“Of the actual charging player” is bologna. He was not charging at allllll. Stop it.

Man, that's delusional. It's obviously a jump into an opponent.

You can't do that. Can you imagine what sort of shitshow the NHL would be if everyone being hit jumped up? The ref had every right to make this call based on the rules.

​@@youtubeguy99No. Enlighten me.

Leaving his feet without jumping would be falling. He did not fall before the hit. He jumped. FFS, are we going to argue that jumping is not jumping? The only way for a human to raise their entire upright body including their feet off the ground with no outside force is to jump. Jumping creates vertical momentum. That vertical momentum impacted Foegele at the point of contact, and also placed Petterson's shoulders level with Foegeles's head upon contact. Petterson made that change. It included creating momentum and force that was delivered into Foegele's head by Petterson's jump, which is a Charging Penalty. This is bare bones simple physics and reason. By your logic, Petterson could have done any kind of physical foul to absorb the hit and not deserve a penalty. He could have head butted him if he wanted to. Receiving a check does not entitle you to deliver any force you choose back to your opponent. You say Petterson would get steamrolled. A player in possession of the puck may be legally body checked. Foegele's check was clean. The outcome for Petterson is Petterson's responsibility. This is the NHL, you need your big girl panties to play. If you can't absorb a legal check, or can't deal with the outcome of a legal check you can't absorb, you don't belong in the league. You belong in your momma's nursery where she coddles you and changes your diapers.

He clearly jumps up into his opponent, doesn't matter that the opponent is moving faster. He jumped into his opponent in a manner--that is textbook, yes. Hope that helps.😊

Yeah, I agree - there’s too much ambiguity in the rule. But refs officiating a playoff game shouldn’t be taking the opportunity to create fanciful interpretations of the rules.

Well, it's a weakness if there's too much of a discrepancy between the written rule and the common sense or popular understanding of what the rule is there to address. From a common sense perspective, I'd say charging is when a player drives into another player using excessive speed or skating. That's basically what "distance traveled" should cover. No need for fanciful interpretations. I think the writing supports this. Charging from stand still doesn't really make sense intuitively. Completely ok to disagree with this of course.

He jumped vertically, driving his shoulder into contact with Foegele's face. Foegele had no reason to expect Petterson, given his height, would have his shoulder at face level with Foegele. Petterson jumped into the contact with Foegele. He created a force with his jump, and delivered that through his shoulder to Foegele's head. This is physics 101. For your point 2. above, that is not a definition of the charging penalty. The charging penalty is for 3 things described in the first sentence: 1. Skating into an opponent to deliver a hit instead of gliding in. 2. Jumping into an opponent to deliver a hit. (both 1 and 2 CHARGE the hit by adding force that the league determined is not acceptable) 3. Charges an opponent - Why is one of the types of a Charging Infraction called "charges an opponent?" Because it is a blanket term for actions other than 1. or 2. that deliver a charged hit. Sentence two clarifies what "charges an opponent" means from sentence 1. It is a broad definition that deals with using distance travelled to violently check an opponent in to the boards, a goal, or in open ice. "Charging shall mean": this is common parlance in legalese to define a term within a section. The section here is Rule 42 - Charging. The term being defined is "charges" from sentence one, not "Charging" form "Rule 42 - Charging." If we look at "Rule 41 - Boarding" the first sentence is: Boarding - A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. "A boarding penalty shall be imposed..." The first sentence describes that the penalty shall be imposed on any player that does what is further described. The second sentence is interpretive: There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule. The wording and sentence structure for Rule 41 and Rule 42 are consistent. The first paragraph of each states that the penalty shall be imposed for specific reasons. The second paragraph elaborates on interpretation. So to paraphrase, the _Charging infraction_ shall be imposed on players who commit an action of _accelerating horizontally and/or vertically_ into an opponent to initiate contact, or who _charges the force of his check_ by nature of the distance travelled that results in any manner of violent check into the boards, the net, or in open ice.

@@sherpajones Thank you for breaking down yet another instance of the rulebook being goofy. "Charging" is one of the types of "charging" penalties. The other types of "charging" penalties are for things other than "charging." What? Either way, your interpretation has helped me make sense of the rule. And a penalty that I first thought was just a mistake turns out to be 100% correct.

