[PST] Quarter Finals: Montreal Canadiens vs. Winnipeg Jets - HABS WIN SERIES 4-0

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I would characterize the play as reckless as well. A play on the stick wouldn't work, but Schiefele barrelling in on a hit might have Evans short arm the wrap around. Still suspension worthy.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Slava

He coasts in from the hash marks for sure, doesn't leave his feet and catches him a millisecond too late to stop the goal. It's the second round of the playoffs and people actually think he should just let up and let them increase the lead to 2 goals with about a minute to go. It's really bizarre.

And to add to this even further, I would imagine that Evans would among the first to say he should've had his head up. He's played enough hockey to know that.

I have no doubt that he's getting suspended, because nothing here makes sense, but that's not what ought to happen.

Barnaby addresses this in his video clip.

I don't think it matters" if he had his head up." he was trying to score the goal and was focusing on that. he shouldn't be focusing on anything else at that point or he could have missed.

I also think head up or no head up awareness he was going to get destroyed.

I believe Schiefele had full intent to crush him with a "clean" hit once he knew he couldn't stop the goal.

my opinion is that it's easily suspension worthy and he should get 4 games.
I'm guessing he gets two.

No way in heck should he be let off on this one.

[djsFlames]

A goalie earning his 10M salary can take you far apparently.

Habs are middling trash without him.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Slava

He coasts in from the hash marks for sure, doesn't leave his feet and catches him a millisecond too late to stop the goal. It's the second round of the playoffs and people actually think he should just let up and let them increase the lead to 2 goals with about a minute to go. It's really bizarre.



And to add to this even further, I would imagine that Evans would among the first to say he should've had his head up. He's played enough hockey to know that.



I have no doubt that he's getting suspended, because nothing here makes sense, but that's not what ought to happen.

He coasted the last 5 feet after skating full bore 190 feet because he was getting in position to rock the guy. That's textbook charging. As soon as he stopped skating it was to set up the hit, not to prevent the goal or separate the player from the puck.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think we all agree here, and that is hugely problematic for Scheifele who seems to know this as well.


But he does start gliding at full speed and loading up for the hit a good 25–30ft out.


Not quite. There was no path period for Scheifele to prevent the goal, which makes this play all the more egregious.


This looks like apologetics to me. I cannot fathom how anyone can honestly say that Scheifele was letting up, or that he didn't launch into the hit.

Whether he was gliding out or moving his legs isn't an issue for me 25 ft out. Maybe he was gassed? I would think it would have been worse had he kept moving his legs (though maybe he would have been able to stop the puck). I don't think gliding vs skating hard necessarily proves more or less motivation at injuring. If I could see that he was 'loading up for the hit' 25ft out, I would agree that this was malicious. I think that logically - with or without intent - that it looks about the same from 25 feet out given what we see in the replays. Whether he was head-hunting, or whether he was 100% focused on stopping the goal from happening, it would look the same. I don't see it as a 'run' to try and blow a guy up - I see it at that point - up until about 1 metre out (more or less) - that he was trying to get into the play. I don't see how one can look at that and see it as 'loading up for the hit'. I just re-watched it again - I still don't see how that is 100% loading up for the hit at that point, or simply doing his best to reach the front of the net before the puck gets there. 25 feet is a long way off at that point.



Egregious? Absolutely. Definitely a reckless hit. My argument is that it wasn't malicious, or predatory. I do not think he intentionally WANTED or even MEANT to 'destroy' Evans there. I try to put myself in Schiefele's shoes, and figure out what I would do at that speed. Of course he is backchecking hard and trying to stop the puck from going in - which was the correct course of action. It was the correct course of action until the very last moment when it was simply too late. When viewing the replay in real time, it is a half second at most, but the velocity in which he is traveling makes it (IMO) difficult to adjust to at this point. I think that it was 100% reckless.



