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

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Hitting is a hockey play you do to separate puck from player.

Puck was in the net at the time of contact

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

Good on Ehlers to prevent the scrum from doing more damage to Evans.

This needs to be taught in minor hockey or something. Every time a guy goes down I can’t believe how haphazardly all these idiots fight around him, with skates on ffs.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by DropIt

There's something to be said about throwing yourself into a hit as well. It's not like his feet came inches off the ice, his left foot gets to his own head height.
Schiefle targeted Evans here in a pissed off rage

I have to say that targeting Evans here in a pissed off rage is not against the rules. We have to look at the hit on its own, whether it's illegal or not.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Hitting is a hockey play you do to separate puck from player.

That hit wasn’t going to prevent a goal. He saw he was going to score, braced himself to make a big hit and did it.

In that play if you are trying to stop the puck from going in, you try to block it or deflect it. The puck was already separated from the player. Because it was in the net. Scheifele wasn’t even trying to get to the net. As you have said, he was gliding.

[DazzlinDino]

The video link I posted shows a head shot.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First of all, no one should watch anything the DOPS puts out to educate themselves. That will just make you more and more confused.

Second, "other things are illegal"... this is hilarious in light of the fact that you have, on multiple occasions in this thread, just made things up that didn't happen when describing this hit. Now you're vaguely alluding to "other things" that might be illegal about it, because you can't - without, again, making things up - actually explain what was illegal about it.

... Other than arguably charging, which I've consistently said, is maybe right.

If you are talking about ‘making things up’, yes on closer look, it appears shoulder to head is principal point of contact and the upper arm pushes through and you see the elbow come above the player’s head as it snaps back

It’s a play where you don’t have a great view at speed, but it’s not come conspiratorial lie based bull ####

Either way it is a dirty hit, late, and is definitely intent to injure

It’s basically classic Scott Stevens. Check to the head of a vulnerable player. The league doesn’t accept that any more

[Ashasx]

If I had to make an argument against the hit, it would basically be that Scheifele had a chance to actually prevent the puck from going into the net and instead made no effort to prevent a goal and had every intention of laying a big hit. From that sense, it's predatory, but I see no errors on the other fundamentals of the play.

[dino7c]

Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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."[1] The infraction may warrant any severity of penalty or combination of penalties as the officials deem fit, including a major plus a game misconduct, or suspension if the infraction results in injury to the opposing player.

Distance travelled...like the entire ice surface in a straight line

[AustinL_NHL]

Can't wait to hear Maurice's thoughts on the Scheifele hit after he was more than happy to share his thoughts last Playoffs.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1289795583654297602

[DeluxeMoustache]

An old article

Even though they called charging, it’s a hit to the head

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelph...fy-headhunting

In trying to determine whether such hits are “avoidable,” Friedman said, the league will consider the following:

● Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent's body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.

● Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.

● Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.

Some people here have been living under a rock

This isn’t an acceptable hit

[N-E-B]

I don’t have an issue with going for a hit there. It’s pretty much all he can do to prevent a goal in that scenario.

But that wasn’t going for a hit. That was intentionally trying to hurt someone. Don’t like that play at all.

[Jacks]

I don't think the initial point of contact was the head or that his skates left the ice before the hit but I still hate the hit. You can see right after the initial contact his head whips forward then his whole body goes back.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If I had to make an argument against the hit, it would basically be that Scheifele had a chance to actually prevent the puck from going into the net and instead made no effort to prevent a goal and had every intention of laying a big hit. From that sense, it's predatory, but I see no errors on the other fundamentals of the play.

I agree.

I think the actual hit is technically OK as far the contact goes, outside of the distance travelled aspect of charging that has always been kinda vague... but to me it's the intent to light the player up regardless of if a goal was going to be scored + the resulting injury = dirty.

It's not cut and dry so I can see why there's such a debate about it, but I think the combination of everything makes it dirty.

[getbak]

Here's the exact rule for Charging...

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.

...

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

...

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

42.6 Fines and Suspensions – Refer to Rule 23.6 – Fines and Suspensions – Physical Fouls Category. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28)

It gives the ref pretty broad discretion in making the call.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If you are talking about ‘making things up’, yes on closer look, it appears shoulder to head is principal point of contact

Then you don't know what "principal point of contact" means from the perspective of the NHL rulebook. That wasn't it. The principal point of contact is the chest. Head involvement is incidental. Again, you're making things up because you want it to be more illegal than it is.

and the upper arm pushes through and you see the elbow come above the player’s head as it snaps back

There's no elbow involved in the hit at all. His arm's tucked in. Only after contact does his arm move. That's not elbowing. You've made yet another thing up, because you want it to be more illegal than it is.