The NHL Rulebook doesn’t mention strides. I show it in the video. People do often cite the Hockey USA Rulebook on social media to argue NHL calls , though I’m not sure why.

​@ToughCall because strides are what determines the difference between a charge and a clean hit in 90% if not more of charging calls. So has the NHL just been lying to us forever and everyone skating into a check has been incorrectly penalized?

Rule 42 starts with a sentence that says a penalty shall be imposed on a player who does one of 3 things: 1. Skates into an opponent (accelerates horizontally to charge the force of the hit) 2. Jumps into an opponent (accelerates vertically to charge the force of the hit) 3. Charges an opponent. The next sentence elaborate on _3. Charges an opponent"_ by defining it as travelling a distance to "violently check an opponent in any manner...." This is a catch all definition for the officials to interpret and apply to anything that isn't clearly skating or jumping into an opponent. It is NOT a pre-requisite to qualify skating or jumping into an opponent as charging. You can skate into an opponent from a fairly short distance and deliver a stronger hit as opposed to simply gliding into them. Jumping into them has the same effect. Petterson committed a charging infraction.

@@sherpajones wrong. by the definition fogele should be guilty of a penalty on more points the Elias did. Why are all the people who defend the call ignore what fogele did? That's what you are doing. If fogele doesn't charge at Pettersson then there is nothing to debate.

"Bracing for a hit" requires a person to keep his feet on the ground. You can't "brace" in mid air.

@@doug3512exactly

“Brace: prepare (oneself) for something difficult or unpleasant.” So where exactly does it say you need to keep your feet on the ground?

@@doug3512 not to mention the leap caused a headshot. So take your pick on what to call

​@mitchhak2 The rule in the video--did you watch it? He clearly jumps up into his opponent, doesn't matter that the opponent is moving faster. He jumped into his opponent in a manner--that is textbook

So many people are describing Petterson as seeing contact and being so panicked that he jumps to get away from it. It was a reverse hit, not an escape.

@@ToughCall but it's still not considered "jump into"...just take that "Into" word...

​@@kylorenjr1236He clearly jumps up into his opponent, doesn't matter that the opponent is moving faster. He jumped into his opponent in a manner--that is textbook

@@ToughCall This is not 'jump into', at best it is 'jump straight up'. If you take a straight edge and place it on the screen using the primary angle that you used for this judgement, and align that straight edge parallel to the glass stantions, you will see that EP did NOT propel his body towards the Oiler. Actually, he moved fractionally away during the jump. Give it a look.

The fact that he made high contact with and knocked the other player over sort of pokes holes in that argument of yours.

You think Petterson jumped straight up and came straight down, Foegele ran into him with a little speed, and yet Foegele fell backwards from that straight jump and Petterson was fine?

@@ToughCall Foegle moved Petterson forward. Centre of gravity. Petterson is not as heavy. Edmonton trying to draw calls… again. Sorry

Trying to draw calls by getting Petterson to jump? Foegele falls backwards. Petterson barely moves. That’s the force of the hit. Why else would he jump?

@@ToughCallIt’s not rare. Seen it many times and there’s no call either way. Remember detractors say Petterson is 170lbs soaking wet

I never said it was rare. I asked why else would he jump if not to generate some force for his reverse hit?

Launching is only one definition of the charging penalty. You’re not allowed to jump into contact and this is the rule that covers it.

@@ToughCall cool, but I don't see how given the wording the the NHL rule book. Not the first rule that has to be understood by common knowledge as opposed to reading the rule. 'Distinct kicking motion' comes to mind. Is there another organization that words the rule properly? As written in rule 42, charging does not include the actions of Petterson by my reading.

The wording says if you skate, jump into, or charge. He jumped into.

@@ToughCall But that would include all contact between players. What part of rule 42 differentiates a fair body check from a charging foul?

If you use any of those things to create excessive violence it makes it a charge. Skating into an opponent but then slowing or angling slightly before contact is different than skating right through them in a straight line. Jumping into contact is always a bad idea. And the actual distance travelled bit means if you use that distance to generate excessive momentum to be used in the impact. You can cover a great distance for a hit but as long as that speed isn’t used to make the hit excessively violent, it’s fine. Although I do find charging in general is undercalled, it’s not nearly every hit.

