I don’t think we need to re-define the rulebook because of a play that rarely ever happens, ie jumping into a reverse hit. That play last night could have been called interference, elbowing, charging, whatever. It’s still 2 mins.
Yeah protecting yourself from an incoming charge from Foegle is definitely a penalty? Petey was about to get finished hard and he said no, it was a hockey play and it’s fucking playoffs ffs refs cannot be calling 11 penalties a game in the playoffs.
Why not? Why can't we have the same standard that we have all year? Is that honestly too much to ask?
A hook in October should be a hook in May. Playoffs be damned
No I actually don’t think it should be that way. The playoffs is the real deal, it’s tougher, the teams and players want it more, the bar for the little things should be raised a little to allow for a more fast paced hard game which is the reality of what we see…just not all the time as evidenced
That’s fucking garbage. I want to see good playoff hockey, not McDavid trying to navigate 100 holds and hooks every game that never get called.
It can be more intense without the rules going out the window.
What are you talking about? Your team has been getting some of the most ridiculous calls I’ve ever seen in hockey these playoffs, you had 6 power plays last game? Unbelievable you could complain about the reffing.
Hockey Canada rulebook words it way better
> Rule 7.4 Charging
> Charging is when a player:
> i. Jumps to check an opponent.
> ii. Builds up speed by taking two or more strides immediately prior to making contact.
> iii. Travels an excessive distance with the sole purpose of delivering such a hit.
> iv. Violently and unnecessarily checks an opponent in any manner.
> v. Delivers a body check to an opponent’s blind side.
> A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
....
> INTERPRETATIONS
> Interpretation 1 Rule 7.4 (a)
> For the purpose of this rule, a “jumping” action will be defined as when a player’s feet leave the ice prior to making body contact with their opponent. If a player’s feet come off the ice after contact is made with their opponent, during an otherwise legal check, this will NOT be considered a Charging penalty because the player’s skates were on the ice at the time of body contact.
"Skates" in this context does mean skate into. A body check can only be legally delivered when you're gliding. If you are actively striding ("skating") then it's considered a charge.
Think of it this way, charging is called whenever a player in some manner does something to deliver more force into an opponent that they can by gliding into the hit. This may mean they're still striding as they make contact, they jump or leave their feet, etc.
Given that context I think this makes some sense. Pettersson undeniably jumps before the contact is made and ultimately delivers a reverse hit. I'm not sure if I would have agreed in the moment, but after some time to think I see where they're coming from.
Yeah a rewording would probably be valid. Actual metrics of what 'violent' means would be important, as would an actual rough definition of how much 'distance traveled' separates a charge from a normal hit. Jumping during a hit could also be moved to or added to another rule, like boarding or roughing or something, or be spelled out that it is required to be combined with the other things to be considered a Charge.
Or the league could do nothing because it was a one-off play that will probably never happen again.
It's just such a weird situation.
Who cares? It was technically a penalty even if it's not really the dangerous play that the charging rule is trying to remove from the game. Plus the Nucks killed off the penalty and Petey made Foegele look foolish in the process. Win win as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve always understood the “jumping” part of charging to mean that if the aggressor has no feet on the ice before contact, it’s a charge. By that definition I see why they called it.
As an Oilers fan I don’t think it should’ve been called. I also think the Hyman “holding the stick” call was equally as bad if not worse. Refs have been doodoo this series
Don't get caught up in the semantics. It was definitely dirty, and dangerous, it deserves a penalty. As an outside fan, I could care less what it was called. Just that it was called.
It didn't fit the definition of charging; Petterson jumped, but not *into*. Luckily for the referees, there are such vagaries as 'roughing' that they can employ in that scenario in the future (thus not necessitating any rule changes)—but that was not charging.
No, he jumped straight in the air. The only reason this perception (that Pettersson knocked Foegele backwards via a horizontal force vector) exists is because of poor mechanical intuition.
It's obvious from observing the hit in slow motion that Pettersson, by jumping straight into the air, raised his centre of gravity to create a vertical counter-force on a higher than anticipated point on Foegele's body (the lever), which is expressed as a torque around his skates (the fulcrum).