Either way it is a dirty hit, late, and is definitely intent to injure

"Dirty hit" requires that a rule be broken. In this post, you've yet again failed to accurately describe a way this hit broke a rule. And even in this sentence, you make more #### up in calling it "late" - the puck had barely left his stick, and was still on his stick when Scheifele has committed to the hit - he's even sideways at the time.

It’s basically classic Scott Stevens. Check to the head of a vulnerable player. The league doesn’t accept that any more

The league does allow checks to the head, provided that you're hitting through the body and the head contact is incidental to a full body hit... Which this was.

It is like some Stevens hits, but closer to Campbell on Umberger.

Originally Posted by Getbak

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.

This is why it's hard to say if it's charging - the definition in the rulebook is circular. He clearly doesn't skate into the hit, he doesn't jump into the hit. Does he "charge an opponent in any manner"? Maybe.

[GioforPM]

Friedman, Botterill say he wasn’t trying to stop a goal. Bieksa even thinks so, it seems. He says “no defence”. Hrudey says “I can’t see anyone even trying to defend it”.

Hrudey doesn’t come to CP I guess.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Not a popular opinion, but I see a clean play.



No, it wasn't late - puck might have been in the net already, but just. We aren't talking 3+ seconds late. Maybe a half second.



I don't see the head being targeted. Blind side? I don't think so either. Head is going to snap forward with that much velocity thrown his way. Looked like it was initially the chest region (but it is difficult to see, even maximized at 720p on sportsnet, which is the highest version I saw online so far). I don't see it malicious.



I just saw Schiefele racing down to prevent the puck from going in the net. Hard hit for sure, and extremely unfortunate that it resulted in injury. I don't think there was even necessarily an intent to injure. I see it as Schiefele just trying to stop the puck from going in after skating hard all the way back. I don't really see it as charging, and I don't see it even as malicious. Just unfortunate, really. I say these things thinking that Schiefele is a ######, and I hate Winnipeg.



Clean to me, not suspension worthy, and just a terribly unfortunate play that resulted in injury. I hope Evans recovers soon. Always crappy seeing guys get injured like this.

[jessnuts]

Well...the sportsnet panel doesn't read CP.
"I don't see how you can defend that hit"

That was Kevin ferklanding Bieksa!

[Scroopy Noopers]

I just don’t see a way to even take a check in that position, that’s my issue with it. You’re going to have speed mismatch every time, dangerous distance to the boards, and pulling a Marchand hip check is even more dangerous for shieflele… but if that’s the risk why wouldn’t you just duck and protect yourself if the league isn’t?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Like I said, that's the only thing it could be, because charging isn't really defined in the rules. But I dunno, usually if you stop skating well beforehand and aren't going full speed, it's not called as such. But that's the only thing it could realistically be.

He was absolutely going full speed, hustling hard from his own blue line. Pretty sure most players in the centre of the ice would stop striding around that point in order to stop or turn.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

He did what he chose to do. He scored a goal.

What are the Jets supposed to do? “Oh he has the right of way, it’s his ice”…that’s not how it goes.

Evans should identify that he’s going to get cranked if he does that. Evans made a play, and got smoked.

If there’s a review that shows it’s main point of contact is the head, then yeah - dirty hit, but until I see that review, it’s just a mean hit.

Originally Posted by blender

Hmm.
I really believe that Evans needs to protect himself better. The game is far from over, and he's pretty trusting to be leaving himself that open in an NHL playoff game. It was not a blind side hit, not a charge, not high (Evans was low and vulnerable by his own doing). The only thing that you can charge Scheifle with is not letting up on a vulnerable player, which is serious. It does have to be said that him cruising back from the hash marks in suggests he was giving up on the play. If so, then the intent is predatory rather than preventing the goal.


I dare not speculate on the wheel of justice.

Hope Evans is OK.

Evans should expect his opponents to prevent him from scoring, not put him on a stretcher.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Hitting is a hockey play you do to separate puck from player.

So is a stick check.