I’d like to know if you were able to find a similar hit. It’s rare to see anyone leave their feet facing backwards quite the way Pettersson did to take a hit, and at that extreme height.

@@ToughCall I haven't. Not saying it's hasn't been tho. Best I can find are highlights of hits and don't now if they were called. I will say that I question the language of the rule. "skate, jump or charge." By definition simply skate into an opponent and its considered a charge if you say that simply jumping is. 🤷

No. That would be ridiculous.

Jumping and falling are NOT the same thing. Any first grader can tell you this. Jumping can only be voluntary. It requires the jumper to utilize their legs, feet, core and maybe some upper body to propel themselves vertically. Falling can also be involuntary. IOW the important part is responsibility for actions. You are not responsible for falling to the ice if you are hit. The other player is, and if it was a legal hit then you just get up and continue on. Petterson delivered a vertical hit, driving his body upwards, crating force to meet Foegele's face with his shoulder at an acute angle. The acute angle is a result of horizontal and vertical movement. Petterson caused the latter, and the rules say you are not permitted to jump into an opponent. Case closed.

Rule 42 - Charging as shown in the video, says skates, jumps into, or charges. Those are three different things that can lead to a charging penalty. The part you highlight defines the word charging as the third possibility, not a requirement for every single instance. Cheers.

​@@ToughCall You're still incorrect. Please acquire comprehension. The rule states that charging will be imposed if a player jumps into an opponent. Pettersson jumped into the air and Foegele charged into him as proven by the video. Do better.

you forgot the second part of the rule, and both don't need to happen at the same time.

@@charliegordon-qh2ll That’s quite a spin. Lol.

If a hit is coming and he jumps but doesn't avoid the hit, he is jumping into the hit. Lets imagine you are standing on train tracks with a train speeding at you. Do you a) run off the tracks, b) jump off the tracks, or c) jump vertically in the air? If you chose c) jump vertically in the air, you were unsuccessful in avoiding the train. Instead of avoiding it, you jumped into it. You imparted your momentum into the train. Not that the train (or you for that matter) noticed, but as a simple matter of physics you created a force that was greater than just the impact of your stationary mass on the front of the train. Remember from Einstein that all motion is relative. Strictly speaking from a physics analysis, from the train's perspective you are rushing towards it, and jumped into it at a slight angle just before you struck it. That slight angle imparted some of the force of your jump into the train. It also put your head level with the headlamp and smashed it. Now the train company can not only sue your estate for the PTSD the engineer has for watching your challenge a locomotive to a game of chicken, but for the headlight you busted in the process. That is how physics and personal choices work. Petterson jumped and delivered his shoulder into Foegele's head. That is charging. Intention is not relevant, only the outcome. If I swung my stick at your face to avoid a legal check, I would get a high sticking penalty. Petterson drove his shoulder into Foegele's head by jumping. Foegele has a right to his legal check, and is entitled to not be put in danger for it by an illegal response by Petterson. Same call if Petterson instead raised his stick to head level and cross checked Foegele in the face. Or his elbow. You cannot stick out your elbow at the face of someone checking you, so why should you be allowed to drive your shoulder into their face by jumping as they check you?

This could have been illegal check to the head. Maybe even elbowing. Also charging works.

​@ToughCall you're so biased and it's obvious lol

​@alittlesh Canucks supporter here, and the biased ones are very obviously the Canucks fans. Pettersson clearly jumps up into his opponent, doesn't matter that the opponent is moving faster or Pettersson is stationary. He jumped into his opponent in a manner--that is textbook.

@@closethockeyfan5284 read the rule

Also a ‘Nucks fan here. The rule is vague - everybody seems to be cherry-picking the parts that support their POV. The NHL should adopt similar wording to USA hockey: “Charging is the action where a player takes more than two strides or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent. This includes skating or leaving one's feet (jumping) into the opponent to deliver a check, accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent, or skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force.” I think this wording captures more explicitly the intent of the NHL rule. And I think that 99 out of 100 NHL refs would not have made that call against Petterson. Here are some clear examples of charging from the NHL. To put what Petterson did into the same category as these exemplars is ridiculous: www.nhl.com/video/video-rulebook-charging-320501480

You're selectively insisting it meet a subjective standard you hold and ignoring that jumping into is enough as written (poorly for sure). I won't type it back at you, but the OR is key: any of those three things constitutes charging. The next paragraph defines the third thing, not negating the first two--that would make no sense. And yes, Pettersson's jump goes INTO Foegele's head. It's pretty clear to me. Stick out an elbow at the head of a guy skating toward you while you are stationary and you still get the elbowing penalty. Same applies here.

