Around the NHL Thread - The Amount of Drafts in July is TOO DAMN HIGH!

[Lunatik]

Never said it did. Unnecessary is often worse than illegal though IMO.

But again, a charge is about jumping/distance travelled/etc. Unless I’m missing something there is nothing situational about the rule. Forechecking can be the purpose of multiple strides too, should there not be charging penalties there either?

In the the rule it states "for the purpose of punishing the opponent", so yes, backchecking being the purpose of multiple strides eliminates it from being charaging because hte purpose was to prevent the goal, not to punish the opponent.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

That was ugly and very un-Scheifele-like

Also props to Ehlers who had his back to the scrum, arms stretched out to protect Evans as he laid in the ice.

That's the first thing I noticed in the scrum too. That could have been bad if players had fallen on him.

 

[User1996]

In the the rule it states "for the purpose of punishing the opponent", so yes, backchecking being the purpose of multiple strides eliminates it from being charaging because hte purpose was to prevent the goal, not to punish the opponent.

Directly from the 2020-21 rule book on NHL.com:

Rule 42 - Charging
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 traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.
42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).
42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.
42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
42.6 Fines and Suspensions – Refer to Rule 23.6 – Fines and Suspensions – Physical Fouls Category.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

Regardless, if skating half the ice and hitting a defenceless opponent when the best way to prevent a goal was to clearly seal the post isn’t for the purpose of punishing an opponent, I don’t know what is. That’s predatory as hell.

I’m sure as hell not an expert on the rule book, so if there’s another section I’m missing that relates to charging you can provide, I’ll gladly read it.

 

[Mobiandi]

Completely unnecessary hit. He made zero effort to make a play on that puck. Could have easily led with stick in puck and he probably prevents the goal.

Not sure what part of the rule absolves a charge based on the fact he was back checking though...

Not that I'm a fan of breaking down hits frame-by-frame but Scheifele was already dropping his shoulder 5-6 feet away from Evans who has the puck 6 inches from the net. There was only one thing on Scheifele's mind and it was blowing him up. Just a totally gutless play that has no business in hockey

 

[User1996]

Not that I'm a fan of breaking down hits frame-by-frame but Scheifele was already dropping his shoulder 5-6 feet away from Evans who has the puck 6 inches from the net. There was only one thing on Scheifele's mind and it was blowing him up. Just a totally gutless play that has no business in hockey

It’s a fast game and it’s very hard to break it down frame by frame, but like, that shot shows that if he had any intent on preventing the goal he could have extended his stick.

At worst I’d say it’s and extremely predatory hit, and at best an extremely dangerous lack of judgement and carelessness.

 

[Lunatik]

Directly from the 2020-21 rule book on NHL.com:

Rule 42 - Charging
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 traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.
42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).
42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.
42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
42.6 Fines and Suspensions – Refer to Rule 23.6 – Fines and Suspensions – Physical Fouls Category.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

Regardless, if skating half the ice and hitting a defenceless opponent when the best way to prevent a goal was to clearly seal the post isn’t for the purpose of punishing an opponent, I don’t know what is. That’s predatory as hell.

I’m sure as hell not an expert on the rule book, so if there’s another section I’m missing that relates to charging you can provide, I’ll gladly read it.

The site I found claimed the USA Hockey rule was the NHL one.

But I agree it was an ugly hit.

 

[Lunatik]

That's the first thing I noticed in the scrum too. That could have been bad if players had fallen on him.

Last thing the game needs is another dogpile like in the Bertuzzi/Moore incident.

 

[Anglesmith]

Scheifele's hit was entirely legal. People are having a hard time separating "being a dick" from "breaking the rules," just like they did with the Tkachuk/Kassian hits.

Scheifele was in a position in front of his net where he was able to make a hit, and he took it. The penalty assessed was an over-reaction to diffuse the situation, but there is no justification for supplemental discipline. Under no circumstance should a player carry the puck head-first towards an on-rushing opponent and not do anything to protect themselves. Not sure why Evans thought he was immune from body-checking here, but he was certainly not.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Scheifele's hit was entirely legal. People are having a hard time separating "being a dick" from "breaking the rules," just like they did with the Tkachuk/Kassian hits.

