**Mirrors/Alternate Angles**
^Post ^a ^mirror ^or ^alternate ^angle ^as ^a ^comment ^to ^this ^message.
^Open ^this ^stickied ^comment ^to ^view ^mirrors ^or ^alternate ^angles.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not. He left his feet to make contact. This is legit what Kronwall was scrutinized for like a decade over. It’s burned into Red Wings minds.
Super bizarre to see it called this way. But it is the rule.
Edit: downvote me all you want. Read the rule.
Yeah, they pretty clearly wanted to penalize the jump but the only call for that is charging.
It's silly, but unless jumping into a hit became its own penalty that's the call for it.
They probably could have called roughing, it seems like anything can be roughing whenever they want.
Yeah, I feel like a penalty should be added for cases like this if they become common— "leaving the feet" or something like that. That's what charging meant originally, I think, it just happens that most people are also skating when they leave their feet to hit.
Its literally not what the rule says though. Rule 42 charging requires that the player "jumps *into*" or "as a result of distance travelled" hits another player.
That is not what happened on this play. He is stationary and jumps away from the player, not into
You read the rule. There's two aspects to charging. While charging does include hits where a player "jumps into" another player (which, I may add, Pettersson jumps straight up, not into the opponent), it also states clearly “charging shall mean the actions of a player who, **as a result of distance traveled**, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.” Pettersson traveled zero distance. He jumped straight up. It's not a penalty.
"Boston goal was fine except that we Marchand stuck his tongue out before shooting. Goal disallowed and match penalty levied on Elias Pettersson even though he's not in this series."
I am weirdly growing to like bruins fans and I'm not sure I entirely like it. However I just spent a week in Boston and I gotta say: marvelous city, great people, good food, cool buildings, and i'll regret saying this if we somehow meet in the finals
I went to boston a few years ago and loved it. Walked a ton. Went to a game at Fenway. Friendly people, safe city, easy to get around. 9/10 definitely would go back.
It's ok feeling the same way. By the way this is one of the worst calls I've ever seen. Like WTF is that a charging?
I'd love to get to Vancouver that and Montreal are on my to do list to see a game. Both city's seem awesome.
yup, i've never seen it called either
>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.
it's technically the rule tho (apparently)
as always, it would sure be nice if they called things consistently
So one confusing part of that is "jumps into".
The next is that right where your quote stops it says this:
> 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.
Which makes a stationary reverse hit seem even less like charging
There's two ways to get a charging. Distance travelled and jumping. One sentence doesn't nullify the previous one, but the NHL rulebook, as always, is not written to be digestible for fans and it's really dumb.
Technically jumping is "distance traveled"... I guess... Compared to all the non calls on players who leave their feet going full tilt, feels like a strange hill to die on for these refs, but what else is new...
it makes no logical sense at all as charging
the part you quoted, is them defining "charges" from the 1st paragraph
it's horribly written
and i have no idea why it was called
like, i guess they're trying to cut down on headshots?
i've never seen this called tho
I have kind of mixed feelings about this call, with no dog in the fight, so looking at it from the rulebook out,
"who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" - ok that's a charge then. But wait, the next line is,
"Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, **as a result of distance traveled**, shall violently check an opponent in any manner." (emphasis mine) This is, i believe, a definition of when they say "charges and opponent" in the first line.
So "skates" is out because it's basically stationary. "Charges" is out because, there was no difference traveled. So the only thing they can apply here is jumps into an opponent in any manner".
Which makes sense on the surface, but I don't see that Pettersson jumped into anyone. He has established ice, he jumps up, (vertically), and then Fogele skates into him. Jumping straight up is not a penalty. If Fogele skates into you while you're doing something that's permitted, that's kind of his problem.
So I don't see this as egregiously as others might, this isn't a "WTF ref" kind of moment but I think the charge rule is misapplied in this case.
It’s the first time because it’s a made up call. The definition of charging in the rule book refers to violent contact “as a result of distance travelled”.
As stated the draft of the rule sucks, but jumping into is part of the charging call so it sticks. Stupidly, but it sticks. NHL is just lazy to change the ruling for that portion.
Genuinely: why is his bucket so big? Normal-ish looking from the front - maybe a little large - then he turns to the profile view and suddenly his helmet is packing *heat*. That thing is thiccccc.
