2021 NHL Playoffs

[Gniwder 168]

Again

>Hit not late
>Play not dead
>Scheifele stops striding 15 ft before the hit
>Hit is shoulder to shoulder

Text book clean hit

The only one doing something stupid on the play is Evans. He put himself in a vulnerable position going for an empty net goal. Had he kept his head up he may not have done this. But he did and he paid the price for it (also getting the goal).

It is not Scheifele's responsibility to not hit a player who puts themselves in a vulnerable position. It's said players responsibility to not put themselves in vulnerable positions. Play dumb = win dumb prizes.

[F.Michael 4,590]

We wouldn’t be talking about the hit or the suspension had Evans not gotten injured.

[Gniwder 168]

13 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

We wouldn’t be talking about the hit or the suspension had Evans not gotten injured.

Exactly. And also exactly why basing suspension on injury is the most moronic thing the league has ever done.

Clean legal hit? Too bad - Evans got hurt from the ensuing incidental head bonks. Now your clean hit is considered dirty and you must sit 4 games.

This league is approaching total clown-world real quick.

If you want to make that Scheifele hit illegal, great. Change the rules to make it so. But to pretend that hit was egregious under the current rules is more laughable than the leafs franchise still claiming it was their cup year.

And I'm honestly shocked how many folks agree with the league here. Big hit hockey is dead. If this is the reaction to this hit then we're going to be going by women's rules sooner than I could've even imagined (not hyperbole).

[ely s 457]

my concern is mostly what the league will do with Seider once he´s here... The injury to Evans was unfortunate but nonetheless in part his own fault, he´s not the first one who got flattened because his head was down. Hard but fair hockey shouldn´t end up with suspensions. The check to Larkin´s neck should´ve been a suspension not a clean hit, even if the clean hit causes injury.

[F.Michael 4,590]

3 hours ago, ely s said:

my concern is mostly what the league will do with Seider once he´s here... The injury to Evans was unfortunate but nonetheless in part his own fault, he´s not the first one who got flattened because his head was down. Hard but fair hockey shouldn´t end up with suspensions. The check to Larkin´s neck should´ve been a suspension not a clean hit, even if the clean hit causes injury.

It’s getting to the point where physical contact in hockey should be eliminated since there’ll always be injuries/concussions and a growing number of fans who find it difficult seeing these incidents taking place.

[marcaractac 3,962]

11 hours ago, ely s said:

my concern is mostly what the league will do with Seider once he´s here...

The league won't do anything. Seider doesn't charge, Seider doesn't head hunt. He plants his feet and dishes out clean hits that don't out guys in hospital beds. Either that or he puts a guy on the ice who tries to hit him. Very clean hitter. He doesn't skate the length of the ice to take guys out.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

16 hours ago, Gniwder said:

Exactly. And also exactly why basing suspension on injury is the most moronic thing the league has ever done.

Except it's been done for years already. High sticking? 2 minutes. Blood? 4 minutes. 

And a hit doesn't have to be both dirty and illegal. I dont think the hit was dirty, but it was against the rules that protect players. 

According to NHL Rule 42, a charging 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.

Said the NHL of its decision to suspend Scheifele for charging: "This is a player who has traveled a considerable distance, is moving with exceptional speed and is fully aware of his momentum, who chooses to charge into a vulnerable opponent with a high, predatory hit that causes an injury." 

While I disagree with the term "predatory", I agree with the rest of the statement and the decision to suspend.

What is so hard about this to understand?

Edited June 5, 2021 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Gniwder 168]

On 6/5/2021 at 6:26 AM, ely s said:

my concern is mostly what the league will do with Seider once he´s here... The injury to Evans was unfortunate but nonetheless in part his own fault, he´s not the first one who got flattened because his head was down. Hard but fair hockey shouldn´t end up with suspensions. The check to Larkin´s neck should´ve been a suspension not a clean hit, even if the clean hit causes injury.

Exactly why DPS is a joke. Larkin incident ignored. Evans incident recieves the hammer. When Larkin was in a far more vulnerable position and the play is actually dirty.