I didn’t ignore it. I just didn’t think it applied to this situation, unlike the rest of the rule.

@@ToughCall "I just didn’t think it applied to this situation" So, you ignored it then. Just own it, the NHL does. This sort of selective usage of the wording is why people complain at refs in every sports league. They all need to tighten the wording of their rulebooks.

I dont think you understand what “skates into” means. And if (c) charging is just one thing under a blanket rule called charging without its own definition, why even list it? That would be like saying hooking - (a)the act of using your stick to restrain an opponent (b) hooking. Unless I define (b) hooking as a different component, it’s redundant and pointless to add it again. The definition of charging is for anything that doesn’t include skating or jumping into, which on their own can each be called charging.

Agreed - if taken in isolation, Fogle technically charged EP by skating in any manner. If we're to define skating as something other than its standard dictionary meaning so that it doesn't include 'gliding' on skates, that still doesn't explain how any time there is contact while a player is 'skating' (ie moving their feet) it's not called a penalty. I suspect what might be missing here is the fact there is no Oxford comma after "jumps into" and so charging is actually two actions: a check where a player a)skate, jumps into or b) charging (which is defined in the following paragraph). The lack of an Oxford comma suggests this isn't a list of three options, but rather just two. If you try and read it as a list of three options, the first option is actually does not make grammatical sense as it doesn't include the word "into": "a minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates .. an opponent in any manner"

@@nickmoore3303 You’re right on that. It needs a revisit. Hopefully this incident brings about the clarification.

@@ToughCall I agree that the double reference to charging is redundant. I wasn't trying to say that this rule was particularly well drafted. I am only really being critical of your approach to rule interpretation: circling words that provide for the interpretation you are looking for without looking at the provision as a whole. You circle "jumps into" and "in any manner" and say aha! Petterson deserved the penalty. I could do the same for "skates into" and "any manner" and argue that by the rulebook hockey should be contactless. The only reasonable way to approach the rule, I think, is by requiring a (1) violent check that results from (2) distance travelled. I'd be open to you arguing that by jumping into Foegele Petey travelled a non-negligible distance and in that way satisfied the requirement for the penalty. But I disagree with you dispensing with what appears to be the most important element of the penalty.

@@ToughCall It is absolutely clear to expveryone else other than you and the ref from last night’s game! 😂

He picked up his leg as a reactionary defence to Petterson jumping. He could see Petterson rising up so he “blocked” it. Not his best move, but definitely just an instinctive move.

@@ToughCall you reead his mind huh? Damn, you're good. These are Elite athletes, they do things because they know how to. He was instigating the hit and knew exactly what he was doing.

Disingenuous. It's the same argument as "I just happened to stick my arm out while his head was going by."

Bennett didn’t punch Marchand either. Marchand just drove his head into his extended fist.

So if you are running by me and I put my leg out at the last minute, technically you tripped yourself on my leg and should pay closer attention. Or ran into my outstretched fist. Or fell on my knife. Strange how your logic works.

@@ToughCall when it comes to Marchand, I can never figure out why he is always hurting himself on other people.

@@sherpajones no that's completely different

Nope. Into is any direction. I can't believe the number of people making this bad faith argument.

@@closethockeyfan5284 Forward is a subjective direction. If I am in a zero-g, completely void enviroment, what is forward? It is moving in a direction consistent with my current momentum. Therefore a player who is skating backwards, who continues that movement, is still technically moving "forward". It does not require you to be looking at the thing to be moving forward. You can't go "into" a doorway you have literally just finished exiting without somehow reversing momentum and/or time. It's very linear in that way. Humans just tend to think of forward as the way they are facing because we are in a linear 1g enviroment (most of the time atleast), and have front facing eyes. It's not necessarily a bad faith arguement, just one you disagree with.

