I'm not saying that hit should be allowed. All I'm saying is the charging rule is so poorly and vaguely written that you can't point to a specific thing and say, that's exactly why he should be suspended. We all know that hit has no place in the game but they have done nothing to really write it out of the game.
Beyond that the NHL seems to care very little about intent I situations like this. I agree MS just wanted to blow Evans up but it wouldn't be hard for him to argue that he was trying to beat him to the corner of the net and to separate him from the puck. Plus he could argue if he continues to stride until the point of contact and reaches to make a stick play there would still be a very violent collision but with both players in a vulnerable spot.
I think the persistent that the NHL has set indicates they don't think this is an egregious charge. A major yes and possibly a fine but not a major suspension. The Wilson-Schenn hit you mentioned only resulted in a major and a fine and there were more issues you could point too that were clearly wrong with the hit.
I would like to see the rule rewritten so intentional contact above a certain speed (which can be easily tracked now) is automatically a suspendable offense. Because if there isn't something black and white written into that charging rule its just to murky for the DoPS to make the correct common sense decision.
P.S. The wild card is how the DoPS wildly reacts to there being an injury to the hit player. That combined with the optics of the stretcher coming out could massively sway the outcome of this suspension. Which by itself is a huge issue to me. The suspension of the hitter should be based entirely on their intent and action and not the resulting injury. MS should be taught a lesson based on his shitty actions regardless of the severity of injury to Evans. MS shouldn't get a lighter suspension if Evans had seen him coming and bailed out of the play.
Thanks for your response, Gap. This is the dilemma of defining penalties on a spectrum. Hitting is allowed and even encouraged, so what are the boundaries? To me, the rules are the signs against which intent can be logically intuited. Strides, straight line, and other markers of intent to hit are the evidence; however, it isn't easily quantified, and your proposal of a minimum speed will likely only open up more questions, not to mention excessively punish the better skaters. Plus, context is key; a player could have taken 6-7 hard strides to get into position, only to have the puck unexpectedly on the stick of a player in his trajectory.
In broad strokes, Scheifele has two competing objectives: how do I prevent Evans from scoring while not injuring either of us? You make a great point that the speed with which he needs to be at the place he needs to is dangerously close to the boards and net, so a Superman dive will likely be very painful for him, at the least. Likewise, fully-on skating and a stick stretch puts him and Evans in a vulnerable position. And doing nothing isn't the model of determination that Scheifele wants to show, particularly in front of his home fans.
Let me just pause and objectively identify the obvious "one of these things is not like the other" list I just created. Injury to one, injury to both, or shame against expectations. This is our lot as sports fans to demand heroes while having dissonant ideas about what is heroic.
[climbs down wobbily off soapbox]
Given Scheifele's exit from the playoffs last season early in the first game, I am not unsympathetic if he has a heightened anxiety about throwing his body into the boards or net at top speed. He has few good options charging down the ice. But safety
has to be a principal concern as he approaches Evans, and (I will offer) his misfortune last season should be on his mind as the potential giver of a thunderous hit.
I disagree with the merit of Scheifele arguing that he was doing all he could to prevent the goal since a) he stopped skating and b) he didn't even try to extend his stick. Probably the least bad option would be to race down, do a three-quarter stick stretch and brace to give a hit. Am I asking a lot? Yes, but it seems to me that a both/and approach would better tick off the boxes of best outcomes and would be something an experienced NHL player could process in the time he had.
I completely agree with your PS about how injury influences the DoPS's decision. They have stated as much, so this isn't inference. Wilson probably would have received a suspension had Schenn missed at least the rest of that game and one or two more. Intent is intent, careless is careless, regardless of outcome.
Sorry for the thesis on this. Occupational hazard.
