Nope, not at all. Again, you're trying to speak for me. Based on the suspension history of the DOPS, they suspend on either leaving the ice and/or head contact (for charging related offenses). That's proven in the video you cited and every other video on their site. Also, in the vide you cited, Perros shows how the hit in question could have been legal if he stayed on the ice and hit through the body (as opposed to the head). That is exactly what MS did on that hit. He did not leave the ice and did not make primary contact with the head. Your video proved you (and others) wrong and there are a number of similar videos on DOPS.

Once again, I am NOT saying that DOPS won't suspend here. They most likely will but that's because they cave to the social mob just like the NFL and NBA.
- Kcannon98

"Nope not at all"

and then you proceed to explain, in long-form, how the NHL has never before suspended anyone for distance traveled based on prior instances of charging suspensions.

And I never said that you claimed that the DoPS wouldn't levy a suspension here.

Nope, not at all. Again, you're trying to speak for me. Based on the suspension history of the DOPS, they suspend on either leaving the ice and/or head contact (for charging related offenses). That's proven in the video you cited and every other video on their site. Also, in the vide you cited, Perros shows how the hit in question could have been legal if he stayed on the ice and hit through the body (as opposed to the head). That is exactly what MS did on that hit. He did not leave the ice and did not make primary contact with the head. Your video proved you (and others) wrong and there are a number of similar videos on DOPS.

Once again, I am NOT saying that DOPS won't suspend here. They most likely will but that's because they cave to the social mob just like the NFL and NBA.
- Kcannon98

So you're saying as long as a player stays on the ice and his through the body, then predatory hits on a player in a vulnerable position (for no reason other than hitting, puck retrieval is not a factor...) is fair game and A-OK?

I'm just asking you to define charging
- braidan

It's clearly defined in the rulebook and also through the interpretation of DOPS. Let me give you an analogy. Lets say the rulebook is the constitution of the US and the DOPS is SCOTUS. The second amendment says nothing about licenses to carry but SCOTUS ruled that certain regulations are constitutional. Similarly, the NHL rulebook has a "distance traveled" rule in 42 but DOPS has a history of either not enforcing it or only interpretation it differently. They've never suspended because of distance traveled before and that seems to be the only argument here. If there was another rule broken (leaving the ice, targeting the head, and since we're moving the goal posts, maybe slew footing???), then I'd love to hear it.

So you're saying as long as a player stays on the ice and his through the body, then predatory hits on a player in a vulnerable position (for no reason other than hitting, puck retrieval is not a factor...) is fair game and A-OK?
- Darksyde

I'm saying that's what the DOPS has said through every charging decision they've ever made.

I agree
- Kcannon98

I'm still waiting for you to define charging.
You're absolutely correct, nobody ever got suspended for "distance travelled" but there have been plenty for charging.

I'
ll wait for you to tell me what charging actually is

"Nope not at all"

and then you proceed to explain, in long-form, how the NHL has never before suspended anyone for distance traveled based on prior instances of charging suspensions.

And I never said that you claimed that the DoPS wouldn't levy a suspension here.
- eichiefs9

Because they never have. You posted a video trying to prove me wrong and the video you posted ended up proving you wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to define charging.
You're absolutely correct, nobody ever got suspended for "distance travelled" but there have been plenty for charging.

I'
ll wait for you to tell me what charging actually is
- braidan

Read the last thing I posted with your quote in it.

Read the last thing I posted with your quote in it.
- Kcannon98

I did.....
Still no charging definition

Read the last thing I posted with your quote in it.
- Kcannon98

Stop avoiding and tell us..
"What is charging?"

Are we talking penalties or suspensions? If you want to move the goal posts, just say it.
- Kcannon98

I don't see a definition in there

Because they never have. You posted a video trying to prove me wrong and the video you posted ended up proving you wrong.
- Kcannon98

The fact that they never have is entirely irrelevant to the play in question.

Your argument that "it's never happened" means literally less than nothing. You're grasping at straws to support your argument and failing in spectacular fashion.

I'm saying that's what the DOPS has said through every charging decision they've ever made.
- Kcannon98

Then you're saying due to lack of precedence, the hit is legal, then?