DPS reacts based on fan uproar. Only Detroit fans said anything about Larkin. But half the league was watching and crying for poor head down Evans. Theyre social police at this point. 

On 6/5/2021 at 6:11 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Except it's been done for years already. High sticking? 2 minutes. Blood? 4 minutes. 

And a hit doesn't have to be both dirty and illegal. I dont think the hit was dirty, but it was against the rules that protect players. 

According to NHL Rule 42, a charging 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.

Said the NHL of its decision to suspend Scheifele for charging: "This is a player who has traveled a considerable distance, is moving with exceptional speed and is fully aware of his momentum, who chooses to charge into a vulnerable opponent with a high, predatory hit that causes an injury." 

While I disagree with the term "predatory", I agree with the rest of the statement and the decision to suspend.

What is so hard about this to understand?

Ive said from the very start of this discussion that it is technically a charge and i cant fault one for arguing that line. You chose to parade out a buncha made up crap about Evans being defenseless and vulnerable instead. So spare me the "what is so hard about this to understand" when you circle back to charging. 

It's a very weak charging call. Because the play mandates Scheifele traveling a great distance regardless of contact. Had it been a tighter race for the puck and the two crashed in the corner before Evans could even attempt a wrap around... no charge would be called. Just like charging is never called on those plays despite distance traveled. The league is reacting because the hit was big.

Furthermore, Scheifele lets off the gas before contact! I checked the measurements and he stops skating a full 35 ft before making contact with Evans. This exactly what he should have done to negate a charge. As the play develops, and he realizes hes going to make contact with Evans, he stops 'charging' forward.

Weakest charging call of all time. Hit clean. Any suspension is pure tom foolery. 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Gniwder

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:20 AM, F.Michael said:

We wouldn’t be talking about the hit or the suspension had Evans not gotten injured.

We would still be talking about it because Scheifele would still have been at least fined for it, if not a 1 game suspension.

[Austrianwing 71]

Wow. Habs sweep Jets.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

8 hours ago, Gniwder said:

Exactly why DPS is a joke. Larkin incident ignored. Evans incident recieves the hammer. When Larkin was in a far more vulnerable position and the play is actually dirty.

DPS reacts based on fan uproar. Only Detroit fans said anything about Larkin. But half the league was watching and crying for poor head down Evans. Theyre social police at this point.

If you want to argue the merit of the league's turn away from physical play or the inconsistency of enforcement, those are both valid arguments. That doesn't mean the DoPS got it wrong here.

8 hours ago, Gniwder said:

Ive said from the very start of this discussion that it is technically a charge and i cant fault one for arguing that line. You chose to parade out a buncha made up crap about Evans being defenseless and vulnerable instead. So spare me the "what is so hard about this to understand" when you circle back to charging. 

I didn't parade anything or circle back. I only repeated what the DoPS said:

"...chooses to charge into a vulnerable opponent..." 

8 hours ago, Gniwder said:

It's a very weak charging call. Because the play mandates Scheifele traveling a great distance regardless of contact. Had it been a tighter race for the puck and the two crashed in the corner before Evans could even attempt a wrap around... no charge would be called. Just like charging is never called on those plays despite distance traveled. The league is reacting because the hit was big.

Furthermore, Scheifele lets off the gas before contact! I checked the measurements and he stops skating a full 35 ft before making contact with Evans. This exactly what he should have done to negate a charge. As the play develops, and he realizes hes going to make contact with Evans, he stops 'charging' forward.

Weakest charging call of all time. Hit clean. Any suspension is pure tom foolery. 

1. Scheifele "traveled a considerable distance... with exceptional speed." Yes or no? 

2. He was "aware of his momentum." Yes or no?

3. Scheifele "chooses to charge". Yes or no?

4. Evans was a "vulnerable opponent". Yes/no?

5. Scheifele threw a "high" hit. Yes or no?

6. That hit "cause[d] an injury". Yes or no?

These are all of the listed reasons why the DoPS suspended Scheifele. Can you deny any of them? Because if you cant, than you agree with the league.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Gniwder 168]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If you want to argue the merit of the league's turn away from physical play or the inconsistency of enforcement, those are both valid arguments. That doesn't mean the DoPS got it wrong here.