Scheifele was in a position in front of his net where he was able to make a hit, and he took it. The penalty assessed was an over-reaction to diffuse the situation, but there is no justification for supplemental discipline. Under no circumstance should a player carry the puck head-first towards an on-rushing opponent and not do anything to protect themselves. Not sure why Evans thought he was immune from body-checking here, but he was certainly not.

I said this in the other thread but he traveled 200 ft in a straight line at top speed to make an absolutely violent and reckless hit. It is 100% charging, looks borderline like a headshot. That's not a hit you can make, its only going to lead to serious injury.

Guys like Bieksa said it's an indefensible hit

 

[Iggys Dome]

Yeah this is straight up charging.

 

[Anglesmith]

I said this in the other thread but he traveled 200 ft in a straight line at top speed to make an absolutely violent and reckless hit. It is 100% charging, looks borderline like a headshot. That's not a hit you can make, its only going to lead to serious injury.

Guys like Bieksa said it's an indefensible hit

The philosophical problem there is the implication that a hit needs to be defended. It does not; it's part of the game that is encouraged by the structure of the rules. What needs to be defended is the decision to call a penalty or levy a suspension.

The idea that you aren't able to make a hit if you are skating towards your opponent is a twisted interpretation of the charging rule, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The refs and Bieksa were reacting to a scary scene, which is understandable. The DoPS will be analyzing it objectively.

 

[Lunatik]

The philosophical problem there is the implication that a hit needs to be defended. It does not; it's part of the game that is encouraged by the structure of the rules. What needs to be defended is the decision to call a penalty or levy a suspension.

The idea that you aren't able to make a hit if you are skating towards your opponent is a twisted interpretation of the charging rule, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The refs and Bieksa were reacting to a scary scene, which is understandable. The DoPS will be analyzing it objectively.

The meltdown when there is nothing done will be delicious

 

[TheHudlinator]

The philosophical problem there is the implication that a hit needs to be defended. It does not; it's part of the game that is encouraged by the structure of the rules. What needs to be defended is the decision to call a penalty or levy a suspension.

The idea that you aren't able to make a hit if you are skating towards your opponent is a twisted interpretation of the charging rule, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The refs and Bieksa were reacting to a scary scene, which is understandable. The DoPS will be analyzing it objectively.

But you can't make that hit legally because it's charging. The definition of charging is vague but if skating the entire length of the ice to make a hit at top speed isn't charging then get rid of the rule. Scheifele has to realize that's a dangerous and illegal hit and avoid contact. The hit is indefensible because it's so obviously illegal.

 

[Mobiandi]

The only thing Scheifele can argue in his favour here is that he doesn't know how to make a basic defensive maneuver. He had plenty of time to ease up after the puck went in and not crank him. It was a violent charge and he was rightfully assessed a major and will hopefully have further discipline

 

[Anglesmith]

But you can't make that hit legally because it's charging. The definition of charging is vague but if skating the entire length of the ice to make a hit at top speed isn't charging then get rid of the rule. Scheifele has to realize that's a dangerous and illegal hit and avoid contact. The hit is indefensible because it's so obviously illegal.

The crux of the issue is how do you separate skating the length of the ice in order to make a hit from skating the length of the ice to get into position, then making a hit?

Reasonably speaking, it's very difficult to distinguish these, which is why charging is most often reduced to striding or jumping into a hit.

If it is accepted that Scheifele reasonably would have skated back to that position just as hard whether planning a hit or not, what matters is whether he did anything specifically to amplify the violence of the hit. In my opinion, he did not.

I think any time a head-on collision occurs and the victim does not protect himself, the result will be nasty. That does not mean they are all illegal.

 

[TheHudlinator]

The crux of the issue is how do you separate skating the length of the ice in order to make a hit from skating the length of the ice to get into position, then making a hit?

Reasonably speaking, it's very difficult to distinguish these, which is why charging is most often reduced to striding or jumping into a hit.

If it is accepted that Scheifele reasonably would have skated back to that position just as hard whether planning a hit or not, what matters is whether he did anything specifically to amplify the violence of the hit. In my opinion, he did not.

I think any time a head-on collision occurs and the victim does not protect himself, the result will be nasty. That does not mean they are all illegal.

