This was one of the WORST penalties against Elias Pettersson that I've seen called this playoffs and it just doesn't make any sense. That and more in today's NHL hockey video!
If you think that’s the worst call of the postseason, go look at the goalie interference last night in the Dallas/Colorado game. Absolutely horrendous reffing this year
You can never jump into a hit or jump away from a hit or collision. Not remotely new. Guys get called all the time for jumping into a hit and feet leaving the ice. This was rare because pettersson jumped presumably to avoid getting hurt in a collision.
He didn't jump into or away though, it was straight upwards to brace for the hit. If he didn't do this, he probably woulda got smoked by Foegel who, if anything, was the player actually charging
He didn’t travel distance. Rule 42 - Charging 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.
@@Themapleleaforever Did you read the rule you just posted? "Jumps into" is one of the options to call a charging penalty. Usually its while you are skating, thats why I think this was a soft call because he was standing still. But he still "jumped into" as per the rule.
Rule 42.1 of the NHL Rulebook states that a "minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner." Yes it's a reverse hit, but he still left his feet into the check, and thus it's charging. It's a good call
It is possible that needs to be taken in conjuction with the next sentence which relates it to distance traveled: "...as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check ...".
What about the part after where it says they have to be moving? “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.”
@@jordannewman177 "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." That's on page 74. It is a terribly written rule, but jumping into a player is clearly stated in that rule. All the NHL rules are terribly written.
It’s more about the standard of the call. If the refs called every play that broke the rules there’d be hundreds of penalties every game. Jumping to absorb a hit is pretty common especially with lighter players like pettersson they usually get more leeway than bigger players
@@talcat8031 Still is a hit in the end of the day regardless if it's reversed or not. I don't call it charging but he still jumped to make the hit and it was high. (Coming from someone that wants the nucks to win)
@@f-twelve7155so when you crash into the boards the boards hit you. The rules state if a player leaves his feet. Yeah it’s assumed that it’s from the guy in motion. But let just go with the fact from now on the boards hit players.
@@realitycheck1584 You know what a reverse hit is right? Stop telling me things like I just made that up. What word does reverse hit have in it (I'll write it bigger for you) ''HIT''. Left his feet on a reverse hit and got the guy high it deserves a penalty but. not. from. charging. Making sure we're on the same page because you seem to need a reality check yourself.
@@f-twelve7155 you don’t need to write it bigger. It’s not a reverse hit. He absorbed it and because your oiler boy folded like a wet paper bag you think it’s a penalty. How many more worse plays aren’t called and you need to worry about this one. Hockey is rough. Calls like this shouldn’t be made. That’s all I’m saying. Cheers.
I actually think the NBA has by far the worst officiating, followed by MLB, which is surprisingly worse than the wretched NFL (mostly the home plate umpiring), and then the NHL, which is the "least bad." But it can still be pretty bad. If Dallas had lost last night after having an overtime goal waved off by a questionable call, they'd have reason to be angry.
@@DionysusAlS There isn't even a point for the Home plate Umpire. The camera shows it just fine. Have a dude in the box watching the screen make the calls
You should've seen how pathetic the Premier League's officiating has been this year. At least the NFL explains themselves, even though their officiating isn't any better.
Rule 42 - Charging 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. As a result of Distance TRAVELED.
@@Themapleleaforever youre replying on every comment with the rule just to be wrong lol, skates, jumps into OR charges, it can be called if any of those 3 are present, and its clear he jumps, thus the charge is called, its not very hard.
Maybe I am just old school, but leaving your feet on a hit (even a "reverse hit") should be called, no matter which guy is jumping. It is very dangerous and I get the impression that it wasn't really a thing until the crazy '70s.
As a ref for Hockey Canada, I HATE when calls like charging, almost always associated with a skating hit, also include things like your skates leaving the ice as you hit the guy. Countless times I’ve had to explain to a screaming U18 coach why I called charging on his kid when in reality I called the kid for just jumping into his hit. Anyway, In this case, I know as a business, the NHL refs lets a LOT of things go that Hockey Canada refs wouldn’t. It’s understandable, big hits= more people watching = more money. So I can see how they let things go. But, Petterson’s skates did leave the ice, catching the Oiler who was hitting him off guard, potentially running the risk of an upper body/ head injury (that’s what the rule is there for) So I understand the call. Is the reffing inconsistent? Totally. Do I like that they made a right call by the book. Sure. Vancouver won anyway, so it didn’t really change anything.
Rule 42 - Charging 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. He didn’t travel any distance ffs
Rule 42 - Charging 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. He didn’t travel distance. Rules are clear. Wrong call
Its written in the rule book that if you leave your feet its a charge.. .He left his feet... Its a charge... I dont understand how the fuck people are having an issue with this. Holy fuck man if you want to bitch about the refs be my guest, but this call is 100% correct even if the fans dont like it. Youre better than this, Eck
in the past you've been really good at analyzing from a rulebook perspective and making sure the wording of the rule is understood... so why do u just simply not care for this one ? u even acknowledged its in the rulebook ?? are we just picking and choosing when we want now? i'm lost
Because in the rule book there’s this paragraph people are ignoring “charging shall mean the actions of a player who as a result of DISTANCE TRAVELLED shall violently check and opponent in any manner” it’s right below the part where they mention jumping
@@jameson1239if you watch from the top down angle, he actually does launch TOWARDS the oilers player. Meaning he not only jumped to “defend” himself, he also launched into the oilers which is where the penalty came from.