I am arguing DPS got it wrong here if u hadnt figured that out. 

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

 

I didn't parade anything or circle back. I only repeated what the DoPS said:

So what was all that about evans being defenseless and vulnerable? Had a few to many?

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

 

1. Scheifele "traveled a considerable distance... with exceptional speed." Yes or no? 

2. He was "aware of his momentum." Yes or no?

3. Scheifele "chooses to charge". Yes or no?

4. Evans was a "vulnerable opponent". Yes/no?

5. Scheifele threw a "high" hit. Yes or no?

6. That hit "cause[d] an injury". Yes or no?

These are all of the listed reasons why the DoPS suspended Scheifele. Can you deny any of them? Because if you cant, than you agree with the league.

1. Yes, but cut off speed 35 ft prior to contact. Opposite of a charge.

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

6. Yes

s*** i think u can easily say no to half that BS. Are you honestly retarded or u just a big drinker up there?

[F.Michael 4,590]

10 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

We would still be talking about it because Scheifele would still have been at least fined for it, if not a 1 game suspension.

Doubt if the  DoPS would've done a thing if there hadn't been an injury...Maybe a fine, and that would've been yesterdays news to most.

Edited June 8, 2021 by F.Michael

[F.Michael 4,590]

Habs looking like the 2012 LA Kings.

Looks as though they'll get nearly a full week to rest if the Avs/Knights series goes to 7.

 

[kipwinger 8,521]

If that was charging then every player who's ever made contact on a backcheck is "charging". He was backchecking, trying to save a game clinching goal, and very nearly got there. The puck didn't go into the net until a fraction of a second before the hit. They were both trying to make a play on the puck at a critical time. Evans was (I assume) entirely focused on getting the empty netter, and as a result put himself (probably unwittingly) into a vulnerable position. Scheifele was backchecking his ass off trying to prevent that goal (and losing a critically important game). It was a bang-bang play.

I'd agree it was a charge if the puck was already in the net for a second or two and then Scheifele hit Evans unnecessarily, but that's not what happened.

Edited June 8, 2021 by kipwinger

[F.Michael 4,590]

Gotta play this to remind myself of the good times in the past and hopeful for the future...Commercial circa spring/summer 2008.

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

17 hours ago, F.Michael said:

Doubt if the  DoPS would've done a thing if there hadn't been an injury...Maybe a fine, and that would've been yesterdays news to most.

A fine IS the DoPS doing something. And even if Evans got up immediately and skated away, there still would have been disciplinary action against Scheifele as those are the kinds of hits that the league is now trying to eliminate. Thank the lawyers.

And injury is relevant to the punishment. People complain about greater disciplinary action if there's an injury, but that's how the world works. Not just hockey. You are just as responsible for the consequences of your actions as much as you are the act itself.

Todd Bertuzzi got a season long suspension for his cross check on Steve Moore based solely on the fact that he ended Moores playing career with that hit. He did not intend for that to happen. But lack of intent did not make what happened a simple 10:00 penalty and game misconduct, which he might have gotten if Moore just skated away.

Would have been the same in the real world. Bertuzzi just got busted in Feb for a DUI. Luckily, his actions didn't result in an accident, but wouldn't the punishment have been more severe if he did? What if that accident caused an injury or death? Think he'd get the same punishment as a simple DUI? Of course not.

NHL discipline works the same way.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 6/8/2021 at 1:44 AM, Gniwder said:

1. Yes, but cut off speed 35 ft prior to contact. Opposite of a charge.

Rule 42.1 right out of the NHL Rulebook. Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean that 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. On 6/8/2021 at 1:44 AM, Gniwder said: So what was all that about evans being defenseless and vulnerable? Had a few to many? He was. I just quoted you the DoPS statement. Perhaps you've had a few too many? On 6/8/2021 at 1:44 AM, Gniwder said: 5. No

 

And the puck was already in the back of the net when the high hit was made.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

55 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

So how do you explain the no charging call on every other contact play with great distance traveled, like races for the puck? Is DPS blind? Understaffed? Don't care? Drunk? Or - and to my suspicion - are they only reacting to this particular incidence because the hit was big?

