So charging is no longer a rule? Wow. Glad we have the expert here to teach us the ways of hockey!
- Darksyde

literally see it happen 10 times every playoff game with a no call

evans laying on the ice, so it's a story

if evans got up and skated away it's a non story this morning

what difference does it make? intention should not be considered here, it was dangerous and unnecessary no matter how you look at it
- Pat1993

Hockey is a dangerous sport. If you want soccer, go watch it. Unnecessary doesn't mean illegal. I've been asking for ONE rule that was broken and nobody has been able to provide one.

Rule 42 - He stopped skating at the top of the circle. He did not leave his feet until after the initial contact was made. Rule 42 is DONE.

Rule 48 - From every angle, the primary point of contact was the CHEST, not the head. The injury occurred from the head popping back after the hit to the chest and then hitting the ice after Evans fell. Rule 48 is DONE.

Rule 56 - The contact happened .1 seconds after the puck left Evans stick. Whether the puck went into the net or not, .1 seconds is not enough time for a violation of rule 56. Rule 56 is DONE.

Arguments that are NOT rules.

"It was violent." "It was unnecessary." "He should have stick-checked him." "He could have saved a goal."

NONE of those apply and that's all based on emotion, not the rulebook.

He'll get suspended because of the mob justice on social media. The NHL has been trying to turn hockey into soccer on ice for decades and they're almost as weak as football when it comes to social media pressure. Rules weren't broken and the player will get suspended. The NHLPA should lose their poop over this one.

Hi kids. My mens league has no hitting. Who wants to come watch? Someone ask ESPN to bring some cameras. Kay bye kids.

Starting a fight in the last 5 minutes of play is an automatic 1 game suspension, if memory serves. They're not that dumb, and were more worried for their teammate than they were with getting revenge.
- Darksyde

Probably one of the reasons why Montreal has more cups than Boston. If I was a member of Habs I would hack the living (frank) out of Scheifele the rest of the series.

What RULE did he break? The answer is NONE. He stopped skating at the top of the circle. Primary point of contact was the chest. The time between the puck leaving Evans stick and the initiation of contact was less than .2 seconds. No RULES were broken here. If you don't like it, maybe try TennisBuzz instead of HockeyBuzz because that was a clean hit.
- Kcannon98

indeed it was.

Man...Ek can super size his combo now, with all the clicks this blog is gonna get.
- Darksyde

In other words, unless it goes how YOU want, it's a rigged game. Gotcha, champ. Go have your pudding, then get ready for nap time, ok?
- Darksyde

Not at all. I'm an Islanders fan. The Habs and Leafs could go out there with baseball bats and kill each other for all I care. I'm also a fan of the GAME OF HOCKEY. Not soccer on ice. The rules are the rules. If people don't like them, change them. He didn't break any rules here but because of mob justice on social media and the fact that the Habs and the NHL are basically one in the same, he'll get suspended.

Hi kids. My mens league has no hitting. Who wants to come watch? Someone ask ESPN to bring some cameras. Kay bye kids.
- Kooleus

Is there at least beer? If not GTFO

Hockey is a dangerous sport. If you want soccer, go watch it. Unnecessary doesn't mean illegal. I've been asking for ONE rule that was broken and nobody has been able to provide one.

Rule 42 - He stopped skating at the top of the circle. He did not leave his feet until after the initial contact was made. Rule 42 is DONE.

Rule 48 - From every angle, the primary point of contact was the CHEST, not the head. The injury occurred from the head popping back after the hit to the chest and then hitting the ice after Evans fell. Rule 48 is DONE.

Rule 56 - The contact happened .1 seconds after the puck left Evans stick. Whether the puck went into the net or not, .1 seconds is not enough time for a violation of rule 56. Rule 56 is DONE.

Arguments that are NOT rules.

"It was violent." "It was unnecessary." "He should have stick-checked him." "He could have saved a goal."

NONE of those apply and that's all based on emotion, not the rulebook.

He'll get suspended because of the mob justice on social media. The NHL has been trying to turn hockey into soccer on ice for decades and they're almost as weak as football when it comes to social media pressure. Rules weren't broken and the player will get suspended. The NHLPA should lose their poop over this one.
- Kcannon98

your "go watch soccer" argument proves you're simply part of these old dinosaurs that don't want the sport to evolve. removing these dumb and dangerous plays from the game doesn't mean removing all kinds of physical play. it has nothing to do with emotion. that being said I'm tired of your bullpoop, so be my guest, and continue making an ass of yourself.

Sure are a lot of dumb people on here that act like resident experts and don’t have a clue. I guess the internet provides that ambiguity to allow them to seem intelligent when they lack it in their every day lives.

Classic hockeybuzz.

literally see it happen 10 times every playoff game with a no call

evans laying on the ice, so it's a story

if evans got up and skated away it's a non story this morning
- homiedclown

Very true. Spittin Chicklets were talking about this exact situation this morning. If he pops up and celebrates the goal/win, nothing is called and everyone just goes on with their day.

Will no one defend Scheifelie ?

NHL officiating is absurd. In a net from scrum you can horse-collar, face wash, cross check, and pound a guy's head into the ice multiple times, and if said guy (Scheifelie) retaliates he gets a roughing penalty.

Did Evans think the Jets would let him just stroll down and deposit an empty net goal in a 4 - 3 game?

Sheifs obviously thought he had a chance to stop Evans; it was very close. He did let up, but finished the check with his forward momentum.

It was not a charge (he let up), it was a desperate defensive play.