The rule doesn't try to distinguish between the two because it's up to the player hitting to know when his hit will be dangerous, which imo is why it says in any manner. No matter what at that speed the result will be nasty that's why the responsibility is on Scheifele to not make the hit.

 

[Lunatik]

The rule doesn't try to distinguish between the two because it's up to the player hitting to know when his hit will be dangerous, which imo is why it says in any manner. No matter what at that speed the result will be nasty that's why the responsibility is on Scheifele to not make the hit.

Or because it's common sense that you're allowed to backcheck as hard as you'd like without being punished.

 

[Anglesmith]

The rule doesn't try to distinguish between the two because it's up to the player hitting to know when his hit will be dangerous, which imo is why it says in any manner. No matter what at that speed the result will be nasty that's why the responsibility is on Scheifele to not make the hit.

The speed was really not the issue here. If he was going full bore, sure, but he was gliding at a fairly normal speed for a hit after slowing down. The danger of the hit came mostly down to Evans' body positioning.

 

[TheHudlinator]

The speed was really not the issue here. If he was going full bore, sure, but he was gliding at a fairly normal speed for a hit after slowing down. The danger of the hit came mostly down to Evans' body positioning.

Let's agree to disagree and see what the nhl thinks.

 

[Mazatt]

The crux of the issue is how do you separate skating the length of the ice in order to make a hit from skating the length of the ice to get into position, then making a hit?

Reasonably speaking, it's very difficult to distinguish these, which is why charging is most often reduced to striding or jumping into a hit.

If it is accepted that Scheifele reasonably would have skated back to that position just as hard whether planning a hit or not, what matters is whether he did anything specifically to amplify the violence of the hit. In my opinion, he did not.

I think any time a head-on collision occurs and the victim does not protect himself, the result will be nasty. That does not mean they are all illegal.

I very much disagree with the idea this was a clean/legal hit but this is a very important distinction that shouldn't be ignored simply because the hit was violent and inflammatory.

Schiefele skates the entire length of the ice to backcheck, but as soon as it's apparent Evans is going to take the puck around the net for the wraparound any pretense of him playing the puck is gone and he's looking to run a guy, but that distance travelled doesn't lead to intent from when he's in the Montreal zone, tbh it looks like he's stopped skating by the time he decides to make the hit.

But this is where more philosophical wonderings come into play with the nature of charging. Schiefele didn't intend to charge when he started backchecking, but by virtue of his backcheck he fulfilled the criteria for a charge, and from the back angle Sportsnet showed, catches a lot of head in sending Evans backwards. I don't think there has to be intent behind a charage for it to be demonstrable that Schiefele made an unsafe hit after traveling the length of the ice at near max speed, and laid a dangerous hit. For that I think he should definitely deserve a suspension. While there is onus on Evans to protect himself there has to be some onus on players not to take advantage of vulnerable players, imo.

 

[Anglesmith]

I very much disagree with the idea this was a clean/legal hit but this is a very important distinction that shouldn't be ignored simply because the hit was violent and inflammatory.

Schiefele skates the entire length of the ice to backcheck, but as soon as it's apparent Evans is going to take the puck around the net for the wraparound any pretense of him playing the puck is gone and he's looking to run a guy, but that distance travelled doesn't lead to intent from when he's in the Montreal zone, tbh it looks like he's stopped skating by the time he decides to make the hit.

But this is where more philosophical wonderings come into play with the nature of charging. Schiefele didn't intend to charge when he started backchecking, but by virtue of his backcheck he fulfilled the criteria for a charge, and from the back angle Sportsnet showed, catches a lot of head in sending Evans backwards. I don't think there has to be intent behind a charage for it to be demonstrable that Schiefele made an unsafe hit after traveling the length of the ice at near max speed, and laid a dangerous hit. For that I think he should definitely deserve a suspension. While there is onus on Evans to protect himself there has to be some onus on players not to take advantage of vulnerable players, imo.

I've always had a bit of a problem with the way the charging rule is written, because I think that by its own wording most big hits that are part of the game are charging. Whenever a player goes in on the forecheck and finishes a hit, they are gaining speed as a result of distance travelled, and this speed creates a violent collision. We don't think about it as charging because these hits tend not to leave a mark. A player being forechecked knows the hit is coming and so they protect themselves. They play the puck in a responsible way not to leave themselves vulnerable.

