Elias Pettersson charging penalty - a deep dive

Elias Pettersson was given a controversial penalty for charging on Warren Foegele. I put out an earlier video defining NHL’s Rule 42 - Charging and applying it to this scenario. This second video is a follow up where I detail the actions taken by both Foegele and Pettersson leading up to and during contact.

[@ToughCall]

For any Canucks fans blasting me: every fan base starts off hating me because they find me for reasons like this. They say terrible things and make assumptions. But keep in mind, a couple days ago when I said I’d give McDavid a fine and suspend Hyman and Kane, Oilers fans hated me too. Somehow I’m always viewed as biased against both teams in the same series. It’s because I don’t play favourites. Any player. Any jersey. They all deserve protection. I appreciate all the discourse. That’s what this channel is all about. Enjoy the hockey! - Josh

[@matthewbarry7026]

The trolls are out in full force for this series. Ive never seen so many low IQ "hockey" fans have come out of the woodworks and say just some horrible things. Keep up the good work.

[@carlmenger9145]

I will take a crack at it. To begin, I am not a fan of Vancouver (indifferent). And two, I think 40's act was dangerous towards 37. Subsection 42.1 says 'a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner.' Then it says 'Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.' We need to consider ordinary and/or literal meaning. Pettersson obviously did not skate or charge an opponent, so the only possibility is 'jump into'. You say that he positions his back towards and then jumps into, identifying that 40 originally has his right skate on the ice, but jumps so that his legs make him look like he is sitting. This sitting shows that he really is in fact jumping backwards. However, if you look at his body at 1:43, the frame of his body does not move/moves negligibly towards Foegle. This is why people are saying that 40 is not 'jumping into' 37. Based on a frame by frame consideration, I find that his body is travelling upwards, not towards Foegle (or if so, negligibly towards him). Furthermore: when you note that he is sitting like in a chair at 2:12-2:13, by then contact has already occurred. Basing your judgement off the position of his legs after contact has occurred makes your judgement unreliable. This is a dangerous hit, but not chargiŋ. The only real distance Pettersson travels is from the momentum of the resultant contact with Foegle afterwards. In another comment, you say that he jumpa towards Foegle at a distance of greater than 3cm. What do you think is the actual horizontal distance 40 is jumping? I would say any distance greater than a shaftment / ~15cm is jumping towards/into a thing.

[@ToughCall]

His legs are out in front of his body before contact. He’s sitting in a chair prior to contact. That’s because he puts his legs forward more so than it is because he drives backwards, but he’s intentionally positioning himself to counter the force. Not just br subjected to the force. I don’t know where you get the 3cm from. I never said that. And I don’t know how you picked 14 for standard of what constitutes a backward motion. Either way, even if he jumped straight up, it’s still a penalty.

[@SomeCarney]

@ToughCall Angling yourself to better receive a hit is not equal to jumping INTO someone. I'm worried that your 5 remaining IQ points might be trying to mutiny, my guy.​

[@ToughCall]

@@SomeCarney but jumping sure is. By the way, that’s easily the best chirp in this post so far. Keep those up! Lol.

[@davidjohnson9186]

In order for him to add velocity into the hit, he’d have to travel in one direction or another. In both the side and head-on camera angles, his center of gravity has no lateral movement. His legs coming up aren’t much different from how if you stood still and jumped straight up and raised your knees up during the jump. Doing that alone doesn’t add lateral velocity. I think the physics behind what makes this a more violent hit is that the Oiler is expecting to hit someone with a lower center of gravity, and braces himself for that, anticipating a shoulder on shoulder hit. Pettersson changes this by jumping, turning his back, and raising his legs, greatly raising his center of gravity. This means that, for the collision, the Oiler makes contact far above his own center of gravity (as expected), but hits Pettersson right in the middle of his center of gravity. Rather than both absorbing that hit off-center, Pettersson is able to absorb that hit at center and only gain horizontal momentum/velocity after the hit. For the Oiler, this translates to rotational velocity since the hit was off-center, making the impact potentially more violent for him. At least that’s my interpretation.

[@DeCh-wp4uf]

Excellent points. I suggest that the hit might have been worse had Foegele not spun off the check a bit (assuming no sprains). Also, the horizontal velocity/momentum Petterson gains is FORWARD, ie not into Foegele. That is because the primary force/momentum, was delivered by Foegele.