The hypocrisy of the Montreal Canadiens and the politically correct media in general is apparent (to me anyway).

Any player would have made the same play under the circumstances.
Prevent that goal and Scheifelie is a hero, penalty be damned!

Disclosure: I am not a Jet's fan.

what? there's no way of getting into a player's head at the moment something happens... not sure what you mean.
- Pat1993

You need a new prescription Pat

your "go watch soccer" argument proves you're simply part of these old dinosaurs that don't want the sport to evolve. removing these dumb and dangerous plays from the game doesn't mean removing all kinds of physical play. it has nothing to do with emotion. that being said I'm tired of your bullpoop, so be my guest, and continue making an ass of yourself.
- Pat1993

I'm a 38 year old "dinosaur." Got it.

Do you have a rule that was broken yet or no?

You need a new prescription Pat
- jugkope

hmm, was thinking the same for you, actually

Very true. Spittin Chicklets were talking about this exact situation this morning. If he pops up and celebrates the goal/win, nothing is called and everyone just goes on with their day.
- Kcannon98

I mean the habs did worse to the leafs in game 7 more then a few times and there was no call



but no body was laying on the ice either

Hockey is a dangerous sport. If you want soccer, go watch it. Unnecessary doesn't mean illegal. I've been asking for ONE rule that was broken and nobody has been able to provide one.

Rule 42 - He stopped skating at the top of the circle. He did not leave his feet until after the initial contact was made. Rule 42 is DONE.

Rule 48 - From every angle, the primary point of contact was the CHEST, not the head. The injury occurred from the head popping back after the hit to the chest and then hitting the ice after Evans fell. Rule 48 is DONE.

Rule 56 - The contact happened .1 seconds after the puck left Evans stick. Whether the puck went into the net or not, .1 seconds is not enough time for a violation of rule 56. Rule 56 is DONE.

Arguments that are NOT rules.

"It was violent." "It was unnecessary." "He should have stick-checked him." "He could have saved a goal."

NONE of those apply and that's all based on emotion, not the rulebook.

He'll get suspended because of the mob justice on social media. The NHL has been trying to turn hockey into soccer on ice for decades and they're almost as weak as football when it comes to social media pressure. Rules weren't broken and the player will get suspended. The NHLPA should lose their poop over this one.
- Kcannon98

Check again. You are making up a bunch of bullpoop above.

This is directly from the rule book.

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).

Will no one defend Scheifelie ?

NHL officiating is absurd. In a net from scrum you can horse-collar, face wash, cross check, and pound a guy's head into the ice multiple times, and if said guy (Scheifelie) retaliates he gets a roughing penalty.

Did Evans think the Jets would let him just stroll down and deposit an empty net goal in a 4 - 3 game?

Sheifs obviously thought he had a chance to stop Evans; it was very close. He did let up, but finished the check with his forward momentum.

It was not a charge (he let up), it was a desperate defensive play.

The hypocrisy of the Montreal Canadiens and the politically correct media in general is apparent (to me anyway).

Any player would have made the same play under the circumstances.
Prevent that goal and Scheifelie is a hero, penalty be damned!

Disclosure: I am not a Jet's fan.
- Camosack

I guess I'm defending him but I'm defending the game itself more. If that hit is a suspension then we might as well just get hitting out of the game completely. Not only was no rule broken, that was a textbook hit. I'm not a Jets fan either.

Dirty hit; no, uncalled for; yes. But then again Evans doesn't get blasted if his head is up. Thank god Scott Stevens doesn't play today!

Check again

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).
- TurdFergeson

Checked. He stopped taking strides at the top of the circle. You can't expect a player to not skate into the zone to retrieve the puck. He was preparing for a LEGAL hit so he slowed up well before initiating contact.

Next.

If he arrives a split second sooner and prevents him from scoring, we are talking about what a great play it was.
- MBFlyerfan

Except everybody and their mothers knows he was never going for the puck or to prevent a goal

I'm a 38 year old "dinosaur." Got it.

Do you have a rule that was broken yet or no?
- Kcannon98

Ok, so you're a clueless 38 year old dino... It's charging... just because he stopped moving his feet does not change that. But the true bottom line here is that regardless of whether YOU believe it was a non penalty, the idea that guys should have free reign to just blow another guy up unnecessarily is moronic.

Just because a player is not in a position to protect himself shouldn't mean it's open season on possibly ending his career. Nobody who is a true fan of the game of hockey is asking for hitting to be taken out of the game nor fighting for that matter. (at least not me)... but a true fan of the game of hockey doesn't want to see reckless unnecessary hits that endanger the safety of these players either... and that my friend seems to be exactly what you're making an argument for.

Checked. He stopped taking strides at the top of the circle. You can't expect a player to not skate into the zone to retrieve the puck. He was preparing for a LEGAL hit so he slowed up well before initiating contact.

Next.
- Kcannon98

Again. You are making up bullpoop.

Taking strides anywhere doesn’t matter. Where do you see that mentioned? It says Distance travelled.

In other words, unless it goes how YOU want, it's a rigged game. Gotcha, champ. Go have your pudding, then get ready for nap time, ok?
- Darksyde

I mean he obviously trolling...

Or could it be...

he incredibly stupid ?

In both cases not worth the time

Again. You are making up bullpoop.

Taking strides anywhere doesn’t matter. Where do you see that mentioned? It says Distance travelled.
- TurdFergeson

So your argument is that the player should have NOT skated into the zone to retrieve the puck and if he does, hitting at any time after entering the zone is off limits?

If that's the case, you've just eliminated hitting from hockey.