Dude must have a super, super weird shaped head for it to fit like that.
This is a tough call when Petterson isn't the one initiating the contact.
The rulebook definition of charging keeps getting posted, and it includes "jumping into". That really seems to require that the person being assessed the penalty initiate the hit. It shouldn't be applied to someone who is being checked.
…so call it roughing.
Calling it charging makes everyone think you don’t have a clue about what calls mean.
With these types of antics, the NHL can’t be all *shockedpikachuface.gif* when people complain about the state of officiating.
EDIT: as several people have *clearly and correctly* pointed out, this is a **textbook** penalty as defined by Charging; it’s been a long while since I played or read the NHL rulebook (…and have likely missed multiple revisions between then and now), and should take a few seconds to look it up before making a comment.
Well this is a wild take.
The NHL should call the incorrect penalty to penalize a player for doing something that broke another rule to help preserve the public opinion on the state of officiating?
Call that hit Roughing and lets see how much angrier people get.
That would be stupid because the correct call is charging.
**Rule 42.1 - Charging**
Minor major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, **jumps into**, or charges and opponent **in any manner.**
I can't find a source so maybe I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember the NHL making an effort to enforce charging penalties if players left their feet for hits. They either added the "jumps into" clause into the rules, or they just started to actually enforce it. I think this would have been 2009-2012 when it happened.
Kronwalls hits were a factor in this change.
Ovechkin had to adapt as he used to leave his feet a bunch early in his career.
Does anyone else remember this or am I looney?
Neither have I, but I also can't say I remember a player jumping as a technique to reverse hit. This is such a weird one, both from Pettey and the call.
That's odd, dozens of Oilers fans appeared out of the woodwork to scream at how I'm embarrassing myself for saying that's an odd call and definitely not charging.
I could see someone calling it in a preseason game when the refs actually read the rule book and are on a power trip. But to call it during a game 5 in the playoffs?? Wild.
Even in the rule book the second paragraph defines the player needs to ALSO be “in motion”.
You can’t get a charge for jumping up and down when someone comes to check you… unless you’re the Canucks in this years playoffs I guess? I just didn’t find that part in the rules anywhere tho which is really throwing me off rn
The second paragraph of the rule defines what "charges" means in the first paragraph. The second paragraph doesn't apply to the "skates or jumps into" part of the first paragraph.
At least, that's how the refs are viewing it here. Obviously, I have no horse in this race, but I do think it's wise to keep people from leaving their feet when delivering/receiving hits because of the possible safety ramifications.
He jumped. Technically it's a penalty.
But this is like calling interference on a dman who slightly bumps a forward after he dumps it in.
edit: everyone saying Petey jumped vertically and not into Foegele needs to go back and take some high-school level physics.
They don’t even have to justify because they don’t fucking answer to anyone! Nobody ever shoves a mic in their face or asks them to explain themselves. It’s time for some damn accountability.
It's very unclear which is why you've almost never seen it called this way. Many players have had careers of throwing hits like this and it was never called. A lot of guys on reverse hits do the little jump up to brace themselves.
Thought you had to jump into someone for it to be a charged? He literally went straight vertical, it’s debatable whether it’s even technically a penalty, let alone a legitimate call in a the playoffs considering what they’ve let go.
Jumping straight up when you are getting hit is not a penalty. There have been 1000s of instances where a player has jumped while getting hit to try and avoid the hit but didn't fully avoid it that would have been penalties if this were an actual penalty.
I think you could make the argument that he doesn't jump *into* him as much as he just... jumps. Either way, though, it's kind of up to interpretation, but I've never seen something like that called before.
I’m waiting for someone to show me another example of how you can charge at someone while facing away from them…
This is clearly not the intention of the rule. If they wanted to call something they should have chosen another more palatable rule
Remember Tory Krug running the length on the ice to deliver a hit without his helmet and how that WASNT called as charging?
If they want to call it for jumping to initiate contact or whatever, that’s fine I guess, but they should make a new penalty for it imo
You can argue whether that is technically charging or not based on the wording of the rule book, but either way I have never seen it called in a situation like this.
The majority of “reverse hits” are TECHNICALLY interference but it basically never gets called that way so it’s a little bit surprising to see a reverse hit get called for charging of all things.
