playoffs: 2020-21 | NDSR | (N3) Winnipeg Jets vs. (N4) Montreal Canadiens

[Scott]

If he was focused on stopping the goal he would of been better off leading with his stick. Regardless the wheel of justice will now be spun in all its glory . Hopefully Evans is alright, apparently he's missed time with head injuries before.

[Albatrosss]

The guy is in the hospital. How is it a good hit? It was a direct head contact. I’d like to see your replies if it was your kid on the receiving end

[Pete]

The guy is in the hospital. How is it a good hit? It was a direct head contact. I’d like to see your replies if it was your kid on the receiving end

Chara broke Pacioretty neck on a clean hit. Just a bad outcome.

 

There wasn't direct head contact. That was a shoulder to the chest.

 

Unfortunately the NHL has always allowed these "You didn't have to hit him that hard", which is why I'm calling that clean. The NHL always has.

[Sharpshooter]

I think this is the most I've cheered for Montreal in my life. lol Usually I can't stomach them most of the time, but I am finding them bearable. Price has turned around an average at best regular season to me and really looking solid in the playoffs. Caufield looking more and more like he belongs already. I like that kid a lot.

[Kevin]

He definitely didn't leave his feet and I don't really think he charged. Was he going fast? Yes. Was it a really hard hit? Yes. Honestly, if it's only a fine, I'm definitely watching the next one from start to finish!

[josh]

I think this is the most I've cheered for Montreal in my life. lol Usually I can't stomach them most of the time, but I am finding them bearable. Price has turned around an average at best regular season to me and really looking solid in the playoffs. Caufield looking more and more like he belongs already. I like that kid a lot.

Suzuki is fun to watch

[Valriera]

i think theres some confusion between legal hit and dirty hit. Looking at this again, this is absolutely a legal hit and it's the main reason why I have doubts about a suspension, or even a fine, tbh. He does stop skating, he doesn't leave his feet, and his arms are down. The fact that he hits Evans' head is a matter of Evans leaning over to try to put the puck in the net and not because Schiefele is headhunting.

 

But this is also a dirty, filthy hit, that is the kind of thing which starts wars on the ice. The reason why is because while it was made in a legal matter, there's no reason to make it. The puck is going in the net, and Schiefele makes no attempt to avoid contact. His only intent here is to steamroll a guy who is defenseless. To me it's identical to the ryan graves hit from COL the other night, which was done for the sole purpose of steamrolling a guy who is defenseless, and not to stop a play, to separate a player, or anything. Assholes who make this hit say "I'm just finishing my check," which is just a silly, silly thing to say. Schiefele is not finishing anything here; he's frustrated his team just lost, and that this guy who scores the empty netter played a main role in that, so he steamrolls him because he can. Does he do it in a legal way? Sure. The penalty at the end was a formality since the game is over. But this is the type of play that will have repurcussions on the ice, just like the one that forced Reaves' hand the other night, where you have to look at the DPS and ask, "what's the point of having this department if they're not going to prevent unnecessary plays injuring players"?

[phillyb]

Phone hearing according to twittersphere. Also saw this earlier...

 

 

Mobile Link -

[BrooksBurner]

Phone hearing according to twittersphere. Also saw this earlier...

 

 

Mobile Link -

 

Look at the hustle. Damn. I want this guy on the Rangers. What's the price?

[fletch]

Perfectly legal hit, IMO.

 

Agreed, trying to stop a goal from being scored

[Morphinity 2.0]

Yep, so legal he got a 5 minute major and a hearing for what will probably be a 1 or 2 game suspension.

[josh]

Yep, so legal he got a 5 minute major and a hearing for what will probably be a 1 or 2 game suspension.

 

I mean, you are more than welcome to defend NHL refs and the DoPS.

[Pete]

Phone hearing according to twittersphere. Also saw this earlier...

 

 

Mobile Link -

This is a bullshit take. Did Schieffle decide from 200 away that he was going to plow Evans? Or did he decide to finish his hit when he saw someone come around the net with the puck?

[josh]

Evans fucked himself. Never checked over his shoulder going to get the puck, never looked up going around the net, and he let up/stood up when he was putting the puck in the net.