@@jameson1239 That wording is to define the third type of charging... which is called "charging." And I don't blame you for saying this, because I was confused too. The rule explains the 3 different ways in which you get a charging penalty...and then explains the third one, which is charging. This is ridiculous because that means that there are two categories of charging that aren't charging. But it's the NHL rulebook so... Whatever. The weird thing is that the first category "skating (into an opponent in any manner)" seems to mean that any hitting is a penalty....but I think it's clarified maybe in the officiating guide that it's talking about deliberate strides? But what seems clear is that jumping is prohibited. The ref might have put his arm up reflexively and regretted it...but he did call it by the rule.
@@jameson1239if you read previous iterations of the rule, jumping is included in the “travel excessive distance by skating OR leaving one’s feet (jumping)” definition. You’re just picking and choosing. Jumping has been considered charging for a long time. The current rulebook says that charging is “to be imposed on any player who skates, jumps into, OR charges an opponent IN ANY MANNER.” The rest of the rule defines what is meant by “charges.” It doesn’t mean that youmust be skating to be called for charging. Interestingly, you could read the rule to state that “a player who skates … into an opponent … in any manner” should be called for charging, which seems to be every body check ever laid in the NHL.
Bandwagon fan who doesn’t know the rules. Rule 42 - Charging 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. As a result of DISTANCE TRAVELED
@@XxCorvette1xX What are you 7 years old? Patterson jumped up and hit the guy high and he went flying. That was a dangerous thing to do, he nearly ripped his fucking head off dude. I'll tell you what, go running full speed into a ladder at neck level and when you're laying on your back and wake up the next day, tell me what difference does it make - ladder swinging at you or you running into a ladder. Patterson deliberately hit the guy high to get the result which we saw, which is the Edmund dude laying on his ass on the ice... luckily not hurt, that we know of. Do you want to watch these boys play a sport or do you want to watch them injur each other? What the fuck is wrong with you? If the refs are there for anything, it is to prevent people from getting fucking injured and doing stupid shit that end careers.
The overtime call in the Dallas Colorado game was by far the worst call I've ever seen in my 16 years watching this sport. But its very concerning that multiple calls can be in that debate this playoffs.
Rule 42 - Charging 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. AS A RESULT OF DISTANCE TRAVELED YOU BANDWAGON FAN
Yo Eck I agree with you most of the time, but you contradicted yourself in the middle of the video. I don't know the charging rule in too much detail but you said that "jump into or charges an opponent", and Pettersson quite literally jumped into Foegele. Going off of what you said I'd have to disagree, totally the right call.
So in your perfect NHL world, players should jump every time they get checked so that the checking player gets headshot by a shoulder or an elbow? Think for a minute man... the rule exists for a fucking reason. Pettersson has been getting away with that shit all season. Deserved call
I wanna 'not even move' off a f*kng building. But in seriousness Pettersson jumps into the guy and it looks like he catches him in the head. I can see why they called a penalty.
He jumped straight into him, kronwall would leave his feet after the hit because he’s off balance he didn’t jump into guys. Not even a comparison, and definitely a penalty on Peterson
At this point we all just want consistency. Die-hard Oilers fan here. Literally never seen this call, in this way - but keep calling if it needs to be. Otherwise players get dirty, and everyone is on their toes pushing invisible boundaries. The lack of honestly knowing where some penalties start, is going to be the death of this league.
Yeah honestly.. I'm laughing at the fact he showed a clear charge proceeds to say its not a charge then shows a squeaky clean Kronwall hit and calls it a charge..
Interpretation 1 Rule 7.4 (a) For the purpose of this rule, a “jumping” action will be defined as when a player’s feet leave the ice prior to making body contact with their opponent. If a player’s feet come off the ice after contact is made with their opponent, during an otherwise legal check, this will NOT be considered a Charging penalty because the player’s skates were on the ice at the time of body contact Yeah it's pretty straight forward, Kronwall adheres to this interpretation practically to the letter
The most hilarious thing about this take is, had it been Kane in Pettersen's position leaving his feet to hit a Canuck in the head on a reverse hit, ppl like Eck would be screaming for a 5 minute major and a suspension.
I don't understand the controversy here, he jumped into a hit, and that's literally defined in the rule as charging. It's irrelevant that he wasn't moving. He left his feet to make contact, so it's a penalty.
Basic physics. You go low/high, regardless of regular or reverse hit, the force does not go through the body but legs/head. It's a weird call but he left his feet not to evade a hit but to shift impact force closer towards the head in an attempt to "punish" EDM player. And leaving your feet is forbidden if you want to check. Again, weird but correct. They got the deserved win in the end, so everyone else stop complaining about biased officials.
