Wow nice job, you can break apart one part of the rule to fit your position. It's also cute how you left out how the referee's called it charging on the play when trying to portray that the "experts" aren't "experts". But yes you are correct, nobody has been suspended for "distance traveled", but that is one part of charging. Maybe you should think about what you type first, it's very easy to shred your argument. For instance did you know that nobody has received a high sticking penalty for only have their stick in the air? It has to come in contact with a player as well. You see how there's more than one part to these rules? So for charging you travel a large distance and... what else? You have a video there to watch it again. What else happens after Scheifele skates are large distance? I bet you won't answer that, at least not in any serious detail.
- Izzo

So your argument now is that no player has ever been suspended for "distance traveled" because no player has ever "traveled distance" to make a hit? I'm not sure that's what you are saying but it seems that way due to the high sticking analogy (which is REALLY dumb).

He didn't leave his feet. Primary contact was not the head. Those are the two charming suspensions that are handed out on a regular basis by DOPS. If you watch the DOPS charging decisions, most of them explain how the check could be legal. NONE of them say that it could have been legal if the player traveled less of a distance. They almost ALL say that if the hit was lower and through the body (while staying on the ice), it would have been legal. That's the exact hit that MS delivered.

Once again, I'm NOT saying that DOPS won't suspend him. They probably will because they cave to the mob just like the NFL and NBA. What I am saying, which is proven by EVERY charging decision DOPS has ever issued, is that a rule was NOT broken in this case.

So your argument now is that no player has ever been suspended for "distance traveled" because no player has ever "traveled distance" to make a hit? I'm not sure that's what you are saying but it seems that way due to the high sticking analogy (which is REALLY dumb).

He didn't leave his feet. Primary contact was not the head. Those are the two charming suspensions that are handed out on a regular basis by DOPS. If you watch the DOPS charging decisions, most of them explain how the check could be legal. NONE of them say that it could have been legal if the player traveled less of a distance. They almost ALL say that if the hit was lower and through the body (while staying on the ice), it would have been legal. That's the exact hit that MS delivered.

Once again, I'm NOT saying that DOPS won't suspend him. They probably will because they cave to the mob just like the NFL and NBA. What I am saying, which is proven by EVERY charging decision DOPS has ever issued, is that a rule was NOT broken in this case.
- Kcannon98

capital letters are IMPORTANT

hello, YOU. YOU are 38 years old? wow, that's awesome for YOU.
- Pat1993

I see you have no factual arguments left, huh?

Is the argument now that MS left his feet and targetted the head? If so, your video is relevant. If not, your video means nothing because it has nothing to do with the hit on Evans. If anything, your video shows why the MS hit was textbook. Listen to Perros at 1:34 of the video YOU cited.
- Kcannon98

You asked for an example of a suspension for charging. The NHL doesn't just pick and choose which aspects of the rule it enforces. Players leaving their feet is significantly more common than guys winding up over half the rink to blast into someone.

Now you show me the part of the rule where it says suspensions will only be levied for instances of charging in which a player leaves his feet.

I see you have no factual arguments left, huh?
- Kcannon98

arguing with you is a HUGE waste of time.

HUGE.

capital letters are IMPORTANT
- Pat1993

I remember back in 2015/2016 when a certain individual was running for President here in the US. I knew he was going to win when they started talking about his hair, past marriages, "orange skin," etc.

When your only thing left is talking about things like that, it's clear that you have nothing left in the tank.

I remember back in 2015/2016 when a certain individual was running for President here in the US. I knew he was going to win when they started talking about his hair, past marriages, "orange skin," etc.

When your only thing left is talking about things like that, it's clear that you have nothing left in the tank.
- Kcannon98

sure, cool story bro

You asked for an example of a suspension for charging. The NHL doesn't just pick and choose which aspects of the rule it enforces. Players leaving their feet is significantly more common than guys winding up over half the rink to blast into someone.

Now you show me the part of the rule where it says suspensions will only be levied for instances of charging in which a player leaves his feet.
- eichiefs9

No I didn't. I asked for an example of "distance traveled" resulting in a suspension. You chose to MSNBC me and change my words.

You failed. Badly. Your own citation proves you wrong.

sure, cool story bro
- Pat1993

I'm sure there are people who still love you even though you're wrong. Don't be too sad.