Anyway, I would stay away from declaring Evans a vulnerable player here. The term "vulnerable player" should be used exclusively with players who are unable to protect themselves, not with players who simply fail to do so. Evans had no other defenders bothering him, had full possession of the puck and full ability to scan the ice. Scheifele did not sneak in from a blind spot, and there was no reason for Evans to believe that he was ineligible to be hit.

My biggest issue with a potential suspension would be the precedent. Once a player is in position like Scheifele is and has stopped taking strides, a big clean hit should absolutely be within rights. The actions or inactions of the puck-carrier should not remove this right from them.

 

[lightstorm]

Scheifele's hit was entirely legal. People are having a hard time separating "being a dick" from "breaking the rules," just like they did with the Tkachuk/Kassian hits.

Scheifele was in a position in front of his net where he was able to make a hit, and he took it. The penalty assessed was an over-reaction to diffuse the situation, but there is no justification for supplemental discipline. Under no circumstance should a player carry the puck head-first towards an on-rushing opponent and not do anything to protect themselves. Not sure why Evans thought he was immune from body-checking here, but he was certainly not.

Is this an attempt at comedy?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Reminds me a bit of Dale Hunter and Pierre Turgeon. Optics were worse than the hit, but I don’t think Scheifle is a previous offender.

Because of the circumstances and especially the time I’d be mildly surprised if there wasn’t at least a game given - it is one of those times where if this happens during the 2nd period there’s probably isn’t a suspension, just the penalties called on the ice.
You never know with the NHL wheel of justice

 

[beakerboy]

Reminds me a bit of Dale Hunter and Pierre Turgeon. Optics were worse than the hit, but I don’t think Scheifle is a previous offender.

Because of the circumstances and especially the time I’d be mildly surprised if there wasn’t at least a game given - it is one of those times where if this happens during the 2nd period there’s probably isn’t a suspension, just the penalties called on the ice.
You never know with the NHL wheel of justice

This is nowhere close to Dale Hunter on Turgeon. That was a guy celebrating a goal with his arms up and a dude comes up and cross checks him in the ribs. Super malicious and pretty indefensible At least, that is how I remember it. It was a long time ago and I'm old.

I think this is a lot more like the Graves hit on, um, whoever it was on the knights. Technically legal, maybe a little bit late, but totally unnecessary in the circumstances. I'm fine with nothing or maybe a game. Can't see it being anymore given that Reaves only got two.

Though I'm not entirely sure what to call it. Evans had the puck, Scheifele had his arms tucked all the way through and went through the body. It was pretty much a textbook clean hit. Charging to me implies that guys are still striding into the hit, though I know that isn't the wording of the rule. He was gliding for a ways in pretty much all of the replays I've seen. You can't penalize guys for big hits.

5 minutes for "you can't do that" I guess.
I fail at knowing how to upload gifs.

Referee You Cant Do That GIF - Referee YouCantDoThat NHL - Discover & Share GIFs

 

[Lunatik]

I very much disagree with the idea this was a clean/legal hit but this is a very important distinction that shouldn't be ignored simply because the hit was violent and inflammatory.

Schiefele skates the entire length of the ice to backcheck, but as soon as it's apparent Evans is going to take the puck around the net for the wraparound any pretense of him playing the puck is gone and he's looking to run a guy, but that distance travelled doesn't lead to intent from when he's in the Montreal zone, tbh it looks like he's stopped skating by the time he decides to make the hit.

But this is where more philosophical wonderings come into play with the nature of charging. Schiefele didn't intend to charge when he started backchecking, but by virtue of his backcheck he fulfilled the criteria for a charge, and from the back angle Sportsnet showed, catches a lot of head in sending Evans backwards. I don't think there has to be intent behind a charage for it to be demonstrable that Schiefele made an unsafe hit after traveling the length of the ice at near max speed, and laid a dangerous hit. For that I think he should definitely deserve a suspension. While there is onus on Evans to protect himself there has to be some onus on players not to take advantage of vulnerable players, imo.

the bolded is really not that important, hits to the head are not illegal, it is TARGETTED hits to the head that are illegal. Calling a backcheck a charge is a pretty bad idea IMO because it tells players they can't play defense if the play is going to be close.