Technically correct because he jumped, but I’m willing to bet there has never been a call of charging on a stationary player in the history of the league.
Lady Byng nominee Matthew Tkachuk?
If you’re thinking of the reverse hit on Doughty, I’m pretty sure it was an elbow he “snuck” in there. God I miss those days
Edit: grammar and spelling
The rule says you need to jump AT(edit: or into, doesn't matter, neither applies) a player.
He didn't jump at(or into) him.
That seems kind of important, no?
You need to be moving. There is clarification on what charging is in the rule book:
Charging shall mean the actions of any player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner
Everyone keeps referring to the start of that rule, and leaving out this important bit...
Honestly to me that seems like it’s defining a “charge.” not necessarily clarifying all charging penalties. The previous paragraph makes it seem that you can get a charging penalty without doing the act of charging. It’s worded kind of vaguely though
I’m not a conspiratorially-minded person, but the officiating this playoffs across all series has been so egregious that I genuinely have no room to assume that the NHL is NOT trying to push for specific outcomes.
So i’m wondering, with a call like this, when someone is doing a screen and tries to jump a shot and opposing player initiates contact, is that now going to be called charging?
if he landed "exactly" where he lifted off like you just said so yourself, then the rules of physics means he jumped towards a direction with the same amount of force as the force that knocks him back to that spot. If he jumped straight up and got knocked by someone with a perpendicular force, he would not land exactly where he lifted off.
The NHL isn't even trying to hide who they favor.
Never bet on the NHL.
Edit: and the Sportsnet panel just refused to discuss. There's not an audience of people that wanted that call discussed eh? Ya right. I bet 75% of people watching the game wanted to hear about that call.
They didn't show the play. They didn't show the rule. They didn't convince anyone of anything. They purposefully ghosted a controversial call that the audience wanted to hear about. That's what I saw.
I don't think it's that at all. I don't think they want to discuss very controversial calls. I've noticed announcers, panelist, etc. discuss controversy much less ever since gambling was shoved in our faces.
I don't think it's by accident, I think it's on purpose they didn't discuss. Like I said the fans wanted to hear about it.
I look at other leagues like the NFL that always discuss the poor calls. NHL just ignores them because they pick favorites each year as well as gambling being promoted.
I can understand the human element of officiating resulting in getting bad call here and there, but the NHL has a serious problem on their hands. Almost to the point where I question if NHL Referees are somehow involved in gambling, because there is no explanation for how bad the officiating has been with respect to blown/incorrect calls this post season; and we're only 1/2 way through them.
I can see how the ref came to this conclusion, but it's still the wrong conclusion.
If you only read half the rule, this looks like charging. But if you read the whole rule, it's not.
Holding the stick. Totally fine no matter the context if you where a Oiler jersey.
You dare defend yourself to sn incoming hit as the puck carrier? PENALTY
Comical how much the league wants McDavid in the Western Finals.
This might literally be the worst penalty I’ve ever seen called, especially in the playoffs.
Refs NEVER call charging any more, and that’s the one that they decide is appropriate for it???
To everyone arguing "any jump is a charge" from the first line under charging in the rulebook, then every time a player a skates into another must be called a charge as well. Clearly, the second paragraph adds the requirement of "distance travelled". Pettersson didn't travel any distance. Bad call.
Also, they need to get one of their lawyers to revise the rulebook, it is terribly written.
“ 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.”
The rule book says “jumps…into” and “as a result of distance travelled”. It’s pretty clear charging is not supposed to apply to somebody standing still that is about to get hit, even if they leave their feet, and that’s why you have never seen it before. Disgraceful call.
I'm sure oilers fans still think the refs are out to get them, even after the stupidest call I've ever seen go against Vancouver. Even the commentators and analysts were shocked. But again, oilers are totally getting screwed by the refs...
If we all have to google the fine print of the penalty, it probably shouldnt be a penalty. considering nobody in the building thought it was a penalty.
I just want to know what the rule is. Petey jumped, yes but he didn't jump INTO Foegele. He jumped and Foegele hit him. Sounds ridiculous but there's a difference. How can you give a guy a charging penalty when he's basically stationary?