Okay okay as an Oiler fan even I disagreed with this call at first. I thought it was Foegelle who charged Petterson and Petterson simply body blocked the check. BUT, if you read the rules of what charging is it reads "minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" and if you watch the replay, you'll Petterson jump into Foegelle as the hit was made which proves that this call was the correct one
Its not a penalty "now"... this has been a penalty for a while. They just don't really call it and they let guys jump into hits when they really shouldn't. Its a rule for reasons: You're more likely to hit your opponent's head if you jump being one of them. If you wanna be mad about a call in Edmonton vs. Vancouver, be mad that Soucy got suspended for a crosscheck to the face but Hyman didn't.
I know everyone is blaming the ref for this one, but it really looked like a parallax issue. The ref was directly behind and saw a jump and it looked like he assumed there was motion since usually when players jump there is motion. In addition, the NHL doesn't generally allow rescinding minor penalties once called, so no way to remove it once the arm went up -- so not possible for the linesmen to provide their perspective after the fact to correct the call.
I hate this situations because if it was called “interference” or there was a penalty for “leaving his feet” Then there wouldn’t be any controversy I understand the confusion since “charging” seems very strand for a foul committed while standing still It’s a penalty by rule of charging and interference so I’m not sure why there is an argument that it shouldn’t have been a penalty in general
1. He was taking a hit not dishing one out. 2. He did not travel distance, not a charge. Stated clearly in the rule book Rule 42 - Charging 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.
As much as I really despise the officiating in this league lately, Pettersson jumps into him - that should be a penalty. The missed calls in the Dallas/Colorado series, as well as Boston/Florida in this round alone have been so horrendous
As an Oilers fan I have a bias, but I feel it should be a penalty. Jumping isn't a way to defend yourself, hockey players should know how to brace themselves. Jumping turns a shoulder-to-shoulder contact into a potential shoulder-to-head contact. I don't know what penalty it should be, I can see the charging argument because of the "jumping into" language, but I agree Pettersson didn't jump 'into' Foegle. Another example of why we need a ref on mic after every game to explain calls like this
Years ago that was a charge all day until players learned and didn't jump anymore. I am sure this is a 'weird' call for newer viewers, but the newest ref on the ice has been doing it for 12 years, they know this call.
I don't understand the confusion and controversy on this one. This is 100% a penalty. If Pettersson wants to reverse hit the guy, he has to stay in his feet, not launch himself into the head of a player who is delivering a legal bodycheck. He's damn near 6 inches off the ice before contact. Stay on your skates and you're good.
I think the issue is that when rules lawyering can pretty much make equal arguments about whether this was a good or bad call, the real issue isn't the officiating, but the wording of the rule.
Rule 42 - Charging 42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. -Seems ridiculous I know as most people consider charging taking a certain amount of strides before a hit but jumping is in the rule.
The charging rule also includes "a player who jumps to check an opponent"(iihf rule book). He did jump but did the question is whether he laid the check. Note: in the Dutch rulebook ( I am a Dutch referee) they describe it rather like "a player who jumps up to an opponent" which he did.
Given the unofficial guidelines for playoffs, this should not have been called. Having said that, I’m not fond of the reverse hit. The purpose of a hit is to separate a player from the puck. A reverse hit does not fit into this definition. Bracing for a hit is not the same thing as a reverse hit.
it's not an obscure rule, like at all. this call isn't that controversial tbh, it's a bit soft but well within the rules to call that without reaching.
@@Effigyythis is probably the one time “soft” is a valid way to describe a call considering the penalty involves amount of contact into another player.
@@Effigyy Rule 42 - Charging 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. He didn’t travel distance.
The officiating of the playoffs so far has been atrocious. I do not understand how Petterson could be penalized for bracing for impact. Edmonton blew out the Nucks in Game 6. We'll see what happens in 7. Crazy series.
You can pull that in men's league. It's technically a 'hit' you can get away with because of the nature of that type of play: a rushing forward and a D- man standing him up by not moving and closing the gap. It should have not been a penalty.
Rule 42 - Charging 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. As a result of distance traveled
The only ones who say this wasn’t a penalty are Canucks fans / oilers haters. He was a foot off the ice by the time he hit Foegele. Yeah, he wasn’t charging, but he jumped into the other player. The rules are clear about leaving your feet prior to contact.
Wait... I'm slightly wondering why we are discussing game 5 which occurred Thursday when game 6 just happened. I think the timing of this videos is dramatically off.
Yes it is not charging. BUT HE CLEARLY LEFT HIS FEET. I don’t know what penalty that would go under but it definitely was a penalty. Open your eyes eck. I love you sometimes but this is bad.
"minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" Jumping into a hit is illegal, just so happens to be labeled 'charging'
People will read the first 5 words of the rule and say it’s a charge. Rule 42 - Charging 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. AS A RESULT OF DISTANCE TRAVELED
Inconsistency... it's the right call, but it's never been called before. My favourite player is Pettersson, but this was gonna get called based on the way the officiating has gone for both teams this series. Insanity.
Most people would assume itd be interference, but actually the rulebook does list that penalty as a charge. Ignorance of fans doesn't make it a bad call.