Continue to ignore that Scheifele stops skating 35 ft prior to contact btw. The reason distance traveled is a thing is because it allows a player to build up speed. Scheifele literally reduces speed for a great distance into the hit. Not a charge.

Shoulder to chest is vulnerable now? You believe what you're told over your own eyes? I bet you think car salesmen are honest folks too.

Scheifele is less than an arm length away before the puck even comes above the red line from behind the net. You're either going to have to argue Scheifele is capable of stopping on a dime, or admit you didn't watch the clip.

 

It wasn't a play for the puck. Evans already had possession of it. Also, Scheifele never attempted to play the puck. He took the body.

Yes. Injury plays a part in it. We've been over this.

And if Scheifele stopped skating 35 feet before the hit, was he really hustling to prevent the goal? If it's me, I skate my a** off until I get to the puck. According to you, Scheifele stopped skating toward the play and was reducing speed. Seems counter intuitive for a guy to do that if he's trying to stop a wraparound goal from a great distance away.

He made a beeline straight for Evans at full speed. Skating, gliding,  doesnt matter. It's still charging if he makes contact.

Since when does "vulnerable" have anything to do with kind of hit applied? The term is in reference to the player being hit. Come on.

I watched the clip. I was the one who posted it for crying out loud.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[kipwinger 8,521]

20 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

 

It wasn't a play for the puck. Evans already had possession of it. Also, Scheifele never attempted to play the puck. He took the body.

Yes. Injury plays a part in it. We've been over this.

And if Scheifele stopped skating 35 feet before the hit, was he really hustling to prevent the goal? If it's me, I skate my a** off until I get to the puck. According to you, Scheifele stopped skating toward the play and was reducing speed. Seems counter intuitive for a guy to do that if he's trying to stop a wraparound goal from a great distance away.

He made a beeline straight for Evans at full speed. Skating, gliding,  doesnt matter. It's still charging if he makes contact.

First, checking the puck carrier (Evans) is a perfectly legal way of separating the man from the puck. In every facet of the game you're allowed to legally hit a player to get the puck from him. Second, Evans put the puck in the net less than a second before the hit. Watch it at full speed. It's not like he got rid of the puck and then Scheifele took a few more strides and blew him up. It was literally a fraction of a second between Evans putting the puck in the net and Scheifele delivering the hit. You're allowed to skate the entire length of the ice and hit another player as long as that player has the puck. That's literally what backchecking is.

To me the only questions worth asking are, A) did he target the head?, and B) even if the hit isn't "illegal" should he ease up anyway as a courtesy to another player. I don't know about the first one, the hit seems high but hard to say if he "targeted" the head. To the second question I'd say he absolutely should lay off that hit, despite it not being illegal. Reminds me of the hit Matthew Tkachuk threw on Kassian a few years back behind the net. Not illegal, but pretty much every player agreed (in the wake of the hit) that he shouldn't have done it and Kassian beat his ass for it.

Edited June 9, 2021 by kipwinger

[marcaractac 3,962]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

First, checking the puck carrier (Evans) is a perfectly legal way of separating the man from the puck. In every facet of the game you're allowed to legally hit a player to get the puck from him. Second, Evans put the puck in the net less than a second before the hit. Watch it at full speed. It's not like he got rid of the puck and then Scheifele took a few more strides and blew him up. It was literally a fraction of a second between Evans putting the puck in the net and Scheifele delivering the hit. You're allowed to skate the entire length of the ice and hit another player as long as that player has the puck. That's literally what backchecking is.