So the punishment has to happen before the infraction can be considered illegal?

You make no sense.

I'd like to see a definition of charging without using the words distance travelled

Then you're saying due to lack of precedence, the hit is legal, then?

So the punishment has to happen before the infraction can be considered illegal?

You make no sense.
- Darksyde

That's exactly what he's saying. That since nobody has ever been suspended for "distance traveled" it nullifies the DoPS's ability to suspend someone for one of the other things that charging is defined by the NHL in the rulebook

Stop avoiding and tell us..
"What is charging?"
- braidan

Do you want me to copy and paste rule 42 into a post for you?

Do you want me to copy and paste rule 42 into a post for you?
- Kcannon98

That depends do the words "distance travelled" appear in it?
Then it goes against your argument

That's exactly what he's saying. That since nobody has ever been suspended for "distance traveled" it nullifies the DoPS's ability to suspend someone for one of the other things that are defined by the NHL in the rulebook
- eichiefs9

Speaking for me again. I think I can answer for myself. Thanks though.

What I'm saying is that it's never happened before. That's a fact even though some people tried to post videos proving me wrong only to prove themselves wrong.

I also said that I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time it happened because the NHL is known (like NFL and NBA) for caving to social pressure.

I also said that no rule was broken here and that's true. MS stopped skating well before the hit and based on explanations by Perros in the past, because he didn't leave his feet and/or target the head, this was a legal check. Just watch the video YOU posted trying to prove me wrong. Perros explains it perfectly.

That depends do the words "distance travelled" appear in it?
Then it goes against your argument
- braidan

They do. On a side note, do you know that it's illegal to push a moose off an airplane in Alaska? When was the last time someone was charged with that offense? If nobody is enforcing the law, is it really relevant?

They do. On a side note, do you know that it's illegal to push a moose off an airplane in Alaska? When was the last time someone was charged with that offense? If nobody is enforcing the law, is it really relevant?
- Kcannon98

But if somebody does push a moose off an airplane than there is a law to cover, even though it has been on the books for a while and rarely if ever inforced IT IS STILL a law

They do. On a side note, do you know that it's illegal to push a moose off an airplane in Alaska? When was the last time someone was charged with that offense? If nobody is enforcing the law, is it really relevant?
- Kcannon98

If you are saying that it wasn't charging then yes distance travelled is irrelavant as it is a determining factor of said infraction

But if somebody does push a moose off an airplane than there is a law to cover, even though it has been on the books for a while and rarely if ever inforced IT IS STILL a law
- braidan

Right. It's still a law. And a law that's unenforced is meaningless. It's a federal crime to be in possession of marijuana and there are a number of states that legalized it. The feds could come in and arrest all those people at any time but they don't enforce the law making it essentially invalid.

if a player punches someone in the face it isnt high sticking.
HIgh sticking is defined by hitting with a stick higher than shoulders.
Charging is defined by distance travelled

Right. It's still a law. And a law that's unenforced is meaningless. It's a federal crime to be in possession of marijuana and there are a number of states that legalized it. The feds could come in and arrest all those people at any time but they don't enforce the law making it essentially invalid.
- Kcannon98

Do you think it was charging?
simple question

If you are saying that it wasn't charging then yes distance travelled is irrelavant as it is a determining factor of said infraction
- braidan

Based on every DOPS decision in the past, it wasn't charging making your "distance traveled" thing irrelevant.

And again, I'm NOT saying that DOPS won't suspend. I believe they will suspend. But that's mainly because of the team with the injured player and social pressure.

Speaking for me again. I think I can answer for myself. Thanks though.

What I'm saying is that it's never happened before. That's a fact even though some people tried to post videos proving me wrong only to prove themselves wrong.

I also said that I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time it happened because the NHL is known (like NFL and NBA) for caving to social pressure.

I also said that no rule was broken here and that's true. MS stopped skating well before the hit and based on explanations by Perros in the past, because he didn't leave his feet and/or target the head, this was a legal check. Just watch the video YOU posted trying to prove me wrong. Perros explains it perfectly.
- Kcannon98

No rule was broken, except for the rule that was broken

Just stop, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point