Rule 42 - Charging 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. He didn’t travel distance you bandwagoner
This sounds a lot like a few years ago when someone, i forget who, tries to run over Jake Vorachek, but fails and gets laid out Vorachek not moving and bracing for the hit. He gets called for Interferrence and gets a 1 game suspension for not getting laid out
he clearly jumped and aimed the jump backwards just a little so it wasn´t just him "standing still". The refs did an amazing stuff with this call. wish they would be this consistent with all calls.
What I don't understand about the refs is that it's a full time job, they don't work part of a season, it has a starting salary of $135k per year and upwards of $400k a year. They get annual leave, benefits, holidays, etc but yet they are HORRENDOUS at their jobs. If I was this bad at my job I wouldn't have one! It's not like it's just one or two bad calls, a year, it's multiple time A GAME. The refs have to stop this whole "tit for tat" and "controlling the flow of the game", just do your job. Have a dude between the benches that explains the rule and can subsequently override stupid BS calls,if they're egregious calls. But in saying that, Petterson left his feet, roughing penalty 100% lol
I don't think it's charging, but I think it's dangerous to leave your feet and make contact with another players head, and I'm not against that getting penalized
Also Kronwall got away with it because he “extended his momentum into the hit and could leave the ice during contact “ While I think it’s a bullshit reasoning and he should’ve been called for charging many times (due to reference of intent to hit and taking lot of strides to do so) the Petty hit is him jumping up and backwards so that he has some momentum to fight foegle momentum instead of getting run over. That being said I would’ve though you call him for interference since he prevents foegle from getting the puck and if he had time to load up and jump back then he had time to step aside an open the lane.
This is a bad call but to call it the "worst call of the post season" is a bad take. Not that anyone cares but the disallowed goal in the Avs/Stars game was much worse.
Спорт
If you think that’s the worst call of the postseason, go look at the goalie interference last night in the Dallas/Colorado game. Absolutely horrendous reffing this year
Both calls were made by Chris Rooney
Thankfully neither call impacted the outcome of the games
@@Dylligraphy yea. If either of those teams lost, it wouldn’t have been good😂
Watching Dallas games isn’t something Eck does 😂
The argument is that the ref COULD HAVE seen something the cameras didn't, and since the camera angles didn't prove that he was wrong his call stood.
You can never jump into a hit or jump away from a hit or collision. Not remotely new. Guys get called all the time for jumping into a hit and feet leaving the ice. This was rare because pettersson jumped presumably to avoid getting hurt in a collision.
He didn't jump into or away though, it was straight upwards to brace for the hit. If he didn't do this, he probably woulda got smoked by Foegel who, if anything, was the player actually charging
@@mrchi3f1179 He jumped, so by definition of the rule its a charging penalty. That being said it was still a soft call.
He didn’t travel distance.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
@@Themapleleaforever Did you read the rule you just posted? "Jumps into" is one of the options to call a charging penalty. Usually its while you are skating, thats why I think this was a soft call because he was standing still. But he still "jumped into" as per the rule.
@@mrchi3f1179he literally jumped. Hia feet were both off the ice. Wtf do u think a jump is?
Rule 42.1 of the NHL Rulebook states that a "minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner."
Yes it's a reverse hit, but he still left his feet into the check, and thus it's charging. It's a good call
It is possible that needs to be taken in conjuction with the next sentence which relates it to distance traveled: "...as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check ...".
@@SC-gs8dc you know distance can be traveled upwards right??
What about the part after where it says they have to be moving?
“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.”
AS A RESULT OF DISTANCE TRAVELED
You didn’t read the whole rule
It’s definitely a penalty he jumped and checked the player to the head, you can call it charging for jumping or an illegal check to the head
Bro read the rules and said “nah idc if it fits the rules”
It doesn’t fit the rules, go look at it again.
@@jordannewman177”technically charging can include plays where you jump into a hit, but…”
@@huntersimms1391you just proved his point 🤔
@@jordannewman177 "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." That's on page 74.
It is a terribly written rule, but jumping into a player is clearly stated in that rule.
All the NHL rules are terribly written.
It’s more about the standard of the call. If the refs called every play that broke the rules there’d be hundreds of penalties every game. Jumping to absorb a hit is pretty common especially with lighter players like pettersson they usually get more leeway than bigger players
Left his feet to make the hit
But he didn’t “make a hit” he wasn’t moving. Rules clearly say you have to be making a hit, so it was obviously not a penalty.
@@talcat8031 Still is a hit in the end of the day regardless if it's reversed or not. I don't call it charging but he still jumped to make the hit and it was high. (Coming from someone that wants the nucks to win)
@@f-twelve7155so when you crash into the boards the boards hit you. The rules state if a player leaves his feet. Yeah it’s assumed that it’s from the guy in motion.
But let just go with the fact from now on the boards hit players.
@@realitycheck1584 You know what a reverse hit is right? Stop telling me things like I just made that up. What word does reverse hit have in it (I'll write it bigger for you) ''HIT''. Left his feet on a reverse hit and got the guy high it deserves a penalty but. not. from. charging. Making sure we're on the same page because you seem to need a reality check yourself.