Why so dismissive here with your last comment. If you are 100% not in the mood to actually formulate an argument here, then no reply would be better. Trust me, I do not consider it a 'win' if someone just gives up on replying. By dismissing my view as an exercise in apologetics is patently wrong. Why? Because I didn't just say: "I can't imagine he really tried to destroy Evans there." I actually provided evidence on what I based my argument on, and you simply dismissing it as my argument being disingenuous makes me then conclude that you have no interest in actually bothering to look at that 'evidence' and decide for yourself. I may not be right - I 100% acknowledge that I may not be right - but your counter is more dismissive than it should be.


Once again, I see that at the last instant, Shiefele turns his skates sideways, and you can see in the replays that it creates a fairly decent snow shower that obscures quite a lot of both their skates. You could have instead made your argument around that the shower would have happened even without an attempt of slowing down, just from the physical load it created by the sudden impact. That's a much better counter-argument than insinuating that my character is somehow flawed that I somehow don't see Schiefele as purposefully trying to injure Evans here, and would lie in order to prove it. It doesn't make me necessarily right (as I have stated), but it makes neither my argument, or more importantly, me personally, as disingenuous.

[flamingred89]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

A goalie earning his 10M salary can take you far apparently.
.

Dont tell that to Panthers fans

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chedder

He coasted the last 5 feet after skating full bore 190 feet because he was getting in position to rock the guy. That's textbook charging. As soon as he stopped skating it was to set up the hit, not to prevent the goal or separate the player from the puck.

That's literally the point of the hit.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's literally the point of the hit.

The charge you mean. And that's why he's going up in front player safety. Your point?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chedder

The charge you mean. And that's why he's going up in front player safety. Your point?

Look, the player safety thing is a joke. I mean we all know (not even in this situation) that it's a massive grey area and some players end up there, and some don't. So let's not try to suggest that a hearing here is suddenly indicative of this being dirty.

I read the charging rule, and it seems to be intentionally ambiguous. Someone posted it this morning and if you read that and intend to go by the letter of the rule it reads as though any hit at any time is illegal. Of course, that's ridiculous, but that's definitely how it reads:

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.

And don't even start to think about the "distance traveled" piece because it's obviously meaningless. I mean players are generally moving in this sport, so they're always traveling some distance. It's just a super grey area.

But don't worry. He's getting a hearing and suspension regardless of whether he should. To me, that doesn't make it right, but it's where we are these days.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

And don't even start to think about the "distance traveled" piece because it's obviously meaningless. I mean players are generally moving in this sport, so they're always traveling some distance. It's just a super grey area.

It reminds me of the balk rule in baseball.

BALK RULES! IMPORTANT!
1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that.
1a. A balk is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of
2. Do not do a balk please.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Whether he was gliding out or moving his legs isn't an issue for me 25 ft out. Maybe he was gassed? I would think it would have been worse had he kept moving his legs (though maybe he would have been able to stop the puck). I don't think gliding vs skating hard necessarily proves more or less motivation at injuring. If I could see that he was 'loading up for the hit' 25ft out, I would agree that this was malicious. I think that logically - with or without intent - that it looks about the same from 25 feet out given what we see in the replays. Whether he was head-hunting, or whether he was 100% focused on stopping the goal from happening, it would look the same. I don't see it as a 'run' to try and blow a guy up - I see it at that point - up until about 1 metre out (more or less) - that he was trying to get into the play. I don't see how one can look at that and see it as 'loading up for the hit'. I just re-watched it again - I still don't see how that is 100% loading up for the hit at that point, or simply doing his best to reach the front of the net before the puck gets there. 25 feet is a long way off at that point.



Egregious? Absolutely. Definitely a reckless hit. My argument is that it wasn't malicious, or predatory. I do not think he intentionally WANTED or even MEANT to 'destroy' Evans there. I try to put myself in Schiefele's shoes, and figure out what I would do at that speed. Of course he is backchecking hard and trying to stop the puck from going in - which was the correct course of action. It was the correct course of action until the very last moment when it was simply too late. When viewing the replay in real time, it is a half second at most, but the velocity in which he is traveling makes it (IMO) difficult to adjust to at this point. I think that it was 100% reckless.