@@closethockeyfan5284 pettersson didn't move, there was no direction. Are you daft?

This doesn’t happen almost every game. Be honest. Reverse hits do, and sometimes they even leave their feet just a little bit. But this is a lot.

@@ToughCall you really don't understand do you. This rule was put into place because players when skating in to bodycheck an opposing player were jumping into them. NOT for a stationary player who is getting bodychecked bracing for a reverse hit. It has NEVER been called like that before in the history of the NHL. Reverse hits are done usually by the smaller player bracing against a hit and happens in every game and yes sometimes their feet leave the ice but that is NOT A PENALTY. Try to find one example of it and then maybe you will understand.

You’re right. I’ve never looked at any other incident. I barely watch hockey so I guess I’ll study up.

The rules are not built on intent. Many calls for high sticking can be clearly determined to be non intentional. You are always responsible for your actions on the ice regardless of your intent. This is a moral principal that supersedes sports.

I watch a lot of hockey and I don’t see a constant parade of players jumping to absorb contact. It most often happens in situations like these where it’s a “reverse hit” and I very much agree they don’t call it enough.

Wouldn’t the charging penalty also protect players who attempt to make legal contact from being jumped into at head height?

@@ToughCall well, there's a game misconduct penalty for attempting or deliberately injuring the opponents head. Again, neither player here did anything intentional to injure the other. It was a clean hit. Petterson made the play and appropriately positioned himself to absorb and deflect the impending hit. Calling this a penalty just ruins the game. It's not a defendable call.

Please provide references to your claim of what the intent of the rule is. And please explain why a rule should not exist to bar players from gaining an unfair position advantage in a play. Actually, such rules do exist. Holding, interference, tripping; all of these penalties are about gaining an unfair positional advantage by encumbering your opponents movements, and are called very commonly where they don't cause injuries or even a risk of injury. By jumping, he does get his center of mass away from contact, but he places his center of mass higher on Foegele, making him vulnerable to smash his face on Petterson's shoulder. I get it, you are angry because your team was penalized by a rule you don't understand. I'm a lifelong Canucks fan and I agree with the call. I do NOT want to see this type of reverse hit running rampant and uncalled in the NHL.

@@sherpajones No.

Did he jump just prior to contact? Yes or no? Doesn’t matter which way he’s facing.

And went ... wait for it ... INTO the opponent's head

I've not seen this more than a few times ever. What teams are doing this? Which players?

Probably because there is no shoulder to head contact.

The charging rule is basically three separate things: skating into, jumping into, or charging. Skating into means not breaking strides. Jumping into means jumping into. Charging the verb itself is defined as hitting an opponent violently in any manner as a result of distance travelled. Charging the rule can be any of the three.

@@ToughCall He didn't jump into. He jumped, foegele was the one with momentum, clearly. Petterson was standing still, which is why everyone thought it was a strange call.

@@silaslang He jumped backwards into Foegele.

​@@ToughCall You'd make a great ref.

@@ToughCall As I look at the rule it says "shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any matter." It sounds to me like it says the player that "skates" , then either jumps into or charges an opponent. Which is probably why the US Hockey Rule books says "a player who takes at least two strides". You can't give aa charging call to someone who isn't skating. It makes zero sense

Was he jumping to get a puck or for any other known hockey purpose aside from the contact about to come?

@ToughCall you can also make the case he didn't "jump into" the player the player ran him down I don't think jumping straight up from standing still gives you any advantage on reverse hitting I think it would make you more vulnerable to being hit because you lack your feet to brace for impact if it was called elbowing then yes I don't think theirs any debate to this call but charging is definitely not the call

And yet others are saying he does this to absorb contact, and that players do this along the boards all the time. Like it’s the smartest best thing for Pettersson to do. How many times have we seen a play quite like this? I’d say almost never. It’s a unique decision. Very interesting.

There's a foul for 'submarining" in soccer, where a player has gone up high for a header and the other player stays on the ground and has an easy time moving the airborne player off his line, sometimes very dangerously because of the height involved. Similar physics are at play here: Pettersson sees contact coming and jumps up to make himself lighter, so he can be a bag of feathers, rather than a bag of pebbles. Done properly, this could/should be the safest way to deal with an impending hit. I suspect someone like Miller or Zadorov would lock-in sideways and pop Foegele with a legal shoulder check.

