For a former ref who supposedly knows the rulebook inside out, there was certainly a whole lot of subjective analysis talking about acceleration and what his options were. "Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner." I don't care what kind of dinosaur nonsense you have to say about keeping your head up, this rule was objectively broken, whether it was his only perceived option to stop the play or not. And before you start going about strict interpretation of the rulebook, if you want to get subjective with intent, Schiefele was running around like an ape the whole game ie sucker punched Chairot in the back of the head earlier in the 3rd while he was prone. I also challenge this assertion it wasn't a high hit. From the angles that were shown, it looks like Schifele follows through with his arm into Evan's head. I have to say this was a pretty poorly thought out take.

Paul, I usually agree with you and while I agree with parts of your article I have to respectfully disagree with the main premise.

I know hockey is a very fast game (which is why it is so tough to officiate) and players always are making split second decisions. However, the "intent" argument fails apart in many cases. I am pretty sure that no player intends to hit the puck over the glass in their end and get a delay of game penalty and likewise no player intends to high stick a guy in the face and draw blood and get 4 minutes. Nevertheless, these things happen and the penalties have to be called. The player may be in the penalty box doing a face palm but they are still ultimately responsible. Part of being a good hockey player is being able to make good split second decisions.

In this case there are not many players in the league fast enough to have prevented that goal by taking the body. Obviously Schleifele was not one of them (and he did accelerate earlier in the play - he was going top speed and couldn't accelerate any more closer to when the play happened). His best chance would have been a diving, desperation poke check. Moreover, even for the players fast enough to have prevented this goal by taking the body there is no way the resultant hit would not be brutal and I can't see how this could possibly not be charging.

I do agree with you that penalties should not be based on outcome. Ultimately I think the best way to judge the severity of penalties that can result in injury is potential, rather than intent or outcome. Judging based on outcome is unjust and judging based on intent is too difficult.

Factoring out the more remote possibilities and considering the likely and less likely possibilities, what are the things that could have happened due to the illegal play? If a player does a flying crosscheck toward a guy's face and misses, swings his stick at a guy's head and misses, or skates the width of the ice to board/charge someone but the guy dodges the hit at the last second that player should still be dealt with very severely. The fact that no one got injured is irrelevant. The potential for a severe injury was high in these cases and the action was illegal. The only way to judge these plays based on intent is to get in the guy's head which you obviously cannot do and judging them based on outcome results in them getting off completely despite committing very dangerous plays.
- PghPens668771

Intent, except for egregious and obvious examples, is impossible to determine. I mean who is DOPS, a bunch of mind readers? And really, outcome-based penalties should only be based on a combination of action and outcome -- in other words, you baseball swing at a guy and knock him cold, not that you swing at a guy and chop his glove. Anything else is attempted mind reading and playing to the fanbased mob, neither of which would be admissible anywhere else.

To those who say that Scheifele’s hit was a textbook one, you are mistaken, it was actually a rulebook one. The NHL rulebook prohibits charging and describes it as follows:
Charging shall mean that the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check and opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

That is the very definition of what happened last night when a frustrated Sheifele skated the length of the rink and collided with Jake Evans. Whether he wanted to prevent an empty net goal or to hit Evans is completely irrelevant. The charging infraction does not state that intent must be proven.

The fact that Evan’s head was not the main point of contact is also completely irrelevant. The rulebook also states that if a player gets 2 game misconduct penalties in the physical foul category in the playoffs, he is automatically suspended for his team’s next playoff game. Of course, there’s also rule 28 which states that supplementary discipline might be assessed at the Commissioner’s discretion. And therein lies the problem: “At the Commissioner’s discretion”.

With what we now know about head injuries, the rulebook needs to be updated. Head injuries are serious and dangerous, they need to be taken seriously. As a result, there should be a mandatory minimum suspension provided for in the rulebook. Just like in the legal field, when you break the law, there are provisions that tell the judge what kind of punishment he can impose, when it’s a fine, it states that it shall be between x and y amount, when it’s prison, it also states for how long it could be. There is a limit to the discretion that should be given to the decision maker.

Furthermore, the league also needs to understand that the fact that a player has never received any supplemental discipline before should not mean a slap on the wrist. The minimal suspension provided for should be imposed. In any type of hearing, be it administrative, penal or criminal, previous convictions are an aggravating factor, but the absence of priors is not a mitigating factor. The law is the law and the minimum sentence shall still be imposed on a first-time offender unless there are aggravating factors which means that he deserves more than the minimum.

Spot on here Paul.
There is a difference between trying to hurt a guy and trying to injure a guy.
Hard hitters are always trying to hurt a guy--to make him feel pain so he has 2nd thoughts about making a play... But few are actually trying to injure a guy--to cause an injury not just pain and soreness. I believe Scheiffle was trying to hurt Evans to defend the net and make Evans feel pain--exact a cost for scoring. I do not believe he was trying to put Evans out of the series or send him off the ice on a stretcher.