@@f-twelve7155 you don’t need to write it bigger. It’s not a reverse hit. He absorbed it and because your oiler boy folded like a wet paper bag you think it’s a penalty. How many more worse plays aren’t called and you need to worry about this one.
Hockey is rough. Calls like this shouldn’t be made. That’s all I’m saying. Cheers.
“I’m not necessarily saying it’s not a penalty”. Ok so it’s a penalty
All sports have officiating issues but the nhl doesn't even try to make it look like they care.
I actually think the NBA has by far the worst officiating, followed by MLB, which is surprisingly worse than the wretched NFL (mostly the home plate umpiring), and then the NHL, which is the "least bad." But it can still be pretty bad. If Dallas had lost last night after having an overtime goal waved off by a questionable call, they'd have reason to be angry.
@@DionysusAlS There isn't even a point for the Home plate Umpire. The camera shows it just fine. Have a dude in the box watching the screen make the calls
It's all rigged. Scripted. This isnt rocket science.
Fortunately for the NHL we don’t have angel hernandez on skates, it’s just all around horseshit reffing
You should've seen how pathetic the Premier League's officiating has been this year. At least the NFL explains themselves, even though their officiating isn't any better.
Leaving your feet is an act of motion, easy call. I could see an argument If both of his feet didn't leave the ice.
You can't jump into a hit. Whether it's a charge or something else, it's a clear penalty.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
As a result of Distance TRAVELED.
@@Themapleleaforever youre replying on every comment with the rule just to be wrong lol, skates, jumps into OR charges, it can be called if any of those 3 are present, and its clear he jumps, thus the charge is called, its not very hard.
@@ThemapleleaforeverI think there’s another comment you didn’t reply to. Bed time?
I think because he jumped and hit him in the head that is why. If he would of just reversed checked him, I don’t think it would be called
yeah, that's it i think. the main issue is because he jumped, the hit went from a good shoulder to shoulder hit to shoulder to head.
Eck... its literally in the rulebook.
Maybe I am just old school, but leaving your feet on a hit (even a "reverse hit") should be called, no matter which guy is jumping. It is very dangerous and I get the impression that it wasn't really a thing until the crazy '70s.
As a ref for Hockey Canada, I HATE when calls like charging, almost always associated with a skating hit, also include things like your skates leaving the ice as you hit the guy. Countless times I’ve had to explain to a screaming U18 coach why I called charging on his kid when in reality I called the kid for just jumping into his hit.
Anyway, In this case, I know as a business, the NHL refs lets a LOT of things go that Hockey Canada refs wouldn’t. It’s understandable, big hits= more people watching = more money. So I can see how they let things go. But, Petterson’s skates did leave the ice, catching the Oiler who was hitting him off guard, potentially running the risk of an upper body/ head injury (that’s what the rule is there for) So I understand the call. Is the reffing inconsistent? Totally. Do I like that they made a right call by the book. Sure. Vancouver won anyway, so it didn’t really change anything.
that was clearly jumping into the other player which IS a penalty like you said, how is it a bad call?
he left his feet to make a check, that is what charging is ffs.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
He didn’t travel any distance ffs
@@Themapleleaforever he jumped into the player, hence charging by the definition you just posted.
The rules are pretty clear on this….
that’s what i was thinking
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
He didn’t travel distance. Rules are clear. Wrong call
@@Themapleleaforever Regardless what they called its still a penalty, he left his feet
@@mctoads8230every player does that more or less
@@mctoads8230 but he didn't initiate contact lmaooooo some of yall are dull
The real question is : "This is hockey now?" Reverse jumping to take a hit? smh
Its written in the rule book that if you leave your feet its a charge.. .He left his feet... Its a charge... I dont understand how the fuck people are having an issue with this. Holy fuck man if you want to bitch about the refs be my guest, but this call is 100% correct even if the fans dont like it. Youre better than this, Eck
The worst call has to be the goalie interference in stars vs Colorado game. (Rangers fan)
Thanks for clarifying your a rangers fan
He literally jumped into him, that is a penalty
in the past you've been really good at analyzing from a rulebook perspective and making sure the wording of the rule is understood... so why do u just simply not care for this one ? u even acknowledged its in the rulebook ?? are we just picking and choosing when we want now? i'm lost
Because in the rule book there’s this paragraph people are ignoring “charging shall mean the actions of a player who as a result of DISTANCE TRAVELLED shall violently check and opponent in any manner” it’s right below the part where they mention jumping
@@jameson1239if you watch from the top down angle, he actually does launch TOWARDS the oilers player. Meaning he not only jumped to “defend” himself, he also launched into the oilers which is where the penalty came from.
@@jameson1239 That wording is to define the third type of charging... which is called "charging." And I don't blame you for saying this, because I was confused too.
The rule explains the 3 different ways in which you get a charging penalty...and then explains the third one, which is charging. This is ridiculous because that means that there are two categories of charging that aren't charging. But it's the NHL rulebook so... Whatever. The weird thing is that the first category "skating (into an opponent in any manner)" seems to mean that any hitting is a penalty....but I think it's clarified maybe in the officiating guide that it's talking about deliberate strides?