@@barrystewart3950 i do not trust the soccer rule book, because every game. players pretend stuff, and the refs is calling everything like it actually happened. if a player goes down, the refs acts like a crime was commited, when looking at the replays, a crime was not commited. in 96% of the times, the player who fell, was faking. and why i havent watched a soccer game in 20 years, no actually i have. but i have watch it sarcastically. so when a player fell down, i sayed "waow that must have hurt..", or "he could have been killed". its by far the most corrupt sport in the world, and something hockey has to watch out for. a soccerfication of hockey would be terrible. im advocating for a "diving" challenge, each team is given a diving embellishment challenge per game, which teams can save to later stages of the game. that would make players less likely to flopp around with 5 min left. you, we have like a thousands tv commercials per game, the idea of, lets not "slow the game down even more with all the challengens", i find it ridicoulus. the games are already a drag with all the kars4kids and betting commericials, more challenges is non issue at this point. if anything, commercialize the challenges, do a half screen commercial while the challenge is going on. over and out.

He's also made plenty of videos on how a "reverse hit" is still a hit, doesn't matter that the hitter has the puck. By that logic the puck carrier can do whatever he wants, which makes zero sense. He timed a jump INTO his opponent, period. It's textbook, and I'm amazed at the people coming out of the woodwork to make flimsy, disingenuous arguments for Pettersson timing a hit to the head.

Because I’m unbiased and consistent. I may get it wrong from time to time, but people come to realize I have no agenda other than trying to keep the best players in the world from having shortened careers by creating good habits, which as a bonus also lead to much more clean hard physical hockey, which I think we all want more than the disaster of last night’s pick and choose officiating.

Why are you watching hockey? Refs made the call not him.

Ah, perhaps your activity on KZfaq has been sporadic in your nine years. Here's how it works: There is a button on every channel and below every video that says "Subscribe," which viewers then click to subscribe, thus making them subscribers.

Most definitely it should.

@@ToughCall You want 3 penalties called per shift whenever anyone pushes someone? LOL That would be the worst hockey ever.

@@ToughCall Go watch a basketball game

@@KBosch-xp2ut No. I want penalties called whenever players crosscheck each other.

Thanks for providing a bunch of irrelevant information to assert an incorrect opinion. "Jumps into an opponent in any manner" qualifies. Pettersson did that. It doesn't matter that he was stationary. Whataboutisms don't matter either--we know they selectively call the rules. If calling them correctly, this is a penalty 100% of the time. You're welcome to argue the rule should be rewritten, but this is absolutely a penalty.

@closethockeyfan5284 If your word salad seems too bland, just add a bunch of random ingredients. Haha nice try.

@@closethockeyfan5284 By the way, cognitively, try to evaluate "jumps up" VS "jumps into." #educationmatters

You can jump into someone with your ass. Matthew Tkachuk is the king of this. No one, not one person, anywhere, has said McDavid didn’t deserve a penalty for that high stick to Hughes. For some reason though, even though you want a penalty on Foegele for this clean and check and you want McDavid suspended for a routine double minor, I’m the homer. Got it.

Jumping into is valid, because it changes the force, angle, and location of impact. The result is Petterson driving his shoulder into Foegele's face.

award worthy take honestly.

Jumping into head contact not a penalty? I've seen a lot of bloodlust "Let them play" takes, but wow

@@closethockeyfan5284 I dont think its a head contact penalty, but even if you do its not a penalty that theyve been calling this series. This isnt a “bloodlust let them play take”, its a wish for consistent reffing. I would have a much easier time accepting that this is a penalty if the refs had been consistently calling significantly more dangerous plays.

There are no others required. There are three possible qualifiers in the section at 0:37: 1) skating into an opponent in any manner (meaning not breaking stride at all, pretty difficult to do). 2) jumping into an opponent in any manner (exactly what Pettersson did). 3) charging an opponent in any manner. The subsequent paragraph is to define the third item, not negate the first two--that would make no sense.

@@closethockeyfan5284 incorrect it is a modifier of all statements. Player did not travel any distance and did not engage the contact. Player did not qualify for the "into" clause as they only recieved. The reason for the call on the ice is due to position of the ref calling it, being straight ahead he was unable to identify that the player was stationary.