Why so dismissive here with your last comment. If you are 100% not in the mood to actually formulate an argument here, then no reply would be better. Trust me, I do not consider it a 'win' if someone just gives up on replying. By dismissing my view as an exercise in apologetics is patently wrong. Why? Because I didn't just say: "I can't imagine he really tried to destroy Evans there." I actually provided evidence on what I based my argument on, and you simply dismissing it as my argument being disingenuous makes me then conclude that you have no interest in actually bothering to look at that 'evidence' and decide for yourself. I may not be right - I 100% acknowledge that I may not be right - but your counter is more dismissive than it should be.


Once again, I see that at the last instant, Shiefele turns his skates sideways, and you can see in the replays that it creates a fairly decent snow shower that obscures quite a lot of both their skates. You could have instead made your argument around that the shower would have happened even without an attempt of slowing down, just from the physical load it created by the sudden impact. That's a much better counter-argument than insinuating that my character is somehow flawed that I somehow don't see Schiefele as purposefully trying to injure Evans here, and would lie in order to prove it. It doesn't make me necessarily right (as I have stated), but it makes neither my argument, or more importantly, me personally, as disingenuous.

First, he stops striding and moving to a 2 foot glide between the hash marks. The faceoff dots are 20 ft from the goal line
Say Scheifele is moving 25-30 km/h, that’s around 25 ft/sec

So a lot happens in a bit under 1 second

The first picture from GioforPM shows clearly that
- Scheifele has lost the race
- Scheifele has no intent based on stick position to play the puck
- he is loading up for the hit

The second picture shows that the puck is well over the line before impact, as Scheifele is stopping with his skates so that he can plant his feet and transfer his weight through Evans.

At this point Scheifele can decide which edges to use, his up ice edges, to stop, or to transfer to his down ice edges and finish that check. This is where he makes the final decision to proceed with the hit, and with how much commitment of force

I don’t think Scheifele went in with the intent of knocking Evans in to the middle of next week, but a hockey player of his caliber has the skating skills to put his weight on his up ice edges so as not to follow through with the hit

Happens all the time. You can let up

The reason the 180 feet is important is partly because it helped him come to top speed, (but really it takes less than that) but more so that he had a clear view of the evolving play. There were no surprises in terms of last minute change in direction, change in possession

He also could see that Evans is leaning forward with his head lower to reach and put the puck in the net. Player is vulnerable and it wasn’t anything sudden or unexpected. And to me, shoulder was down, and even though it could have hit Evans in the chest, Evans was leaning and head was forward

Man, coaches do drills all the time where you skate your ass off and stop on a whistle.

Scheifele was frustrated, seeing red, and I agree likely didn’t want to injure Evans but he did likely decide that he was going to make Evans take a big hit to make the play

It wasn’t a stalking him around the rink style of predatory

It’s a dangerous, reckless decision, one that did not affect the outcome of the play, happened after the play was officially dead, was foreseeable, was avoidable, and concussed a guy

He doesn’t have a history of being a dirtbag (on the ice, at least) but it was a play for which he should pay

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I feel like those images prove he was too late to do anything and he needed to ease up. Pic one he's already lost the race. He probably should have been diving full length to deflect it, if anything. You can see he knows he's been beaten and he's loading up anyway.

You have dirty players like Bieksa and Barnaby, who know what's happening there.

Here's a fraction before that pic.

If he dove he almost certainly would have knocked the net off, which would be a delay of game penalty and the Jets are down 5-3 even if the puck did not go in the net. Whether he knows he was beaten is a different point, and whether he should have eased up is a different point, but the only hockey play he realistically had to prevent a goal was a body check.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I feel like those images prove he was too late to do anything and he needed to ease up. Pic one he's already lost the race. He probably should have been diving full length to deflect it, if anything. You can see he knows he's been beaten and he's loading up anyway.

