in possession of the puck is deliberately checking an opponent "who is not in possession of the puck."

 

[tarheelhockey]

By the letter of the rule, yes this logic makes perfect sense.

I would argue though that it is not how the rule is typically enforced in the NHL. This was a 50/50 puck that both players were making a play on.

Like many rules in the rulebook, though the rule reads as black and white, there's grey area in the way it's actually applied.

I dunno, I don’t think there’s that much inconsistency here. Cizikas had all the space in the world to line this up and get the timing right. He could have gone in with intent to shield the puck and make a play on it, putting a legal body on Bischel as a space-clearing move. He chose instead to ignore the puck and go for a full-blown hit, up high enough to catch the guy in the face. That’s a pretty clear cut major and for good reason. Imagine if players went around blowing each other up just because they were in the general area of the puck.

This is also why we’re starting to see the league issue fines for reverse hits. Bracing for contact is one thing, but an actual hit on a guy who hasn’t possessed the puck is illegal.

 

[jfhabs]

Very bad call, those refs need to be disciplined

 

[HockeyVirus]

Max Domi “reverse hit” on Isaiah George = no call.

Cizikas clean hit = match penalty



On another note, what were the gambling odds for today’s game?

These conspiracy theorist make me laugh mostly because it takes a suspension of belief to think the NHL could ever orchestrate something that cleanly. We're talking about the NHL who makes the basic implementation of anything look like a difficult mountain to overcome.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If it is truly binary, then every reverse-check is a minor penalty since the player in possession of the puck is deliberately checking an opponent "who is not in possession of the puck."

I was actually writing the post above before you posted this, addressing that exact issue.

Reverse hits are controversial for a reason. Players are permitted to brace for contact within the rules, and have some leeway to deliver force to the opponent by leaning into a hit that they know is coming. But there’s a line where “bracing for contact” becomes simply hitting a guy, at which point it’s a penalty. In the past couple of years the league has started issuing fines to get players back on the right side of that line.

 

[AvroArrow]

I read the title and thought it was gonna be an exaggeration.

That might be the worst call I've ever seen.

 

[Three On Zero]

The rule actually says "attempted to hit squarely through the body," which I think Cizikas did. But obviously it does leave it up to interpretation.

The general standard is you have to make significant solid contact to the core of a players body.

I interpret that for secondary head contact after the initial contact, not initial head contact. Falls under rule 48 for me. Where head was still part of primary contact and avoidable.

 

[JeffP]

I think it could have gone this way or been called a little differently. Unfortunately there is grey area/subjectivity on calling things unless you want no rules or no checking

He hits both chest and chin pretty much at the same time.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I dunno, I don’t think there’s that much inconsistency here. Cizikas had all the space in the world to line this up and get the timing right. He could have gone in with intent to shield the puck and make a play on it, putting a legal body on Bischel as a space-clearing move. He chose instead to ignore the puck and go for a full-blown hit, up high enough to catch the guy in the face. That’s a pretty clear cut major and for good reason. Imagine if players went around blowing each other up just because they were in the general area of the puck.

This is also why we’re starting to see the league issue fines for reverse hits. Bracing for contact is one thing, but an actual hit on a guy who hasn’t possessed the puck is illegal.

eh, watching the replay realtime to me it looks like Czikas goes in expecting a battle for a 50/50 puck whereas Bischel is going straight for the puck. When players head to the corner for a loose puck refs often allow contact before either one of them gets there. In this case it's just that only one player did it. That's where I think the grey area is.

I also think this is different because it wasn't just general area of the puck, Beschel is a foot from the puck and his stick barely misses it. If the refs let this go I don't see it opening the door for blowing guys up in the general area of the puck.

It comes back the grey area. It's like the league's stance on hitting from behind. It happens all the time in games as long as you don't hit a guy too hard and nothing bad happens. But if he toe picks or something unusual happens and the optics go bad, then it's a suspension.

 

[piqued]

Obvious hit to the head and Bichsel has a concussion

 

[tapi]

When this kind of stuff comes up the solution is very simple, send the ref down for a mandatory AHL conditioning for 20ish games, or do something similar. Dunno why they refuse to do it and we see atrocities like this year after year

 

[qc14]

I get being frustrated but are we really claiming that what is definitely a borderline between minor and major hit in the middle of the regular season is the "worst match penalty ever called"????

 

[HTFN]

here's my only thing here: we're saying "what should Cizikas do here" because the other guy is making himself vulnerable... but only after years of blaming the other guy for winning these mismatches and putting Cizikas into the wall in the past.

Now we've coached these big boys to respect other people in the corners and they are occasionally just eating shots for it. What do you do then?

 

[BMOK33]

Exactly why I think the reviews on these should come entirely from Toronto and no reviews should be made by the on ice crew in the game