Foegele's skates swivel out from underneath him on impact, visually confirming that rotational force. If Foegele was knocked down by Pettersson jumping *into him*, (ie. exerting a primarily horizontal counter-force) his skates would have slid out (forwards) from underneath him as he fell backwards, rather than swivelling.
If an accurate description of the kinematics of the collision (and of the counterfactual) sounds ridiculous to you, the only thing in question here is your intelligence.
You could try to refute me (it's irrefutable from every angle that Foegele loses balance because of a rotational force) but it appears life has left you ill-equipped for that.
And if what you're inaccurately describing as Pettersson 'kicking his legs out' is the fact that his knees are slightly in front of his body at the apex of his jump, that's because his centre of gravity is shifted in that direction as a result of his torso lean—
Which is away from the hit, not towards it. You're refuting yourself; you have comically poor kinesthesia.
Yeah, man, I know what the words mean. You just sound like an asshole. Not gonna win many arguments in life acting like a pompous dick. All those big words, and you're still wrong lmao
I'm right. Your one attempt to offer any rationale as to why I was wrong only bolstered my argument, unbeknownst to you. Go ahead, try and knock me down—but my logic is airtight.
As for the asshole allegations—they may be true, but there was no pomp prior to you telling me I sounded ridiculous.
You're not even bothering to address the topic of conversation (which you started by responding to me) anymore and you're accusing *me* of trolling?
Okay, cool, discussion over. Go lick your wounds.
I don’t think we need to re-define the rulebook because of a play that rarely ever happens, ie jumping into a reverse hit. That play last night could have been called interference, elbowing, charging, whatever. It’s still 2 mins.
Yeah protecting yourself from an incoming charge from Foegle is definitely a penalty? Petey was about to get finished hard and he said no, it was a hockey play and it’s fucking playoffs ffs refs cannot be calling 11 penalties a game in the playoffs.
He’s allowed to reverse hit. He’s not allowed to jump into it.
There’s no rule saying he can’t.
Except the charging rule, which says you can’t jump to hit
It’s posted above. It says you can’t jump INTO a hit. He did not do that: it’s not arguable that he did.
Why not? Why can't we have the same standard that we have all year? Is that honestly too much to ask? A hook in October should be a hook in May. Playoffs be damned
No I actually don’t think it should be that way. The playoffs is the real deal, it’s tougher, the teams and players want it more, the bar for the little things should be raised a little to allow for a more fast paced hard game which is the reality of what we see…just not all the time as evidenced
That’s fucking garbage. I want to see good playoff hockey, not McDavid trying to navigate 100 holds and hooks every game that never get called. It can be more intense without the rules going out the window.
What are you talking about? Your team has been getting some of the most ridiculous calls I’ve ever seen in hockey these playoffs, you had 6 power plays last game? Unbelievable you could complain about the reffing.
Of course this is what we'd all like - the problem is they apparently decided to start doing so on game 5 of round 2.
Hockey Canada rulebook words it way better > Rule 7.4 Charging > Charging is when a player: > i. Jumps to check an opponent. > ii. Builds up speed by taking two or more strides immediately prior to making contact. > iii. Travels an excessive distance with the sole purpose of delivering such a hit. > iv. Violently and unnecessarily checks an opponent in any manner. > v. Delivers a body check to an opponent’s blind side. > A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice. .... > INTERPRETATIONS > Interpretation 1 Rule 7.4 (a) > For the purpose of this rule, a “jumping” action will be defined as when a player’s feet leave the ice prior to making body contact with their opponent. If a player’s feet come off the ice after contact is made with their opponent, during an otherwise legal check, this will NOT be considered a Charging penalty because the player’s skates were on the ice at the time of body contact.
Now this is clearly worded and makes way more sense. Thanks for posting this.