 

These are the exact plays you show kids and say, “if you do this, you’re going to get killed out there”

[Pete]

I mean, you are more than welcome to defend NHL refs and the DoPS.

Exactly. Because refs never make a bad call based on an injury, and player safety is so consistent.

[josh]

And do people realize if Sheifele stretches for that pick, He’s in a horrible position? He’d take Evans shoulder to the head, go shoulder first into the post, or go head first into the board

[Morphinity 2.0]

Exactly. Because refs never make a bad call based on an injury, and player safety is so consistent.

I mean, you are more than welcome to defend NHL refs and the DoPS.

Well I'm sure they'll make a video explaining their decision, so we can all learn something here.

 

I think it's a pretty clear cut charge, based on the NHL rule book. I don't think he targeted the head. I think it will be 1 or 2 games based on how they've dealt with similar issues in the past.

[Albatrosss]

Scott Stevens' hits were also deemed legal but they ended careers.

[fletch]

Yep, so legal he got a 5 minute major and a hearing for what will probably be a 1 or 2 game suspension.

 

If he gets there a half second earlier everyone would be gushing about his hustle in breaking up a goal. Split second late, and we're condemning him for trying to make a hockey play. Unfortunate that an injury resulted, but hockey is a collision sport. Are we going to suspend Perry for the knee that took Tavares out of the playoffs?

[Albatrosss]

If he gets there a half second earlier everyone would be gushing about his hustle in breaking up a goal. Split second late, and we're condemning him for trying to make a hockey play. Unfortunate that an injury resulted, but hockey is a collision sport. Are we going to suspend Perry for the knee that took Tavares out of the playoffs?

 

come on, that was accidental. Hit on Evans was not accidental, it was deliberate.

[Morphinity 2.0]

If he gets there a half second earlier everyone would be gushing about his hustle in breaking up a goal. Split second late, and we're condemning him for trying to make a hockey play. Unfortunate that an injury resulted, but hockey is a collision sport. Are we going to suspend Perry for the knee that took Tavares out of the playoffs?

 

Not even going to address the bold in your quote. You're better than that.

 

--

 

It's not a timing issue. It's a clear charge per the NHL rule book:

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. A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

 

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

 

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).

 

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

 

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)

 

Schiefele received a major, appropriately, and will probably get a suspension because of the injury - as the NHL has done countless times since the dawn of DOPS.

[fletch]

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. A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

 

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

 

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).

 

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

 

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)

 

____________________________________

 

Regarding bold one, we are asking the referees to subjectively distinguish a 'violent check' from a check in an inherently violent game.

Regarding bold two, we are imposing severity of discipline based on the fact injury occurred.

 

It seems to me that people are reacting to the violence of the hit rather than the timing. For an interference call when a player is impeding after dumping the puck, there is a longer gap in release of puck vs hit before a penalty is called than occurred in this hit.

[Albatrosss]

the guy literally skated 200 ft to deliver a hit. if that's not a charge, i dont know what is

[Morphinity 2.0]

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. A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

 

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

 

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).

 

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

 

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)

 

____________________________________

 

Regarding bold one, we are asking the referees to subjectively distinguish a 'violent check' from a check in an inherently violent game.

Regarding bold two, we are imposing severity of discipline based on the fact injury occurred.

 

It seems to me that people are reacting to the violence of the hit rather than the timing. For an interference call when a player is impeding after dumping the puck, there is a longer gap in release of puck vs hit before a penalty is called than occurred in this hit.

 

 

This is not an interference call, so I don't know why you keep talking about the timing of the hit.

 

It is a charging call. A charge occurred. You can disagree with the rule book all you want, but it is what it is. This hit was certainly more "violent" than your run of the mill body check or open ice hit. The "violence" was caused, in part, by the distance Scheifele traveled to make the hit. Therefore, it is a charge.

 

And yes, we ask referees to make judgment calls all the time, for better or worse. DOPS also makes those judgment calls on a regular basis.

[Karan]

Unfortunately, while the impact of the hit itself looked clean and beautiful, the intent was anything but. If Scheifele had just bear hugged him back into the boards, this would be a non-issue. And the thing is watching it in slow-mo, he had plenty of time to do that if he had wanted to.