[@bills1338]

As ridiculous an analysis as you will EVER see ANYWHERE. The call was wrong, the analysis is beyond bizarre. What this guy knows about hockey would fit inside a thimble.

[@ToughCall]

What part do you disagree with? Break it down for me.

[@Bullshirt1983]

Smart point, I like the part where you said absolutely nothing intelligent to refute his point.

[@Jcabby31]

Doesnt seem like a penalty to me, there has been plenty of reverse hits like this and no issue

[@ToughCall]

Reverse hits are a shaky ground. They definitely need to work on the definition.

[@Jcabby31]

I agree if he launches himself aggressively but to me that’s not an aggressive play. He just jumps and braces for contact

[@ToughCall]

@@Jcabby31 he jumps high enough that his shoulder is above head height. It might not have been “aggressive” but it was intentional and reckless. It was only a minor penalty remember. It’s not like I’m asking for a suspension.

[@Jcabby31]

@@ToughCall Yeah i dont think thats a penalty. He jumps, turns his back and shrugs off the guy. That is a pretty natural movement. I think if he drives into him then prob a penalty. I have also seen guys along the board jump and shrug off an on coming hit. He falls down cus he's reaching for a hit off balance. Charging is more deliberate with force

[@closethockeyfan5284]

​@@Jcabby31I have never seen such a thing in all my life watching and playing hockey. That is not one bit a natural movement. He does drive into him. Charging is not only what you noted but also "jumping into the opponent innany manner," which he did.

[@seannightingale4603]

No no no. You dont understand. You see, the Oilers player fell down so that is an automatic penalty against the not Oilers team

[@robkingsland3369]

blood from an edmonton player? suspension!!!!!!! blood from a canuck? Hey Hughes, get off the ice and control that bleeding. Hey Myers, you should watch where you're putting your head.

[@MickLoud999]

You are, obviously, a coiler fan. Pettersson did nothing to deserve a penalty on this play. So he's supposed to duck and take the hit? He had a split second to decide how to minimize the damage from foglele charging him. Players do reverse hits every game. They are not charged with penalties. So why now? Also how does mcdavid get away with numerous penalties. He has ZERO penalties this series. The non call against Hughes is the worst I have seen in years. Seriously now.

[@ToughCall]

McDavid has nothing to do with this hit. Players do reverse hits all the time. They don’t leave their feet to do it. Pettersson could do what everyone else does: plant and brace.

[@Bullshirt1983]

Or maybe you are just a biased Canuck fan? It's not a common interpretation of the rule.. but it's not a common action. If you read the rule this is a penalty, should this be a penalty? I don't know.. but the rule says it is.

[@MickLoud999]

@@Bullshirt1983 Explain how mcdavid does not get a double minor that he deserved? He slashed Hughes in the face. Pettersson gets 2 minutes for trying to protect himself. fogele is one one who should have gotten the penalty. You have comprehension issues. You are not reading the right rule then. There is nothing in the rule that Pettersson did that would make him guilty of charging. Explain like I'm 5. seriously or stfu

[@Leafsdude_]

"Coilers"? C'mon, even their fans must know "Soilers" is a much better chirp.

[@matthewbarry7026]

@@MickLoud999 If they called the penalty something else would you be happy? The reason why the ref called it right away, is because Pety left his feet, by a good amount. You dnt really see players jumping up very often, and when they do they usually are moving, so the rule(about leaving your feet) is in a subsection of the "charge" call. The reverse hit is also kind of a grey area, not many guys do it well or at all. Your kind of half protecting yourself, but also your throwing a hit on a player who does not have the puck(which is not legal). So not only did Pety leave his feet, he made a hit on a player who did not have the puck. I get the phrasing is weird, but that's all they have at the moment. If he hadn't jumped so high this would not have been called, its all about the feet leaving the ice for this call. 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. As for the McDavid thing, I mean no sane Oilers fan will tell ya that's not 4, missed calls happen. There has been many missed calls for both sides this series, and just bad officiating all around.

