Popular Post HKSR Posted May 17 Popular Post Share Posted May 17 I want to clear this up because lots of people are getting it wrong (even the media). This is an instance where it's important to read beyond the 1st paragraph. Here is the official language: Notice that the media all over the internet are only quoting the 1st part of the rules here: "A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner." This in itself does NOT define charging. The ACTUAL definition of charging is in the next paragraph: "CHARGING SHALL MEAN the actions of a player who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner." There it is clear as day. Charging doesn't mean jumping. It means violently checking an opponent as a result of distance travelled. STANDING STILL is 0 distance. Therefore jumping while standing still is NOT a charging penalty. Hopefully this catches on so people actually realize the refs fucked up last night... but then again, oh well, we won. 3 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 8 minutes ago, HKSR said: There it is clear as day. Charging doesn't mean jumping. It means violently checking an opponent as a result of distance travelled. STANDING STILL is 0 distance. Therefore jumping while standing still is NOT a charging penalty. Just like how the refs and DoP(e)S claimed that the Aaron Rome hit was 0.01 seconds late , they'll justify the penalty for the 0.01 cm "distance travelled" (backwards) by EP40. zOMG, won't people think of the distance?! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Can we get this translated into braille for the refs? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 12 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Can we get this translated into braille for the refs? Not sure braille would help, considering they're probably also illiterate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Not sure braille would help, considering they're probably also illiterate. Maybe an audiobook? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzle Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 5 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Maybe an audiobook? They seem to be deaf as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 7 minutes ago, Dizzle said: They seem to be deaf as well... At the very least, they seem to be tone-deaf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 42 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Can we get this translated into braille for the refs? Also translated into whatever inbread language Oilers fans speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 7 minutes ago, Rekker said: Also translated into whatever inbread language Oilers fans speak. Maybe Tikkanese? 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 10 minutes ago, Rekker said: Also translated into whatever inbread language Oilers fans speak. Maybe a nice banjo instrumental backing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionized27 Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Maybe elbowing. MAYBE. That had to be the absolute worst, biased call I've ever seen in 40+ years of NHL viewing. Tocchet handled it like a champ. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Nothing heard, from the League, about this call? How about that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 At most you can call that play interference or borderline elbowing, but Petey was bracing for contact with the other player going for a hit so I don't know what he was supposed to do there. It's just pure dumb and the league won't admit they made a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperlynx Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 Actually, clear as mud: "...as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner" Any finished hard check is "a result of distance travelled". That means, we call what we want. ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantomex Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 22 hours ago, King Heffy said: Maybe an audiobook? Helen Kelly Sutherland can't use that either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 Based upon those rules, technically everything will be charging then, including any board hits that are legal and not 'dirty'. We know that this is not actually the case, but when the rules get loosely used like it was on Pettersson, it opens a pandora box of what is acceptable and what is not. The NHL referees are SO bad at their job; it's ridiculous. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemus Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 Thanks to the OP for taking the time to copy this Rule 42. After game 5, I looked up this Rule and realized that those people with a lack of reading comprehension would glom onto the phrase "jump into" as justification for the penalty. I just didn't believe that our national TV panel of experts would be unable to accurately comprehend this written rule. As the OP points out, this phrase in the preamble is meaningless without taking into context the definition which is supplied in the second paragraph. How many times have we seen a player along the boards, jump in order to lessen the impact from an incoming body check. According to this Ref and this panel of experts, that jumping player may be guilty of charging (penalty called at the Ref's discretion). Hope that the referee that made that penalty call is sufficiently chastised by his supervisor. That referee should not work another game this Stanley Cup playoffs. His mistake was that egregious. He should also be required to take remedial studies of the NHL rule book. Maybe as good a time as any to get in a quick discussion about one of my pet peeves: the second referee. -it is time to remove this official from the ice surface. This job can be better handled by a combination of off-ice officials and the use of cameras (which is partially done now). -every game, usually on multiple occasions, there is an impact from this deep official, whether it is a puck hitting him or a player having to navigate past him, which takes time and allows for the forecheck to close. -the game has evolved. There is much more cycling of the puck than previous decades. The players are bigger and faster. Just not enough room out on the ice for a bystander. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 49 minutes ago, Artemus said: -it is time to remove this official from the ice surface. This job can be better handled by a combination of off-ice officials and the use of cameras (which is partially done now). Not gonna happen, man. The NHLOA would raise a hissy fit if you were to reduce the on-ice officiating by 25% and have their members correspondingly reduced in number on the active roster (owing to lack of officiating spots to be filled for games). If anything, they'd be pushing for four linesmen and three refs. Because membership counts. $$$ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 On 5/18/2024 at 11:51 AM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Not gonna happen, man. The NHLOA would raise a hissy fit if you were to reduce the on-ice officiating by 25% and have their members correspondingly reduced in number on the active roster (owing to lack of officiating spots to be filled for games). If anything, they'd be pushing for four linesmen and three refs. Because membership counts. $$$ Then the job needs to be completely outsourced since the NHL has proven to be incapable of finding enough officials capable and willing to conduct themselves like professionals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank, Dank, and Tank Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 (edited) The problem is that the rule is terribly drafted. It defines the charging penalty in two ways. First, it says the penalty is "skat[ing], jump[ing] into or charg[ing] an opponent". Then second, it says that "charging" means "as a result of distance traveled...violently check[ing] an opponent in any manner". And it's hard to read this coherently. If "charging" only means "as a result of distance traveled..." etc. then it's unclear why they said "skates, jumps into OR charges an opponent". The words "skates" and "jumps into" must mean something different than "charges". "Jumps into" is maybe what Petey did. But then what sort of penalty did they mean by the word "skates"? It's not even grammatical. Skating into an opponent? That's every bodycheck ever. The simpler wording would've been: "A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who charges an opponent. To 'charge' shall mean to, as a result of distance traveled, violently check an opponent in any manner." Then stationary jumping could've been made a separate penalty or gotten rolled into "roughing". It's not what most would think of as a "charge" anyway. Edited May 23 by Hank, Dank, and Tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 On 32 Thoughts Elliotte heard from the league that by the rule it was technically right however, the league made it known that they would not like to see that called like that ever again. Just a brutal call. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb Nuck Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 The fact the call was made should lead to a performance review of the ref, sorry, just drunk day dreaming. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 5 hours ago, canuck73_3 said: by the rule it was technically right Yeah, but by that standard, about 98% of the hits currently deemed "legal" would also be "technically right" to fit that standard. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.