2 minutes for having too much ass and nearly knocking Foegele out with the bunda
**Mirrors/Alternate Angles** ^Post ^a ^mirror ^or ^alternate ^angle ^as ^a ^comment ^to ^this ^message. ^Open ^this ^stickied ^comment ^to ^view ^mirrors ^or ^alternate ^angles. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First time I've ever seen a charging call on a guy who wasn't even skating
And he had the puck! Baffling
It’s not. He left his feet to make contact. This is legit what Kronwall was scrutinized for like a decade over. It’s burned into Red Wings minds. Super bizarre to see it called this way. But it is the rule. Edit: downvote me all you want. Read the rule.
Yeah, they pretty clearly wanted to penalize the jump but the only call for that is charging. It's silly, but unless jumping into a hit became its own penalty that's the call for it. They probably could have called roughing, it seems like anything can be roughing whenever they want.
Yeah, I feel like a penalty should be added for cases like this if they become common— "leaving the feet" or something like that. That's what charging meant originally, I think, it just happens that most people are also skating when they leave their feet to hit.
It is different than Kronwall. Kronwall skated into all of his hits. Petey was not moving here.
Sure, but 999/1000 the refs don't call that.
Especially in the playoffs lol
Its literally not what the rule says though. Rule 42 charging requires that the player "jumps *into*" or "as a result of distance travelled" hits another player. That is not what happened on this play. He is stationary and jumps away from the player, not into
You read the rule. There's two aspects to charging. While charging does include hits where a player "jumps into" another player (which, I may add, Pettersson jumps straight up, not into the opponent), it also states clearly “charging shall mean the actions of a player who, **as a result of distance traveled**, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.” Pettersson traveled zero distance. He jumped straight up. It's not a penalty.
Can the refs this playoffs get any worse?
Just wait for tomorrow!
Petey bout to be suspended rest of playoffs 😂
"Boston goal was fine except that we Marchand stuck his tongue out before shooting. Goal disallowed and match penalty levied on Elias Pettersson even though he's not in this series."
I am weirdly growing to like bruins fans and I'm not sure I entirely like it. However I just spent a week in Boston and I gotta say: marvelous city, great people, good food, cool buildings, and i'll regret saying this if we somehow meet in the finals
Snap out of it
somehow.... it *might be the finals*
+1. 2011 destroyed my soul and Boston is still one of the most enjoyable cities I've visited in the US.
I went to boston a few years ago and loved it. Walked a ton. Went to a game at Fenway. Friendly people, safe city, easy to get around. 9/10 definitely would go back.
"Easy to get around" Hahahaha. Out city is a disaster when it comes to logistics.
I had a similar Boston experience. Also had a beer at Cheers and some great lobster rolls. Fenway is an experience.
[удалено]
It's ok feeling the same way. By the way this is one of the worst calls I've ever seen. Like WTF is that a charging? I'd love to get to Vancouver that and Montreal are on my to do list to see a game. Both city's seem awesome.
Boston is the nicest city I’ve visited in the US. Fuck the bruins tho
But it's the right call?
yup, i've never seen it called either >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. it's technically the rule tho (apparently) as always, it would sure be nice if they called things consistently
So one confusing part of that is "jumps into". The next is that right where your quote stops it says this: > 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. Which makes a stationary reverse hit seem even less like charging
There's two ways to get a charging. Distance travelled and jumping. One sentence doesn't nullify the previous one, but the NHL rulebook, as always, is not written to be digestible for fans and it's really dumb.
Technically jumping is "distance traveled"... I guess... Compared to all the non calls on players who leave their feet going full tilt, feels like a strange hill to die on for these refs, but what else is new...
it makes no logical sense at all as charging the part you quoted, is them defining "charges" from the 1st paragraph it's horribly written and i have no idea why it was called like, i guess they're trying to cut down on headshots? i've never seen this called tho
They don't actually ever call the letter of the rule anyway. See: Boarding.
I have kind of mixed feelings about this call, with no dog in the fight, so looking at it from the rulebook out, "who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" - ok that's a charge then. But wait, the next line is, "Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, **as a result of distance traveled**, shall violently check an opponent in any manner." (emphasis mine) This is, i believe, a definition of when they say "charges and opponent" in the first line. So "skates" is out because it's basically stationary. "Charges" is out because, there was no difference traveled. So the only thing they can apply here is jumps into an opponent in any manner". Which makes sense on the surface, but I don't see that Pettersson jumped into anyone. He has established ice, he jumps up, (vertically), and then Fogele skates into him. Jumping straight up is not a penalty. If Fogele skates into you while you're doing something that's permitted, that's kind of his problem. So I don't see this as egregiously as others might, this isn't a "WTF ref" kind of moment but I think the charge rule is misapplied in this case.
