Tkachuk & the Reverse Hit

[bdubbs]

Beauty hit by Seider. Love that kid.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by getbak

I assume it would fall under this part of the Interference rule:
A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may “block” the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction.

This makes sense. So then on the reverse hit.....that to me takes the moving in the same direction part of the table. On a reverse hit, don't you change direction and go in the opposite direction of the player you make contact with.

I interpret that rule to say Tkachuk's reverse hit is actually interference. He's allowed to block the path of his opponent provided he checks the two requirements: He's in front of his opponent (check), he's moving in the same direction (no check).

I'm not saying I want to see it called, nor am I saying it's dirty like a slew foot. I'm just saying seems like their could be a case for interference on the reverse check.

[SportsJunky]

Just before the reverse hit, a Shark was roughing up Dube during the face off. I think MT was still pissed at that.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

This makes sense. So then on the reverse hit.....that to me takes the moving in the same direction part of the table. On a reverse hit, don't you change direction and go in the opposite direction of the player you make contact with.

I interpret that rule to say Tkachuk's reverse hit is actually interference. He's allowed to block the path of his opponent provided he checks the two requirements: He's in front of his opponent (check), he's moving in the same direction (no check).

I'm not saying I want to see it called, nor am I saying it's dirty like a slew foot. I'm just saying seems like their could be a case for interference on the reverse check.

No, you just combined two different sentences together I feel.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed.

MT did not move, he was on the same portion of ice he was always on. He simply squared up for impact.

The second sentence relates to permitting a player to 'block' a player if they are moving in the same direction. Two different circumstances.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

This makes sense. So then on the reverse hit.....that to me takes the moving in the same direction part of the table. On a reverse hit, don't you change direction and go in the opposite direction of the player you make contact with.

I interpret that rule to say Tkachuk's reverse hit is actually interference. He's allowed to block the path of his opponent provided he checks the two requirements: He's in front of his opponent (check), he's moving in the same direction (no check).

I'm not saying I want to see it called, nor am I saying it's dirty like a slew foot. I'm just saying seems like their could be a case for interference on the reverse check.

Nah, then any stationary protection along the boards (like Jagr) is interference.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Leondros

No, you just combined two different sentences together I feel.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed.

MT did not move, he was on the same portion of ice he was always on. He simply squared up for impact.

The second sentence relates to permitting a player to 'block' a player if they are moving in the same direction. Two different circumstances.

Having watched it again, I think you are right. I would have said MT did move, but feet are likely the only thing that matters on movement (ie. the same direction part). He certainly changed the movement of his upper body, but I agree he was on the same portion of the ice, which is likely all that matters.

So I agree, not interference.

[dino7c]

Its a totally legal play, no penalty or anything with the league...Slewfoot is actually illegal

People are ridiculous with Tkachuk...he got suspended for an elbow 5 years ago FFS let it go

[Radio]

This seems ridiculous, thinking it's interference. MT has the puck and the Shark's player is coming to check him off the puck. Whether it's from the front or the back makes no difference because MT has the puck. Otherwise EVERY body check should be an interference call. Hell, you can even "finish a check" within a gorilla or 2...

[Mass_nerder]

I thought Chucky made secondary contact with the shark player's head with his elbow, but it was kind of incidental. If the player was more upright, there would have been no elbow to head contact at all.
That being said, I think these kinds of hits are right on the line, and often he does get his elbow up a little high.
I think he just needs to stop throwing his arm back when he's doing this.

[transplant99]

People are aware that contact is still part of hockey.....right?

[chubeyr1]

It is interference. You are checking a player without the puck.

I think the more this happens more penalties will be called.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

It is interference. You are checking a player without the puck.

I think the more this happens more penalties will be called.

No, you are really just bracing against the check from behind, and you have possession of the puck. Plus, I’ve seen plenty of puck carriers shoulder someone away from them. That interference as well?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

It is interference. You are checking a player without the puck.

I think the more this happens more penalties will be called.

wat? this isn't a new hit...its called a puck battle and is legal. If neither have the puck its a different story.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I thought Chucky made secondary contact with the shark player's head with his elbow, but it was kind of incidental. If the player was more upright, there would have been no elbow to head contact at all.
That being said, I think these kinds of hits are right on the line, and often he does get his elbow up a little high.
I think he just needs to stop throwing his arm back when he's doing this.

look at the screenshot, he didn't throw his arm back at all in this case

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

It is interference. You are checking a player without the puck.

I think the more this happens more penalties will be called.

This is a really bad take. Chucky didn't initiate the contact.

[EVERLAST]

The only thing I'll ever question about the reverse hit is the timing.

If this kinda hit wakes up your opponent and they come back to tie and win the game or leads to a scrap where there's an injury then I look directly at this and wonder if it's worth it timing wise.

Is it?

Call it what you will.....momentum killer? Waker up of the opposition? Stupid? Selfish or just a case of self preservation ?

I see this hit all the time by various players but none of it adds up to being as stupid as a slewfoot, biting , licking or just being an overall dooshwaffle.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, you are really just bracing against the check from behind, and you have possession of the puck. Plus, I’ve seen plenty of puck carriers shoulder someone away from them. That interference as well?

I will admit on that play it would be hard to call interference. It still is interference. Interference is part of hockey. Protecting the puck is too.

That said Tkachuk did a reverse hit on Doughty. Drove into him and also threw an elbow.

Clearly interference.

[dino7c]

the hit certainly didn't cause the Flames to turn over the puck or Markstrom to let in a months worth of bad goals in 2 periods

[blankall]

As long as you aren't leading with the elbows, stick, etc.. i don't see what the issue is. You can hit someone backwards. There's no rule against that. If you are hitting another player, expect them to hit your back. The Sharks' player think that because his back is turned, Tkachuk doesn't see him coming, and, therefore, the Sharks player is not protecting themselves as they should.

[Reggie Dunlop]

People need to leave Matthew alone. He is a kind and caring nurturer, respectful of others.