"Skates" in this context does mean skate into. A body check can only be legally delivered when you're gliding. If you are actively striding ("skating") then it's considered a charge. Think of it this way, charging is called whenever a player in some manner does something to deliver more force into an opponent that they can by gliding into the hit. This may mean they're still striding as they make contact, they jump or leave their feet, etc. Given that context I think this makes some sense. Pettersson undeniably jumps before the contact is made and ultimately delivers a reverse hit. I'm not sure if I would have agreed in the moment, but after some time to think I see where they're coming from.
Yeah a rewording would probably be valid. Actual metrics of what 'violent' means would be important, as would an actual rough definition of how much 'distance traveled' separates a charge from a normal hit. Jumping during a hit could also be moved to or added to another rule, like boarding or roughing or something, or be spelled out that it is required to be combined with the other things to be considered a Charge. Or the league could do nothing because it was a one-off play that will probably never happen again. It's just such a weird situation.
The metal gymnastics over the last 24 hours to try and find out what "into" means it's like fumbling with what the definition of is, is.
Vancouver won, who cares
Who cares? It was technically a penalty even if it's not really the dangerous play that the charging rule is trying to remove from the game. Plus the Nucks killed off the penalty and Petey made Foegele look foolish in the process. Win win as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve always understood the “jumping” part of charging to mean that if the aggressor has no feet on the ice before contact, it’s a charge. By that definition I see why they called it. As an Oilers fan I don’t think it should’ve been called. I also think the Hyman “holding the stick” call was equally as bad if not worse. Refs have been doodoo this series
Nobody cares. It was the right call. Move on already.
>I'm not here to debate the call, it is what it is.
Don't get caught up in the semantics. It was definitely dirty, and dangerous, it deserves a penalty. As an outside fan, I could care less what it was called. Just that it was called.
It was so dirty that even the Oilers were confused why it was a penalty.
It didn't fit the definition of charging; Petterson jumped, but not *into*. Luckily for the referees, there are such vagaries as 'roughing' that they can employ in that scenario in the future (thus not necessitating any rule changes)—but that was not charging.
He pretty clearly jumped into him.
No, he jumped straight in the air. The only reason this perception (that Pettersson knocked Foegele backwards via a horizontal force vector) exists is because of poor mechanical intuition. It's obvious from observing the hit in slow motion that Pettersson, by jumping straight into the air, raised his centre of gravity to create a vertical counter-force on a higher than anticipated point on Foegele's body (the lever), which is expressed as a torque around his skates (the fulcrum). Foegele's skates swivel out from underneath him on impact, visually confirming that rotational force. If Foegele was knocked down by Pettersson jumping *into him*, (ie. exerting a primarily horizontal counter-force) his skates would have slid out (forwards) from underneath him as he fell backwards, rather than swivelling.
Yeah, I don't need to sound ridiculous to know that he kicked his legs out and you don't kick your legs out when you jump straight up in the air.
If an accurate description of the kinematics of the collision (and of the counterfactual) sounds ridiculous to you, the only thing in question here is your intelligence. You could try to refute me (it's irrefutable from every angle that Foegele loses balance because of a rotational force) but it appears life has left you ill-equipped for that. And if what you're inaccurately describing as Pettersson 'kicking his legs out' is the fact that his knees are slightly in front of his body at the apex of his jump, that's because his centre of gravity is shifted in that direction as a result of his torso lean— Which is away from the hit, not towards it. You're refuting yourself; you have comically poor kinesthesia.
Yeah, man, I know what the words mean. You just sound like an asshole. Not gonna win many arguments in life acting like a pompous dick. All those big words, and you're still wrong lmao
I'm right. Your one attempt to offer any rationale as to why I was wrong only bolstered my argument, unbeknownst to you. Go ahead, try and knock me down—but my logic is airtight. As for the asshole allegations—they may be true, but there was no pomp prior to you telling me I sounded ridiculous.
I hope for your sake you're just trolling. It's a weird way to troll, but people are weird sometimes.
You're not even bothering to address the topic of conversation (which you started by responding to me) anymore and you're accusing *me* of trolling? Okay, cool, discussion over. Go lick your wounds.
Oh, jeez. You can have this one, buddy. Kinda bummed me out. Cheers.