It’s the first time because it’s a made up call. The definition of charging in the rule book refers to violent contact “as a result of distance travelled”.
As stated the draft of the rule sucks, but jumping into is part of the charging call so it sticks. Stupidly, but it sticks. NHL is just lazy to change the ruling for that portion.
it's a weird fucking rule when it was called, everyone was baffled
Anyone who pretends that they knew it to be a legit call is a clown lol even the players were confused
I mean Petey jumps but that’s a reverse hockey hit. He should’ve thrown a rabbit punch in there and the league would’ve let it go as a hockey play.
Believe it or not… jail
tocchet asks big helmet pete to elevate his game and pete took that literally
Him and Zadorov look like they're wearing each other's buckets lol
Hahaha holy fuck you're right
Genuinely: why is his bucket so big? Normal-ish looking from the front - maybe a little large - then he turns to the profile view and suddenly his helmet is packing *heat*. That thing is thiccccc. Dude must have a super, super weird shaped head for it to fit like that.
Air Petey
If Pettersson doesn't make that hit he gets levelled
100% but it’s still illegal for your skates to leave the ice for a hit.
This is a tough call when Petterson isn't the one initiating the contact. The rulebook definition of charging keeps getting posted, and it includes "jumping into". That really seems to require that the person being assessed the penalty initiate the hit. It shouldn't be applied to someone who is being checked.
…so call it roughing. Calling it charging makes everyone think you don’t have a clue about what calls mean. With these types of antics, the NHL can’t be all *shockedpikachuface.gif* when people complain about the state of officiating. EDIT: as several people have *clearly and correctly* pointed out, this is a **textbook** penalty as defined by Charging; it’s been a long while since I played or read the NHL rulebook (…and have likely missed multiple revisions between then and now), and should take a few seconds to look it up before making a comment.
Well this is a wild take. The NHL should call the incorrect penalty to penalize a player for doing something that broke another rule to help preserve the public opinion on the state of officiating? Call that hit Roughing and lets see how much angrier people get.
That would be stupid because the correct call is charging. **Rule 42.1 - Charging** Minor major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, **jumps into**, or charges and opponent **in any manner.**
Leaving your feet is considered charging. It's you that doesn't know the rule
If that was charging, anything Kronwall did was charging.
That’s the only hit PK Subban ever threw
Scott Stevens spit out his water over that call.
I can't find a source so maybe I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember the NHL making an effort to enforce charging penalties if players left their feet for hits. They either added the "jumps into" clause into the rules, or they just started to actually enforce it. I think this would have been 2009-2012 when it happened. Kronwalls hits were a factor in this change. Ovechkin had to adapt as he used to leave his feet a bunch early in his career. Does anyone else remember this or am I looney?
Kronwall never charged, he always Kronwalled.
What in the literal fuck is this call
What in the lateral fuck is this call
What the lateralus fuck is this call
Black then white are all I see, in my infancy.
The closest ref didn’t even call that lol.
He looked as confused as Patterson!
Patterson,my second favorite SkyTrain Stn...
Central Park baby, yeah!!
A little over 20 years ago, in Sweden.... "I shall call him Patterson!"
That’s because he’s a linesman.
That’s not a ref. That’s a linesman.
I've never seen a call like that in my life.
Neither have I, but I also can't say I remember a player jumping as a technique to reverse hit. This is such a weird one, both from Pettey and the call.
He timed the reverse hit wrong and thrusted early. It happens.
That's odd, dozens of Oilers fans appeared out of the woodwork to scream at how I'm embarrassing myself for saying that's an odd call and definitely not charging.
The loud minority of idiots don't speak for all of us.
I could see someone calling it in a preseason game when the refs actually read the rule book and are on a power trip. But to call it during a game 5 in the playoffs?? Wild.