But what seems clear is that jumping is prohibited. The ref might have put his arm up reflexively and regretted it...but he did call it by the rule.
@@jameson1239if you read previous iterations of the rule, jumping is included in the “travel excessive distance by skating OR leaving one’s feet (jumping)” definition. You’re just picking and choosing. Jumping has been considered charging for a long time. The current rulebook says that charging is “to be imposed on any player who skates, jumps into, OR charges an opponent IN ANY MANNER.” The rest of the rule defines what is meant by “charges.” It doesn’t mean that youmust be skating to be called for charging.
Interestingly, you could read the rule to state that “a player who skates … into an opponent … in any manner” should be called for charging, which seems to be every body check ever laid in the NHL.
He’s a nucks homer this playoffs ig
That's a charge. Pretty simple call. He left his feet to deliver contact. Literally charged up and off his feet and into the guys face...
Bandwagon fan who doesn’t know the rules.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
As a result of DISTANCE TRAVELED
HE JUMPED, that is 100% charging. The reason why he was able to stand up the other player was because he jumped.
The rules do not care about your feelings, if it fits in the rules, it fits in the rules
Not supposed to jump in the air when giving a hit. You can literally kill someone doing that. Keep your skates on the ice boys.
He wasn’t giving a hit he was taking a hit
@@XxCorvette1xX What are you 7 years old? Patterson jumped up and hit the guy high and he went flying. That was a dangerous thing to do, he nearly ripped his fucking head off dude. I'll tell you what, go running full speed into a ladder at neck level and when you're laying on your back and wake up the next day, tell me what difference does it make - ladder swinging at you or you running into a ladder. Patterson deliberately hit the guy high to get the result which we saw, which is the Edmund dude laying on his ass on the ice... luckily not hurt, that we know of. Do you want to watch these boys play a sport or do you want to watch them injur each other? What the fuck is wrong with you? If the refs are there for anything, it is to prevent people from getting fucking injured and doing stupid shit that end careers.
The overtime call in the Dallas Colorado game was by far the worst call I've ever seen in my 16 years watching this sport. But its very concerning that multiple calls can be in that debate this playoffs.
Ecks brain isn’t capable of watching a Dallas game. We are just used to not seeing him cover it. Not the channel for anything Dallas related.
@@SiLeNtKiLlEr2233100% he is a biased loser
He left his feet which is a penalty. Refs favoured the Canucks heavily that game
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
AS A RESULT OF DISTANCE TRAVELED YOU BANDWAGON FAN
This is the correct call. He jumped into him very obviously
Look at the rule. Patterson leaves his feet
Yo Eck I agree with you most of the time, but you contradicted yourself in the middle of the video. I don't know the charging rule in too much detail but you said that "jump into or charges an opponent", and Pettersson quite literally jumped into Foegele. Going off of what you said I'd have to disagree, totally the right call.
Die hard oilers fan...I got mad at that call.
Fan or not you don’t know the rules bud
Yup @@peenislump5622
Left his damn feet. How hard is it for you people to understand?
@@Leszczuk23 wut r feet?
So in your perfect NHL world, players should jump every time they get checked so that the checking player gets headshot by a shoulder or an elbow? Think for a minute man... the rule exists for a fucking reason. Pettersson has been getting away with that shit all season. Deserved call
Neutral opinion. It’s definitely a jumping reverse hit. I think it’s a creative use of the rule since I’ve never seen it happen.
No Stars-Avs video since nothing negative to report on the Stars in a while huh?
He's the same with the Panthers. Used to be an interesting channel but now he's just another hater.
He only covers rangers and Canadian teams for some reason
no positive videos on the Panthers either. Only the negatives.
Dude, honestly. I stopped looking for Dallas videos because I know he only says negative things about them.
@@matthewwigand5010 I'm really hoping for a Stars vs Panthers final lol
I love how people lose there minds when mcdavid doesnt put up insane numbers every single game of his carrer.
I wanna 'not even move' off a f*kng building.
But in seriousness Pettersson jumps into the guy and it looks like he catches him in the head. I can see why they called a penalty.
He jumped straight into him, kronwall would leave his feet after the hit because he’s off balance he didn’t jump into guys. Not even a comparison, and definitely a penalty on Peterson
no
This is a penalty.......... Its the correct call
If this is what you're mad at then no one can discount the calls against the bruins this post season
At this point we all just want consistency. Die-hard Oilers fan here. Literally never seen this call, in this way - but keep calling if it needs to be.
Otherwise players get dirty, and everyone is on their toes pushing invisible boundaries. The lack of honestly knowing where some penalties start, is going to be the death of this league.
Maybe a stupid question, but can someone explain to me why Pettersson jumped and gave the referee a chance to whistle such a strange foul?
99% of Kronwall's hits were clean, he was a master of making people be more alert in the future!
Yeah honestly.. I'm laughing at the fact he showed a clear charge proceeds to say its not a charge then shows a squeaky clean Kronwall hit and calls it a charge..