He did engage contact. I have another video posted right now about it.

He is not jumping out of the way to avoid contact. And because he jumps he can’t be described as staying on his own piece of ice. He doesn’t stay on any piece of ice.

@@ToughCall That's hair splitting worthy of a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty. :-)

Distance travelled Is only part of the rule. Bud.

@@ToughCall exactly. It's part of the rule. Bud. What an awful call.

Only one part of the rule. Not requirement. Which is why it was called.

Finally a sane take, my goodness

If the penalty was obvious, why should they call it something else? Your statement is illogical.

It wasn’t clipping either. 😂 Clipping is hitting a player below the knees! Where are you getting this rule from?? Look at Rule 44 of the NHL rule book. Did you just make that up?

​@@KBosch-xp2utcheck the full definition... Just because that is one part of the rule doesn't mean it is all of it.

​@@KBosch-xp2uthigh stick is called if a player hits another in the head with their stick right?... But not if a player does so on the follow through of a pass or shot. See 2 definitions... 1 penalty. Clipping is also if a player leaves their feet and makes contact with another player causing the player to trip or fall.weird I got the legit answer and you just look up the basic definition and assume you know all

@@KBosch-xp2ut learn how to use Google and get back to me!!! 639(a) bus

@@aarongriffin4901 No, that’s not what clipping is. Stop making up rules. Read the rule book.

In reaction to a player jumping at his approach. He doesn’t lift his leg until he senses Pettersson jumping up.

Jump, yes. Into, also yes: very clearly makes contact with the head as a direct result of the jump he timed. The disingenuousness is unreal.

Did you watch the video?

@@ToughCall More than once. And a Lady Byng candidate who gets the biz for being soft. Clean. Simpson knows they never call this. And he’s pro Edmonton. Phantom call without zero doubt.

@@ToughCall Yes. In slo mo. If they call this there should be and should’ve been dozens of penalty calls on similar hits

Dozens tonight, or dozens this season?

@@ToughCall This season. Petterson does it often and so do others

Unless I agree with you.

Definitely Brad Marchand logic

Not necessarily. That’s just one way.

@@ToughCall Please do a followup on this. We need a deep dive into the correct interpretation of the rule. The comment section is displaying the intelligence of a c*m stained sock.

The words “jump into” are in the charging rule as shown in the video.

I feel like if they extracted the jumping part into a separate jumping penalty it might be clearer. Agreed the way it's written is confusing.

Players don’t routinely leave their feet to receive hits along the boards.

@@ToughCall Happens quite often. I guess you don’t watch a lot of hockey.

I’d love to see a few examples. Someone tried to say the Kane hit on Hronek was an example. Is that what you mean?

Kane clean check on Hronek kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ft1yi5ibv7zRlHk.html

@@ToughCall No, it’s nothing like that.

It's poorly written. What they mean is "Charges shall mean ...." They're defining "charges" from the prior sentence, not negating the first sentence--which would mean applying only the second part as one likes.

Pettersson JUMPS, and his shoulder goes ... wait for it ... INTO the opponent's head. Pretty simple!

@@closethockeyfan5284 That not how physics works in our universe. When you jump straight up, your vector does not bring you closer to an oncoming object. It's the vector of the oncoming object that brings you closer. It was a mistake by the ref. Mistakes happen.

It's embarrassing. I like the Canucks but the fans are something else.

It doesn’t have to be excessively violent to be a charge.

@@ToughCall for it to be a minor penalty, it must be based on the refs subjective feeling of the degree of violence of the check. Read the rule 42.2. Excessive in English would mean more than appropriate. Feel free to swap out the the word 'excessive' that I used with 'degree of violence sufficient to warrant a minor penalty pursuant to rule 42.2'.

@@nickmoore3303 I think based on the degree of violence is good wording because it’s not degree of violence relative to violence in general, but relative to the amount of violence that would have occurred without the jump. Excessive would work too, but excessive for the situation, not in general. Obviously there’s hits with much more overall violence that are legal, but it’s because the violence of the hit comes from the natural flow of play, whereas the violence in this hit is manufactured from the jump and lean back.