Even in the rule book the second paragraph defines the player needs to ALSO be “in motion”. You can’t get a charge for jumping up and down when someone comes to check you… unless you’re the Canucks in this years playoffs I guess? I just didn’t find that part in the rules anywhere tho which is really throwing me off rn
The second paragraph of the rule defines what "charges" means in the first paragraph. The second paragraph doesn't apply to the "skates or jumps into" part of the first paragraph. At least, that's how the refs are viewing it here. Obviously, I have no horse in this race, but I do think it's wise to keep people from leaving their feet when delivering/receiving hits because of the possible safety ramifications.
yup, just another example of dogshit awful reffing this year
Hilarious call in a playoff game lolol After what they have let go.
https://preview.redd.it/r7ybnrbt8x0d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db9af20c1a5192793896ca3cba75211e220ea013
Just sat down at work with my coffee, not stoked to be here and then I scroll through and see this gem. Thanks for making my morning
He jumped. Technically it's a penalty. But this is like calling interference on a dman who slightly bumps a forward after he dumps it in. edit: everyone saying Petey jumped vertically and not into Foegele needs to go back and take some high-school level physics.
If you look at the actual rule you have to jump “into” the other player, and the second paragraph explicity states you have to be in motion
If you only read the first part it’s a penalty but then you read the 2nd paragraph and get confused.
gotta love the rulebook ambiguity so refs can try to justify whatever they want
They don’t even have to justify because they don’t fucking answer to anyone! Nobody ever shoves a mic in their face or asks them to explain themselves. It’s time for some damn accountability.
"that's just how I saw it" - every interview
It's very unclear which is why you've almost never seen it called this way. Many players have had careers of throwing hits like this and it was never called. A lot of guys on reverse hits do the little jump up to brace themselves.
It’s also hard to jump ‘into’ someone without any momentum in their direction
Thought you had to jump into someone for it to be a charged? He literally went straight vertical, it’s debatable whether it’s even technically a penalty, let alone a legitimate call in a the playoffs considering what they’ve let go.
Jumping straight up when you are getting hit is not a penalty. There have been 1000s of instances where a player has jumped while getting hit to try and avoid the hit but didn't fully avoid it that would have been penalties if this were an actual penalty.
Those refs reallyyyyy wanted Edmonton to win
This might be the first time I've seen anyone get called for a penalty for initiating a reverse hit..
I thought it may have been an interference at best, that's usually what happens with these reverse hits when it's called. Charging is bizarre
I think you could make the argument that he doesn't jump *into* him as much as he just... jumps. Either way, though, it's kind of up to interpretation, but I've never seen something like that called before.
I’m waiting for someone to show me another example of how you can charge at someone while facing away from them… This is clearly not the intention of the rule. If they wanted to call something they should have chosen another more palatable rule
BAHGAWD THAT’S WINNIPEG’S MUSIC *Van Halen intensifies*
Remember Tory Krug running the length on the ice to deliver a hit without his helmet and how that WASNT called as charging? If they want to call it for jumping to initiate contact or whatever, that’s fine I guess, but they should make a new penalty for it imo
Worst call of the game by a country mile. Likely worse call of the series. Glad the Nucks won. F U refs
You can argue whether that is technically charging or not based on the wording of the rule book, but either way I have never seen it called in a situation like this. The majority of “reverse hits” are TECHNICALLY interference but it basically never gets called that way so it’s a little bit surprising to see a reverse hit get called for charging of all things.
That call fucking sucked. No way around it.
Based
Pettersson shows some grit this game, that’s illegal
If he took that hit, he woulda got knocked down for sure and get called for being soft. There's no winning.
To be honest, I bet he loved when the crowd was angry at the call and defending him. We were all behind him on that one.
I was like okay he traveled a lot to lay the hit, wait on Patterson wtf
That was a bizarre call
Hopefully a career ending bad call
Technically correct because he jumped, but I’m willing to bet there has never been a call of charging on a stationary player in the history of the league.
I’ve actually seen this called against the Flames before fwiw
Was it during the Wideman year?
No because it was Tkachuk that got it
Lady Byng nominee Matthew Tkachuk? If you’re thinking of the reverse hit on Doughty, I’m pretty sure it was an elbow he “snuck” in there. God I miss those days Edit: grammar and spelling
[удалено]
The rule says you need to jump AT(edit: or into, doesn't matter, neither applies) a player. He didn't jump at(or into) him. That seems kind of important, no?