I personally think the hit itself was ok, but no need to hit him there. When Tkachuk hit Kassian in a similar area, other players came out and said that hit was a no no. Players just know not to hit someone in such a vulnurable state. While it may be "clean" it certainly was dirty.

As to the charging point, idk how to feel about that. Because growing up the definition was 3 strides into a hit and keep skating through is chargine. Sheif did glide but the length based on the rule book considers it a charge. Im still on the fence about that one.

At the end of the day i think he gets 2-3 games and were in for a hell of a game when he comes back. Hope evans recovers quickly

No I didn't. I asked for an example of "distance traveled" resulting in a suspension. You chose to MSNBC me and change my words.

You failed. Badly. Your own citation proves you wrong.
- Kcannon98

So because it's never happened before the rule shouldn't be enforced as written?

That's your entire argument

I'm sure there are people who still love you even though you're wrong. Don't be too sad.
- Kcannon98

...

When Bruins fans support Habs fans... The apocalypse is upon us!!!
- Darksyde

let's just get one thing clear - I'm supporting Hockey, not the Habs.


Can't have fellow Bruin supporters getting the wrong idea.

I remember back in 2015/2016 when a certain individual was running for President here in the US. I knew he was going to win when they started talking about his hair, past marriages, "orange skin," etc.

When your only thing left is talking about things like that, it's clear that you have nothing left in the tank.
- Kcannon98

No I didn't. I asked for an example of "distance traveled" resulting in a suspension. You chose to MSNBC me and change my words.

You failed. Badly. Your own citation proves you wrong.
- Kcannon98

Charging by definition involves distance travelled.
But i'm sure this is the first charging penalty ever given. If not please define charging for us

- Darksyde

Posting selfies now?

Charging by definition involves distance travelled.
But i'm sure this is the first charging penalty ever given. If not please define charging for us
- braidan

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

Charging by definition involves distance travelled.
But i'm sure this is the first charging penalty ever given. If not please define charging for us
- braidan

His line of thinking is that because there's never been a suspension before for "distance traveled" that it somehow invalidates the fact that "distanced traveled" is a basic tenet written into rule 42.1.

Maybe there's a statute of limitations that we all didn't know about

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

I'm just asking you to define charging

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

I'm just asking you to define charging

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

I'm just asking you to define charging

Things are a lot different now than they were in, say.....the 90's.
When the Scott Stevens of the NHL ruled the ice come playoff time.

Seems now people are all for suspending a guy because their feelings got hurt.

I know the players are too young to probably be really aware of him, but they should go back and perhaps watch what can happen when you have your head down instead of being aware of who's coming at you.

Charging? Give me a break.
- Nh_kong

Stevens would be suspended today for half the hits he did back in the 90's.

You see there's a thing called science and it's shown us what happens to the brain when people (yes, players are people) get hit that way.

Maybe you have no compassion for people? You think it's ok for players to be carried off the ice on stretchers and have long-lasting brain problems? For the sake of a sport?

When insults are the only arguments coming out, there are no arguments here... You like hard physical hockey, that's fine, I prefer clean hockey with beautiful plays and goalie saves, that is also fine. That doesn't make any of us idiots, sissies or whatever names came out here. I think that was a dirty hit with intent to injure and no intent to stop the goal, you think that was a clean hit, I'm can deal with that, but each side should stop at correct arguments. When your only argument is to insult one another, I'm wondering who is the idiot in the bunch....

His line of thinking is that because there's never been a suspension before for "distance traveled" that it somehow invalidates the fact that "distanced traveled" is a basic tenet written into rule 42.1.

Maybe there's a statute of limitations that we all didn't know about
- eichiefs9

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.

When insults are the only arguments coming out, there are no arguments here... You like hard physical hockey, that's fine, I prefer clean hockey with beautiful plays and goalie saves, that is also fine. That doesn't make any of us idiots, sissies or whatever names came out here. I think that was a dirty hit with intent to injure and no intent to stop the goal, you think that was a clean hit, I'm can deal with that, but each side should stop at correct arguments. When your only argument is to insult one another, I'm wondering who is the idiot in the bunch....
- doum79

I agree