Interpretation 1
Rule 7.4 (a)
For the purpose of this rule, a “jumping” action will be defined as when a player’s feet leave the ice prior to making body contact with their opponent. If a player’s feet come off the ice after contact is made with their opponent, during an otherwise legal check, this will NOT be considered a Charging penalty because the player’s skates were on the ice at the time of body contact
Yeah it's pretty straight forward, Kronwall adheres to this interpretation practically to the letter
@@doom1354 Eck usually has pretty good takes but idk about this one. High hit as a result of the jump, minor penalty and move on...
Adding the Tocchet spaghetti video was a nice touch
The most hilarious thing about this take is, had it been Kane in Pettersen's position leaving his feet to hit a Canuck in the head on a reverse hit, ppl like Eck would be screaming for a 5 minute major and a suspension.
I don't understand the controversy here, he jumped into a hit, and that's literally defined in the rule as charging. It's irrelevant that he wasn't moving. He left his feet to make contact, so it's a penalty.
Basic physics. You go low/high, regardless of regular or reverse hit, the force does not go through the body but legs/head. It's a weird call but he left his feet not to evade a hit but to shift impact force closer towards the head in an attempt to "punish" EDM player. And leaving your feet is forbidden if you want to check. Again, weird but correct. They got the deserved win in the end, so everyone else stop complaining about biased officials.
he intentionally jumped and had his skates leave the ice. no question, penalty.
you literally say charging is jumping into someone well you have it freeze framed on Petterson jumping into him... come on.
Okay okay as an Oiler fan even I disagreed with this call at first. I thought it was Foegelle who charged Petterson and Petterson simply body blocked the check. BUT, if you read the rules of what charging is it reads "minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" and if you watch the replay, you'll Petterson jump into Foegelle as the hit was made which proves that this call was the correct one
Its not a penalty "now"... this has been a penalty for a while. They just don't really call it and they let guys jump into hits when they really shouldn't. Its a rule for reasons: You're more likely to hit your opponent's head if you jump being one of them.
If you wanna be mad about a call in Edmonton vs. Vancouver, be mad that Soucy got suspended for a crosscheck to the face but Hyman didn't.
Can we get your thoughts on the Stars/Avs game? Specifically OT and 2OT.
He won’t do that. He blatantly dislikes the stars and takes any opportunity to trash them.
I know everyone is blaming the ref for this one, but it really looked like a parallax issue. The ref was directly behind and saw a jump and it looked like he assumed there was motion since usually when players jump there is motion.
In addition, the NHL doesn't generally allow rescinding minor penalties once called, so no way to remove it once the arm went up -- so not possible for the linesmen to provide their perspective after the fact to correct the call.
I hate this situations because if it was called “interference” or there was a penalty for “leaving his feet”
Then there wouldn’t be any controversy
I understand the confusion since “charging” seems very strand for a foul committed while standing still
It’s a penalty by rule of charging and interference so I’m not sure why there is an argument that it shouldn’t have been a penalty in general
1. He was taking a hit not dishing one out.
2. He did not travel distance, not a charge. Stated clearly in the rule book
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
As much as I really despise the officiating in this league lately, Pettersson jumps into him - that should be a penalty. The missed calls in the Dallas/Colorado series, as well as Boston/Florida in this round alone have been so horrendous
As an Oilers fan I have a bias, but I feel it should be a penalty. Jumping isn't a way to defend yourself, hockey players should know how to brace themselves. Jumping turns a shoulder-to-shoulder contact into a potential shoulder-to-head contact.
I don't know what penalty it should be, I can see the charging argument because of the "jumping into" language, but I agree Pettersson didn't jump 'into' Foegle. Another example of why we need a ref on mic after every game to explain calls like this
Years ago that was a charge all day until players learned and didn't jump anymore. I am sure this is a 'weird' call for newer viewers, but the newest ref on the ice has been doing it for 12 years, they know this call.
I don't understand the confusion and controversy on this one. This is 100% a penalty. If Pettersson wants to reverse hit the guy, he has to stay in his feet, not launch himself into the head of a player who is delivering a legal bodycheck. He's damn near 6 inches off the ice before contact. Stay on your skates and you're good.
I think the issue is that when rules lawyering can pretty much make equal arguments about whether this was a good or bad call, the real issue isn't the officiating, but the wording of the rule.
He jumped to know the player in the end.... maybe it shouldnt have been a charge but a penalty makes sense
Rule 42 - Charging 42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
-Seems ridiculous I know as most people consider charging taking a certain amount of strides before a hit but jumping is in the rule.
"A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner."
NHL Rule 42.1
This is a clear penalty. He left his feet so obviously. There is no debate.
left his feet, charging is the category it falls into. Worst call was the GI in OT last night in Colorado.
The charging rule also includes "a player who jumps to check an opponent"(iihf rule book). He did jump but did the question is whether he laid the check. Note: in the Dutch rulebook ( I am a Dutch referee) they describe it rather like "a player who jumps up to an opponent" which he did.