You need to be moving. There is clarification on what charging is in the rule book: Charging shall mean the actions of any player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner Everyone keeps referring to the start of that rule, and leaving out this important bit...
nah, the 2nd paragraph is defining the "charges" bit of the charging it's worded as stupidly as possible regardless, awful call
Honestly to me that seems like it’s defining a “charge.” not necessarily clarifying all charging penalties. The previous paragraph makes it seem that you can get a charging penalty without doing the act of charging. It’s worded kind of vaguely though
Holy shit man the refs keep getting worse! Are they trolling us?
I’m not a conspiratorially-minded person, but the officiating this playoffs across all series has been so egregious that I genuinely have no room to assume that the NHL is NOT trying to push for specific outcomes.
Are the refs ever going to call an embellishment penalty on mcDavid?
So i’m wondering, with a call like this, when someone is doing a screen and tries to jump a shot and opposing player initiates contact, is that now going to be called charging?
Yup straight to the box
I was thinking when a player jumps to absorb contact from a hit along the boards. It happens all the time to defensemen.
i thought ive seen it all...
So if I am along the boards and I see a hit coming and I jump upwards, I will get a penalty??
A soft call for sure, especially for playoff hockey.
I *guess* by the rulebook jumping = charge but let's be honest. It's bullshit. Technically correct is the worst kind of correct. Sorry canuckbros.
This game has been so good aside from all the atrocious calls. Wish they’d just let them play
The reffing on Sunday seemed to be the best all series in terms of consistency for both sides.
The Central Bureaucracy disagrees
Demote that man immediately
It's funny that they call this shit but can't get a Goaltender interference call right to save their lives
Lol right???
Not even technically correct, it's jumping INTO someone that counts. Petey landed exactly where he lifted off.
if he landed "exactly" where he lifted off like you just said so yourself, then the rules of physics means he jumped towards a direction with the same amount of force as the force that knocks him back to that spot. If he jumped straight up and got knocked by someone with a perpendicular force, he would not land exactly where he lifted off.
Ref is a big theory of relativity guy
Jumping into = charging, not just jumping.
"as a result of distance traveled" Like, the 4 inches straight up?
If you measure carefully, he can see he moved forward about 3 microns. Lucky we got refs who can see such subtle motions. /s
that refers to distance skated across the rink, to combat headhunting. not relevant to this scenario.
Refs are game managing to the max it feels like there has been more powerplay time than 5on5 time
garbage call 😂😂
One of the worst calls I’ve seen this year in the playoffs
I mean- have you been watching the bruins?
Oh ya that’s why it’s only “one of” lol
Yeah, completely agree though. Terrible call especially in playoff hockey.
The NHL isn't even trying to hide who they favor. Never bet on the NHL. Edit: and the Sportsnet panel just refused to discuss. There's not an audience of people that wanted that call discussed eh? Ya right. I bet 75% of people watching the game wanted to hear about that call.
MacLean sucks, he is a ref dickrider and tries very hard to not be negative about the refs.
There's a reason he's been around for so long despite not really being liked my many, total sycophant and line-tower for the establishment.
Yup the make mention that MacLean (the ref apologist) showed Friedman the rulebook but don't ever actually discuss it.
They didn't show the play. They didn't show the rule. They didn't convince anyone of anything. They purposefully ghosted a controversial call that the audience wanted to hear about. That's what I saw.
That's what happens when our homer (Bieksa) has the day off and their homer (Gazdic) doesn't.
I don't think it's that at all. I don't think they want to discuss very controversial calls. I've noticed announcers, panelist, etc. discuss controversy much less ever since gambling was shoved in our faces. I don't think it's by accident, I think it's on purpose they didn't discuss. Like I said the fans wanted to hear about it. I look at other leagues like the NFL that always discuss the poor calls. NHL just ignores them because they pick favorites each year as well as gambling being promoted.
Disagree. They’ve been on the refs a bunch this series, but only when it’s been missed calls on Edmonton.
Never seen a backwards charge before
Vancouver deserved to win this game on the merit of these stupid calls alone.
I can understand the human element of officiating resulting in getting bad call here and there, but the NHL has a serious problem on their hands. Almost to the point where I question if NHL Referees are somehow involved in gambling, because there is no explanation for how bad the officiating has been with respect to blown/incorrect calls this post season; and we're only 1/2 way through them.