DOPeS show's a clown show.

1) There is no cookie cutter, recipe for sameness in Hockey. All games and plays are different so you must judge intent from experience and not the results. Hitting your head on the ice. Fact is, Bill Masterson got legally hit but, tragically, died Ace Bailey and Eddie Shore...intent with terrible results...Pat Quinn on Orr....Orr had his head down and got a sucker pass....LaFontaine ran into his own teammate and that ended that. I was there: head down and neither player was looking.

2) The game is based on speed. Do you have a speed limit on skating in a game? NO. Why would we have a speed limit on hitting? How would you slow down a player just before he hits another legally?

Teams now have many smaller players who put themselves in vulnerable positions. There is an inherent risk in playing the game. If you don't want to incur any risk of being hurt on a legal hit, don't sign the contract.
- Paul Stewart

Charging has nothing to do with speed. DISTANCE TRAVELED. I would have thought you understood the actual rule.

Your "don't sign the contract" bit is quite sad, since it was NOT deemed to be a legal hit.

Spot on here Paul.
There is a difference between trying to hurt a guy and trying to injure a guy.
Hard hitters are always trying to hurt a guy--to make him feel pain so he has 2nd thoughts about making a play... But few are actually trying to injure a guy--to cause an injury not just pain and soreness. I believe Scheiffle was trying to hurt Evans to defend the net and make Evans feel pain--exact a cost for scoring. I do not believe he was trying to put Evans out of the series or send him off the ice on a stretcher.
- Amanion

"Hurt" the player?
How does one try to "hurt" a player without a significant chance of injuring them?
All players take medical courses so they are able to distinguish which hit will hurt but not injure?

Apparently you have no clue why checking was introduced into the game.

No Ill intent? Did Scheifele really think that Evans would just get up like nothing happened?

1) He skated at full speed to backcheck. Stopping striding doesnt matter when you covered that much distance. It was a excessive charge which 100% deserved a suspension.

2) He made 0 attempt to play the puck.

When you bulldoze a guy like that its pretty much a 100% guarantee its going to be a concussion. All players know this and they do it anyways. Using the ill intent is like saying a drunk Driver shouldnt be punished as much because they didnt intend to kill someone. You know you are going to hurt someone and you do it anyways because you dont care.

That's exactly as I saw it too.

Great assessment I 100% agree! Looked like he was trying to stop an empty net goal to me.

There was absolutely no intent to injure. Yes, he was gliding until he realizes he still had a chance at preventing goal. Evans took so long on wrap around. Canadien fans need to look at play with out bias. Only thing I disagree with in this article: I do think Scheifele made a last ditch effort for puck and then braced for collision. Evans got hurt, unfortunately. To anyone trying to turn this into a dirty play, watch video and pause it at exact moment player puts puck in net. You’ll see stick on stick. You’ll see players are about a foot apart. What the hell was he supposed to do?

For a former ref who supposedly knows the rulebook inside out, there was certainly a whole lot of subjective analysis talking about acceleration and what his options were. "Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner." I don't care what kind of dinosaur nonsense you have to say about keeping your head up, this rule was objectively broken, whether it was his only perceived option to stop the play or not. And before you start going about strict interpretation of the rulebook, if you want to get subjective with intent, Schiefele was running around like an ape the whole game ie sucker punched Chairot in the back of the head earlier in the 3rd while he was prone. I also challenge this assertion it wasn't a high hit. From the angles that were shown, it looks like Schifele follows through with his arm into Evan's head. I have to say this was a pretty poorly thought out take.
- apex123

To be fair...The distance travelled wasn’t to deliver a check! There’s the discrepancy.

To be fair...The distance travelled wasn’t to deliver a check! There’s the discrepancy.
- junaka3

Wut.
Did he have distance traveled: yes, not arguable.
Was it a violent check: yes, not arguable.

Therefore under the rules is it charging? (frank)ing right it was.

There was absolutely no intent to injure. Yes, he was gliding until he realizes he still had a chance at preventing goal. Evans took so long on wrap around. Canadien fans need to look at play with out bias. Only thing I disagree with in this article: I do think Scheifele made a last ditch effort for puck and then braced for collision. Evans got hurt, unfortunately. To anyone trying to turn this into a dirty play, watch video and pause it at exact moment player puts puck in net. You’ll see stick on stick. You’ll see players are about a foot apart. What the hell was he supposed to do?
- junaka3

1) you can't possibly know what he was thinking.
2) He travelled most of the length of the ice
3) He delivered a violent check

Anyone arguing that wasn't charging is refusing to apply the Rule.

Idiocy at its best from Stewie!

Based on your logic Tavares should have also kept his head up and be aware of his vulnerable position? IDIOT

Good thing you're not in charge of giving suspensions.

The game was over and that's it. He had intent to injury and if you can't see that you have autism.