Given the unofficial guidelines for playoffs, this should not have been called. Having said that, I’m not fond of the reverse hit. The purpose of a hit is to separate a player from the puck. A reverse hit does not fit into this definition. Bracing for a hit is not the same thing as a reverse hit.
Don't you love it when the refs pull some obscure rule out of there asses in the middle of a season defining game
it's not an obscure rule, like at all. this call isn't that controversial tbh, it's a bit soft but well within the rules to call that without reaching.
@@Effigyythis is probably the one time “soft” is a valid way to describe a call considering the penalty involves amount of contact into another player.
@@Effigyy Rule 42 - Charging
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.
He didn’t travel distance.
You cant jump to hit a guy, how is this obscure to you?
Hopefully you’ll cover the BS “No Goal” call in the Avs/Dallas game 6. But we get it, you hate Dallas so it’s doubtful.
The officiating of the playoffs so far has been atrocious. I do not understand how Petterson could be penalized for bracing for impact. Edmonton blew out the Nucks in Game 6. We'll see what happens in 7. Crazy series.
You can pull that in men's league. It's technically a 'hit' you can get away with because of the nature of that type of play: a rushing forward and a D- man standing him up by not moving and closing the gap. It should have not been a penalty.
He left his feet. Giving or receiving a hit it's still charging!
bruh he jumped off the ice
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
As a result of distance traveled
The only ones who say this wasn’t a penalty are Canucks fans / oilers haters. He was a foot off the ice by the time he hit Foegele. Yeah, he wasn’t charging, but he jumped into the other player. The rules are clear about leaving your feet prior to contact.
Wait... I'm slightly wondering why we are discussing game 5 which occurred Thursday when game 6 just happened. I think the timing of this videos is dramatically off.
“Doesn’t fit for me”
Yes it is not charging. BUT HE CLEARLY LEFT HIS FEET. I don’t know what penalty that would go under but it definitely was a penalty. Open your eyes eck. I love you sometimes but this is bad.
You can’t jump. Throwing a hit or during a reverse hit and jumping is charging.
"minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" Jumping into a hit is illegal, just so happens to be labeled 'charging'
Refs be like “improvisation~ thats my jam!”
People will read the first 5 words of the rule and say it’s a charge.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
AS A RESULT OF DISTANCE TRAVELED
He jumped up , his skates left the ice , be it ever so slightly , and that is in the definition for Charging .
He left his feet before the hit. It was a charge.
Why are people crying about this. He literally jumps up into his head.
Inconsistency... it's the right call, but it's never been called before. My favourite player is Pettersson, but this was gonna get called based on the way the officiating has gone for both teams this series. Insanity.
its the right call tho... go look up the rules you cant leave your feet to hit anyone no matter what! rule 42- 42.1 go look it up!
In the Boston hame, it wasn't goalie interference. It was a cross-check. That should have been a dead puck as soon as FL touched it.
Good penalty, he left the ice in a jumping fashion
Even Foegele was surprised by the call. And he was the one on the floor
You cant defend yourself by jumping
Most people would assume itd be interference, but actually the rulebook does list that penalty as a charge. Ignorance of fans doesn't make it a bad call.
Rule 42 - Charging
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.
He didn’t travel distance you bandwagoner
This sounds a lot like a few years ago when someone, i forget who, tries to run over Jake Vorachek, but fails and gets laid out Vorachek not moving and bracing for the hit.
He gets called for Interferrence and gets a 1 game suspension for not getting laid out
he clearly jumped and aimed the jump backwards just a little so it wasn´t just him "standing still". The refs did an amazing stuff with this call. wish they would be this consistent with all calls.
What I don't understand about the refs is that it's a full time job, they don't work part of a season, it has a starting salary of $135k per year and upwards of $400k a year. They get annual leave, benefits, holidays, etc but yet they are HORRENDOUS at their jobs. If I was this bad at my job I wouldn't have one! It's not like it's just one or two bad calls, a year, it's multiple time A GAME. The refs have to stop this whole "tit for tat" and "controlling the flow of the game", just do your job. Have a dude between the benches that explains the rule and can subsequently override stupid BS calls,if they're egregious calls. But in saying that, Petterson left his feet, roughing penalty 100% lol
I think it's super telling that the reef DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PLAY didn't call it.
I don't think it's charging, but I think it's dangerous to leave your feet and make contact with another players head, and I'm not against that getting penalized
The refs in this series were an absolute joke
Sluban played a whole career wacking oppenents w/ his backyard...😅 Lydsey was jealous all the while
He left his feet. That's where the problem lies. I like big hits, but you can't jump into an opponent.
Also Kronwall got away with it because he “extended his momentum into the hit and could leave the ice during contact “
While I think it’s a bullshit reasoning and he should’ve been called for charging many times (due to reference of intent to hit and taking lot of strides to do so) the Petty hit is him jumping up and backwards so that he has some momentum to fight foegle momentum instead of getting run over. That being said I would’ve though you call him for interference since he prevents foegle from getting the puck and if he had time to load up and jump back then he had time to step aside an open the lane.
This is a bad call but to call it the "worst call of the post season" is a bad take. Not that anyone cares but the disallowed goal in the Avs/Stars game was much worse.