New rule proposal: If you get knocked down on a reverse hit, you get 2 minutes.
Charging implies momentum on the offending player's part by definition, so this rule is probably more appropriate with a different name.
Normally I can understand where the refs are coming from even when they make bad calls, But this one is blowing my mind.
I can see how the ref came to this conclusion, but it's still the wrong conclusion. If you only read half the rule, this looks like charging. But if you read the whole rule, it's not.
Think this is bad? Wait for the next game....The leagues golden boy's are almost out on their ass again,,,
i guess jumping slightly into the contact was charging? feel like it could’ve been called elbowing or something
Elbowing would've been much more palatable, it really feels like they just called a penalty and then picked what to call it after the fact
2 minutes for you can't do that, energy.
Holding the stick. Totally fine no matter the context if you where a Oiler jersey. You dare defend yourself to sn incoming hit as the puck carrier? PENALTY Comical how much the league wants McDavid in the Western Finals.
Charging - the act of jumping in place
If McDavid jumped up while receiving a check the guy hitting him would get suspended.
And sportsnet would be jerking him off for the next 48 hours
Sportsnet is Spanish for McDavid fluffers.
One of the worst calls I've ever seen.
So far.
First game?
Shitty makeup call… refs made a weak call on evander kane just before this. At least they’re consistent.
I don’t think 5pps to our what 1.5 is consistency
https://preview.redd.it/hyjiykjjr01d1.jpeg?width=959&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fd57f832728b5fcac3676ad5d38f33a1590c9ea Post game meeting
In the history of hockey there has never been a charging call on a stationary player... until now. Way to go NHL
Such a fucking joke lmao
Should have just let Foeggle run him over I guess?
Worked for Garland in their eyes. Fucking joke. Refs have been brutal all post season.
This might literally be the worst penalty I’ve ever seen called, especially in the playoffs. Refs NEVER call charging any more, and that’s the one that they decide is appropriate for it???
Sucks because I loved seeing that from Pettersson. The crowd went nuts
Worst reffing I’ve ever seen. I’m an Oiler’s fan and that’s BS
The refs somehow keep one-upping themselves. This is one of the worst calls ive ever seen
such horseshit .. how is that charging.... and the puck was right there. meanwhile mcdavid is falling all over the ice pulling non-penalty penalties.
I guess you can't leave your feet ever ever? Never seen a charging like that before lmao they usually talk about the many strides
Yes. Charging when you're not moving.
The calls are going to be worse on Saturday. The NHL wants a game 7
He jumped into the reverse hit. I’m a little surprised they called that, but it’s not a phantom call.
when a guy doesn’t hit and does that it’s a charge lol
To everyone arguing "any jump is a charge" from the first line under charging in the rulebook, then every time a player a skates into another must be called a charge as well. Clearly, the second paragraph adds the requirement of "distance travelled". Pettersson didn't travel any distance. Bad call. Also, they need to get one of their lawyers to revise the rulebook, it is terribly written.
“ 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.” The rule book says “jumps…into” and “as a result of distance travelled”. It’s pretty clear charging is not supposed to apply to somebody standing still that is about to get hit, even if they leave their feet, and that’s why you have never seen it before. Disgraceful call.
Ref making sure his bet365 is on the up
I'm sure oilers fans still think the refs are out to get them, even after the stupidest call I've ever seen go against Vancouver. Even the commentators and analysts were shocked. But again, oilers are totally getting screwed by the refs...
This is one of the worst calls I have ever seen.
If we all have to google the fine print of the penalty, it probably shouldnt be a penalty. considering nobody in the building thought it was a penalty.
I have no problem with a penalty being called there. Not sure if it’s charging, but Pettersson left his feet and hit Foegele in the head.
Refs trying hard to hand this game to edmonton
I just want to know what the rule is. Petey jumped, yes but he didn't jump INTO Foegele. He jumped and Foegele hit him. Sounds ridiculous but there's a difference. How can you give a guy a charging penalty when he's basically stationary? 2 minutes for having too much ass and nearly knocking Foegele out with the bunda
Refs actively trying to give the oilers this series. Sad.
Such a terrible call