The rule is poorly written. If it requires excessive force and the rest of the definition of charge in the second paragraph, then why would they even bother with the first sentence? That would negate the first two of three qualifiers (skates, jumps, charges)--which are crucially joined by OR, not and. That means any one suffices. He jumped up into his opponent, case closed.

@@ToughCall gotta give you credit for being engaging in the comment section - I'll subscribe - I dont need to agree with every take to like your videos

When Friedman said he’d never seen this penalty before and had someone show him the Rulebook it blew my mind. I must quote this rule three times a week. Makes sense to me now why they don’t call it very often. Lol.

More like why on earth didn't they call it the other times

@@closethockeyfan5284 I suspect that the officials didn’t consider it a penalty during this regular season or the previous 40 years I’ve been watching hockey. Honestly never seen this call made in any nhl game. But for some reason it’s a penalty now. Laughable

Not really. Most hits players aren’t skating into opponents. They’re skating at opponents or toward the puck and then they adjust to make contact. That rule is for when players just keep on going without breaking stride or who take advantage of vulnerable opponents who are no longer in a 50/50 battle.

@@ToughCall that's just your subjective opinion on the definition of skating. Anyways, the real difference of opinion here is that you think the violence is excessive, and that's fine to have that opinion I suppose (although I i disagree as far more violent contact occurs nightly without penalty). If this play ever gets called again in the history of the NHL, I'll message you and admit your opinion was right, until then, I think we both know that day will never come..

@@nickmoore3303 I don’t think it was excessively violent either. You don’t need excessive violence to call charging. It’s just one aspect.

@@ToughCall movement while on skates would be skating. See Oxford dictionary.

​@@nickmoore3303It is actually very clearly understood as continuing to stride into the opponent as opposed to gliding, very difficult to execute and not also blow up oneself in the process. And jumps usually get called charging, regardless of speed. Not sure what NHL you watch, because it's absolutely there.

Pettersson timed his jump and went ... wait for it ... INTO Foegele. It's clear as day and should be called every time, especially given the head contact.

@@closethockeyfan5284 Foegle went into Petterson - physics and centre of gravity explain the result

What are you talking about? This makes zero sense.

True, the refs heavily favor the Oilers. Just ask Oilers fans.

"He skated INTO my stick, ref. I just happened to hold it out while he came by." "He skated INTO my elbow, ref. I just happened to hold it out while he came by." "He skated INTO my knee, ref. I just happened to hold it out while he came by." "He skated INTO my skate and fell, ref. I just happened to hold it out while he came by." "He skated INTO my fist, ref. I just happened to hold it out while he came by." Let me know how any of these works out for you.

@@closethockeyfan5284 In all those other penalties the opposing player has to have their stick up at face level, same with the elbow or sticking out their knees etc. With Petey he was going to get hit whether he jumped or not. He did not jump into the player, you smooth brain.

HE was going to get hit whether he jumped or not. That’s not important. We’re talking about the actions Pettersson does himself. Not the actions Pettersson is going to take from the opponent.

@@ToughCall You are a total smooth brain. If Pettersson dug in and leaned into it, it would have been worse for Foegele, but according to you that would be fair, but because he just jumped into the air that makes it a penalty. I have hit oncoming players by posting up and standing still and they just get laid out, and I am shorter than Pettersson. As I said he was going to get hit either way. Lol each time you reply you show more and more how smooth your brain is.

Exactly. You stand still and brace, and they run into you and hit themselves. In those instances do you jump a foot into the air?

He jumped up and leaned his shoulder and elbow backwards.

Jumping isn't moving?😂😂 Now I have seen it all. I love the Canucks, but boy, are there lots of bad faith takes in this fanbase

He was moving…by jumping.

You don’t get the penalty for moving…. You get it for jumping into….. up is not into…. Wow….. the player literally skated into him when he jumped up. Tell me how Pettersson jumped into the player… was the player hit above him? I can not see what you are talking about. I don’t argue penalties when the are close, but this clearly was a questionable call. Not one to make in a close series like this. Not against the canucks or the oilers. You literally have me shaking my head. Would be a shame is series were decided by calls like this when obvious calls are not being made. Show me where Pettersson jumped “into” the player as the rule states. Not where the player skated into him when he jumped. 🤦‍♂️

😂😂no