You have dirty players like Bieksa and Barnaby, who know what's happening there.

Here's a fraction before that pic.

As a few others have said, I don't think it's clear that the race was lost. Subsequent pics show Scheifele's stick blade moving further way from the puck/back to the centre of the crease as he loads up.

Instead of loading up his right arm to hit, imagine if he kept it on the stick/choked up a bit and extended those arms out...I think he ends up stick blade to stick blade with Evans at the exact moment of the above photo.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

But there is no way to stop the goal with your stick there. Schiefele would 100% end up jamming it in. He just wasn't there quick enough.

Would've been much easier for a LHS, but he could have swept his stick across the post aiming for a stick check that keeps Evans from wrapping the puck in. If he gets puck, it's a coin flip whether he knocks it in or towards the corner.

I'm a lefty, so I have to imagine it on the other post, but I can imagine it feeling fairly natural, though likely ending in an awkward collision or taking out the net (which would run the risk of awarded goal anyways, but who knows).

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If he dove he almost certainly would have knocked the net off, which would be a delay of game penalty and the Jets are down 5-3 even if the puck did not go in the net. Whether he knows he was beaten is a different point, and whether he should have eased up is a different point, but the only hockey play he realistically had to prevent a goal was a body check.

Further to my earlier post, imagine that his stick is in his right hand and his right arm was actually extended toward the puck and not in a vertical position. I think in that situation it is quite possible to have had a shot at knocking the puck away. Or at least a jump ball situation.

His body was located close enough to go for the puck, IMO but he chose to go for the hit, positioned for it and that is why it looks like he couldn't reach the puck.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Further to my earlier post, imagine that his stick is in his right hand and his right arm was actually extended toward the puck and not in a vertical position. I think in that situation it is quite possible to have had a shot at knocking the puck away. Or at least a jump ball situation.

His body was located close enough to go for the puck, IMO but he chose to go for the hit, positioned for it and that is why it looks like he couldn't reach the puck.

Sure he could have reached for the puck and as you said it would probably have been 50/50 as to whether it goes in the net. Diving would have likely knocked the net off, which was suggested earlier. That would have been a pretty easy delay of game call for the ref which would mean a goal. A clean hit 2/10 of a second earlier is probably the surest way to prevent a goal. Like I said, whether he should have eased up is a different, valid question. But using a body check to prevent that goal was the most logical play to try to do.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Sure he could have reached for the puck and as you said it would probably have been 50/50 as to whether it goes in the net. Diving would have likely knocked the net off, which was suggested earlier. That would have been a pretty easy delay of game call for the ref which would mean a goal. A clean hit 2/10 of a second earlier is probably the surest way to prevent a goal. Like I said, whether he should have eased up is a different, valid question. But using a body check to prevent that goal was the most logical play to try to do.

At this point, his weight is all up ice and he still has yet to switch to his down ice edges, execute the check, and drive through the player

Puck is in, play is dead

He can keep on his up ice edges but decides not to

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

At this point, his weight is all up ice and he still has yet to switch to his down ice edges, execute the check, and drive through the player

Puck is in, play is dead

He can keep on his up ice edges but decides not to

Sure and in that 1/10 of a second between that still frame and contact he could have probably done something slightly different. I suspect by that point some form of body contact was inevitable. My point was only that the decision to try to prevent the goal with a body check makes sense to me.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Sure and in that 1/10 of a second between that still frame and contact he could have probably done something slightly different. I suspect by that point some form of body contact was inevitable. My point was only that the decision to try to prevent the goal with a body check makes sense to me.

I get your point, but if he thought a body check would prevent the goal his timing was off. He got there as fast as he could, and wasn’t in time

The decision puck vs hit was obviously made earlier, further up ice

At that point, although the puck race is not winnable, he still has time to decide whether / how to proceed with the hit

[memphusk]

Was this hit dirtier than Tkachuks elbow on Doughty? I think not.

[CrazyCaper]

Multiple sources reporting that it's 4 games