Anyone see the Scheifele on Evans hit in the Jets - Canadiens game. Brutal hit.

[Nextmanup]

On 6/3/2021 at 9:31 AM, 4_kidd_4 said:

 

It’s the rule book definition of charging. To the letter.

 

Nah, he stopped skating and coasted before the hit.  

 

What made it so devastating (though clean IMO) is that Evans was accelerating back into the hit, but obviously not seeing the hit coming.  

 

It's very similar to why Soupy Campbell's hit on RJ Umberger was so devastating....the guy getting hit's own momentum and direction of movement make the hit extra hard.

 

 

[shrader]

At least one referee on the ice called it charging (probably the other as well).  The NHL called it charging.  It was charging.

[4_kidd_4]

34 minutes ago, shrader said:

At least one referee on the ice called it charging (probably the other as well).  The NHL called it charging.  It was charging.

 

/thread 

 

again.

[Jauronimo]

36 minutes ago, shrader said:

At least one referee on the ice called it charging (probably the other as well).  The NHL called it charging.  It was charging.

At least one official called it a lateral.  The NFL called it a lateral.  But was it really a lateral? 

[4_kidd_4]

According to NHL Rule 42, a charging 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.
 

There it is bolded, in black and white. 
 

Doesn’t make a lick of difference that he didn’t pump his skates the last 12 feet. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that Evans was trying to score. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that where it occurred on the ice. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that Wychek threw that ball forward 20-something years ago.

 

Case. Closed.

 

Go Habs Go.

Edited June 9, 2021 by 4_kidd_4

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, 4_kidd_4 said:

According to NHL Rule 42, a charging 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.
 

There it is bolded, in black and white. 
 

Doesn’t make a lick of difference that he didn’t pump his skates the last 12 feet. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that Evans was trying to score. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that where it occurred on the ice. Doesn’t make a lick of difference that Wychek threw that ball forward 20-something years ago.

 

Case. Closed.

 

Go Habs Go.

No room for interpretation there! Case closed.

[4_kidd_4]

3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

No room for interpretation there! Case closed.

 

You’re really gonna argue against the fact that Sheifel traveled roughly 180 feet to make that hit? It wasn’t a violent check as a “result of distance traveled”?

 

Come on man. 

 

No point arguing anymore, credit the Habs for letting the league handle it and staying on task.

 

Go Habs Go.

[Jauronimo]

2 hours ago, 4_kidd_4 said:

 

You’re really gonna argue against the fact that Sheifel traveled roughly 180 feet to make that hit? It wasn’t a violent check as a “result of distance traveled”?

 

Come on man. 

 

No point arguing anymore, credit the Habs for letting the league handle it and staying on task.

 

Go Habs Go.

Charging has historically been determined by steps.  Like if you keep your feet moving through the check then you ran the guy and its charging.  Scheifele did not continue to accelerate through the hit.  He had a full head of steam but he glided in the last 2 to 4 strides.  

 

I don't have any problem with the ruling of a charge or the suspension BUT lets not pretend the rule is cut and dry.  And lets definitely not pretend that the farce that is the NHL's disciplinary process is infallible.  There is zero consistency with the way suspensions are handed out.  The only consistency is if a guy gets really hurt, the offending player is missing games.  If sitting Scheifele 4 games makes the league a safer place then I'm on board.

[shrader]

11 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

Charging has historically been determined by steps.  Like if you keep your feet moving through the check then you ran the guy and its charging.  Scheifele did not continue to accelerate through the hit.  He had a full head of steam but he glided in the last 2 to 4 strides.  

 

I don't have any problem with the ruling of a charge or the suspension BUT lets not pretend the rule is cut and dry.  And lets definitely not pretend that the farce that is the NHL's disciplinary process is infallible.  There is zero consistency with the way suspensions are handed out.  The only consistency is if a guy gets really hurt, the offending player is missing games.  If sitting Scheifele 4 games makes the league a safer place then I'm on board.

 

You just described the consistency.  If you injure someone with an illegal hit, you will get suspended.  I wish their standard was different, but they've been fairly consistent.  The only place they break from that standard is when it's a fight, two willing participants.