To me the only questions worth asking are, A) did he target the head?, and B) even if the hit isn't "illegal" should he ease up anyway as a courtesy to another player. I don't know about the first one, the hit seems high but hard to say if he "targeted" the head. To the second question I'd say he absolutely should lay off that hit, despite it not being illegal. Reminds me of the hit Matthew Tkachuk threw on Kassian a few years back behind the net. Not illegal, but pretty much every player agreed (in the wake of the hit) that he shouldn't have done it and Kassian beat his ass for it.

This is my thought on this hit more or less. You could argue charging at best due to the distance covered to make the hit. But besides that it was clean by definition of the rules. 

Having said that, it was gross and shouldn't have happened. More black and white rules must be added to protect players in the end. Head contact, distance covered to make a hit, leaving feet, etc. should all be heavily reviewed. There would be frustrating cases early on where players get punished for a legit accident. But players would adjust accordingly, and we'd see cleaner hits where guys don't leave on stretchers with scrambled egg brains. 

Also, punish the action whether the player on the receiving end is injured or not. The condition of the player on the receiving end should have zero implications when deciding punishment for a hit. It's as stupid as getting 4 minutes for drawing blood. Comes down to sheer luck. 

[F.Michael 4,590]

14 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

A fine IS the DoPS doing something. And even if Evans got up immediately and skated away, there still would have been disciplinary action against Scheifele as those are the kinds of hits that the league is now trying to eliminate. Thank the lawyers.

And injury is relevant to the punishment. People complain about greater disciplinary action if there's an injury, but that's how the world works. Not just hockey. You are just as responsible for the consequences of your actions as much as you are the act itself.

Todd Bertuzzi got a season long suspension for his cross check on Steve Moore based solely on the fact that he ended Moores playing career with that hit. He did not intend for that to happen. But lack of intent did not make what happened a simple 10:00 penalty and game misconduct, which he might have gotten if Moore just skated away.

Would have been the same in the real world. Bertuzzi just got busted in Feb for a DUI. Luckily, his actions didn't result in an accident, but wouldn't the punishment have been more severe if he did? What if that accident caused an injury or death? Think he'd get the same punishment as a simple DUI? Of course not.

NHL discipline works the same way.

NHL discipline works the same way as an outside court of law?

If that’s the case why wasn’t Wilson charged with aggravated assault and battery when he went after Panarin - or at least a lengthy suspension given his prior history.

DoPS does their own thing - partly based on what the NHL/NHLPA have agreed upon - partly based on public opinion and/or outcry.

As others have said - the primary reason for the punishment was courtesy of the injury. No injury - probably a fine at most - especially taking into consideration he’s the Jets best player and has no prior suspensions/discipline by the DoPS.

Edited June 9, 2021 by F.Michael

[mackel 679]

1 hour ago, F.Michael said:

NHL discipline works the same way as an outside court of law?

If that’s the case why wasn’t Wilson charged with aggravated assault and battery when he went after Panarin - or at least a lengthy suspension given his prior history.

DoPS does their own thing - partly based on what the NHL/NHLPA have agreed upon - partly based on public opinion and/or outcry.

As others have said - the primary reason for the punishment was courtesy of the injury. No injury - probably a fine at most - especially taking into consideration he’s the Jets best player and has no prior suspensions/discipline by the DoPS.

Why is this still being talked about at this point...?

[F.Michael 4,590]

5 minutes ago, mackel said:

Why is this still being talked about at this point...?

Because we're knuckleheads...Or at least I am.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 hour ago, F.Michael said:

NHL discipline works the same way as an outside court of law?

If that’s the case why wasn’t Wilson charged with aggravated assault and battery when he went after Panarin - or at least a lengthy suspension given his prior history.

DoPS does their own thing - partly based on what the NHL/NHLPA have agreed upon - partly based on public opinion and/or outcry.

As others have said - the primary reason for the punishment was courtesy of the injury. No injury - probably a fine at most - especially taking into consideration he’s the Jets best player and has no prior suspensions/discipline by the DoPS.

So Todd Bertuzzi only deserved a cross checking penalty then? No suspension because injury has nothing to do with it?