EP40 Charging Penalty

[Bizzare]

Enough back and forth about this in the Vancouver Edmonton thread… may as well make a poll.

https://youtu.be/tVQziID6KaU?si=O6TbYxWIXAdQC3rD

Click to read more...

 

[Avsfan1921]

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

 

[Stealth1616]

The only argument that it isn’t than 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 ice contact prior to contact

Therefore it is a penalty

View attachment 872479

This is the correct answer, just because “he didn’t initiate contact” doesn’t mean he didn’t jump into him and it is legal.

Are we really good to set the precedent that you can jump a foot in the air to take a hit lol

 

[Bizzare]

This is the correct answer, just because “he didn’t initiate contact” doesn’t mean he didn’t jump into him and it is legal.

Are we really good to set the precedent that you can jump a foot in the air to take a hit lol

Happens frequently along the boards in particular… so yes.

 

[Ace of Hades]

Absolutely should not be a penalty.

One of the worst calls this entire playoffs at the very least.

 

[UnSandvich]

Neutral fan, and it's a clear as day penalty.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Happens frequently along the boards in particular… so yes.

You keep saying this. You have yet to show a similar situation.

 

[Bizzare]

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 ice contact prior to contact

Therefore it is a penalty

View attachment 872485

To me this reads you have to skate and jump into someone, or charge the opponent.

Otherwise any hit where a player skates is a charge…

You keep saying this. You have yet to show a similar situation.

Give me the criteria you want to see.

 

[Bizzare]

Wish I could vote for Tim Peel, “Oilers fan - doesn’t think it’s a penalty”

 

[Avsfan1921]

To me this reads you have to skate and jump into someone, or charge the opponent.

Otherwise any hit where a player skates is a charge…


Give me the criteria you want to see.

To the first part, “jumps into in any manner” in this context is why I believe it’s a charge by definition.

To the bolded, a hit that was initiated where a player leaves their feet intentionally before contact. And yes I know there’ll be some out there where the call is missed, it’s still a charge. And likely not the same circumstance (reverse hit).

 

[HugeInTheShire]

It's a stupid penalty, but it is technically charging.

 

[Bizzare]

To the first part, “jumps into in any manner” in this context is why I believe it’s a charge by definition.

To the bolded, a hit that was initiated where a player leaves their feet intentionally before contact. And yes I know there’ll be some out there where the call is missed, it’s still a charge.

So the problem is you think EP40 initiated the hit, and I don’t… Foegele initiated the contact. EP40 owns the ice he is in.

Then at the end you say you won’t even accept it if I find a similar situation, so what the hell is the point?

You going to find another one where it was called for every instance I locate? This is ridiculous.

 

[Avsfan1921]

View attachment 872490

Wish I could vote for Tim Peel, “Oilers fan - doesn’t think it’s a penalty”

You do love this, don’t you? Setting this aside, why do you believe it’s not a penalty?

 

[Channelcat]

Call it charging, call it interference, whatever. But, it's a penalty.

 

[Bizzare]

Already explained it numerous times, including in the posts above.

You do love this, don’t you? Setting this aside, why do you believe it’s not a penalty?

 

[JAK]

Play it at live speeds guys.

Pettersson literally plays the puck a second before....

 

[Avsfan1921]

So the problem is you think EP40 initiated the hit, and I don’t… Foegele initiated the contact. EP40 owns the ice he is in.

Then at the end you say you won’t even accept it if I find a similar situation, so what the hell is the point?

You going to find another one where it was called for every instance I locate? This is ridiculous.

Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON ATTEMTING A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?

 

[JAK]

Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?

Technically no one's feet is touching the ice anyways.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

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

He jumped straight up, not into the guy.

And how many charging penalties should be called per playoff game if "skating into" another player is charging?

 

[Bizzare]

Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON ATTEMTING A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?

So then a hit where a defender jumps along the boards before being hit meets your criteria no?

Yes.. he is safer when jumping … you’re not arguing that are you?

 

[RobsonStreet]

Ep40 does own the ice he’s in, yes. He’s also allowed to get hit in that owned ice. Protecting himself illegally does not change this. As I’ve argued with you a thousand times: You CAN NOT LEAVE YOUR FEET PRIOR TO CONTACT ON A HIT.

Why did he leave his feet? Is he safer in the air than on the ice?

Maybe I’ve missed it as I haven’t followed the other thread. Does anyone have any examples of jumping on a reverse hit being called a charging penalty?

 

[Bizzare]

Maybe I’ve missed it as I haven’t followed the other thread. Does anyone have any examples of jumping on a reverse hit being called a charging penalty?

Nope, of course just this one.

 

[Avsfan1921]

He jumped straight up, not into the guy.

And how many charging penalties should be called per playoff game if "skating into" another player is charging?

It certainly isn’t a normal circumstance, reverse hits usually have more movement towards the player no doubt so there’s not a lot of precedent. But he knew he was going to get hit and decided to jump up and hit him instead. There’s no other reason to jump here. He’s not trying to get out of the way.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Maybe I’ve missed it as I haven’t followed the other thread. Does anyone have any examples of jumping on a reverse hit being called a charging penalty?

No, because I imagine it's never been called.

People need to step back and realize that the NHL rules are vague for a reason, to give officials the leeway to call whatever they want.

But if you do step back and think about the English language just a bit, the charging rule probably has something to do with a player charging at another. When a player jumps into a hit while "charging" at another player (see: Tom Wilson) it is a penalty.

Likewise, in basketball, a "charge" (technically a player control foul) is when a player moves into the spot than a defender has established. You cannot be called for a "charge" for jumping straight up.

 

[Lat]

"...as a result of distance traveled..."

Why are so many people ignoring the second paragraph?