[@Traumawarrior77]

It’s still not a charging penalty

[@joshuawilliams9344]

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." according to the nhl rulebook it very much is

[@specialshockey]

10 or so times per game when a guy is getting hit along the boards he jumps 3 or 4 inches off the ground so his feet aren’t planted so he can absorb contact and not fall over. And 10 times per game it’s not a penalty unless he gets an elbow or stick up. This should be a no call just like those.. only difference is Pettersson isn’t against the boards here

[@ToughCall]

Seriously. 10 times per game. I specifically watch for this stuff during games and it pretty much never happens. I’ve never heard a coach direct players to do it. I‘be never had a player I’ve been hitting do it while I hit them. I’ve taken part in countless checking clinics and never once heard this as a part of the curriculum. I’d love to know more about this.

[@ToughCall]

I mean, I just right now saw Joe Pavelski take the weight off his skates and spin to evade contact. I wouldn’t call it a jump, and it had absolutely no backward motion at all, and nothing even remotely close to the height Peterson gets.

[@WolfieMcG]

It's completely normal for feet to leave after the contact is made, and that's what all these people are reffering to.

[@soaringcam8662]

@@ToughCallyeah buddy it’s important for a player to jump so they probably absorb the hit. The do this ALL the time.

[@ToughCall]

@@WolfieMcG Leaving feet AFTER contact is a completely different thing than jumping to absorb contact.

[@mathewlothian1062]

This is embarrassing. Foegele came off second best against a weanie like EP, the charging rule applies to applying a hit, I don't think you can argue he was applying a check. Even in slow motion, it was him absorbing a hit and his momentum was vertical despite you pointing out his feet placement and leg position, he stayed in the same spot. It's a bad call. If you still think I'm wrong, I'd love to see an example of this rule being applied in another game in a similar context? It hasn't happened. The call sucks in a big playoff game. If you love hockey, you don't like this call...

[@ToughCall]

There hasn’t really been a similar context because no one else has jumped that high when absorbing contact.

[@kimreeves2702]

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.

[@somerandomidiot1333]

I think the hit is fine but you’re technically not allowed to jump (in any direction) while making a hit. Only after you have made contact your allowed to “leave your feet”

[@sherpajones]

He jumped into Foegele's head with his shoulder. The hit would have been shoulder on shoulder otherwise. His jumping changed the point of contact. If Foegele had been previously hit in a way that sent him flying over Petterson's head and Petterson jumped vertical into him Mario style causing him to spin and land on his head, would you still argue no charging? Well he jumped into his opponent and he jumped vertically. What is your call?

[@joshuawilliams9344]

Direction does not matter he jumped lmao.

[@Fnnjjjsdjd]

@@somerandomidiot1333he was trying to avoid contact

[@3vvyn]

a deep dive analysis by a Edmonton fan 🤣🤣🤣

[@ToughCall]

Have you even taken one second to look around this channel?

[@MantiszToboggan]

deep bias indeederino

[@ToughCall]

@@MantiszToboggan So deep.

[@Lon1001]

This was incidental contact at most. Legal hit with completely natural outcome. Responsibility for the hit is always on the hitter, Pettersson was finishing his pass and did not initiate a hit at all, I really don't want to live in a world where people think he deserved a penalty for this (and I'm not a Canucks fan at all)

[@moosejawventure]

It was a terrible call.

[@sherpajones]

Petterson jumped into the air placing the point of contact for his shoulders at Foegele's head level. This is charging. And the rule specifically says that jumping into your opponent is charging. Just because Foegele was moving horizontal to check Petterson, that doesn't mean Petterson isn't responsible for how he delivers a reverse check. Imagine if I was on a bicycle and was deliberately going to run into you. Instead of trying to get out of the way, you jumped into me, driving my head into the ground and breaking my neck. Aside from arguments of legal use of force, strictly on a analytical level, your actions caused me greater injury than if you had just stood still or tried to escape. Fair call.

[@joshuawilliams9344]

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." - take it up with the rulebook buddy

[@Lon1001]

@@sherpajones I've watched many reverse hits where the reverse hitter jumps backwards into the check in order to disrupt the timing of the check which is dangerous and should be considered a foul (charge or interference) and sometimes those get called other times they don't (even on egregious ones with not so good outcomes) - if you watch some highlights of reverse hits you will see many examples of such dangerous ones, however none of them look at all like this Pettersson one because he didn't reverse hit Foegle he simply jumped to take the blow without his feet plants and getting knocked down. There was no jumping "into" his opponent here, it's pretty obvious.

[@ToughCall]

None of them look like Pettersson’s because he jumped and the vast majority of reverse hitters do not.

[@paulmoore7635]

So he’s supposed to sit there and take a massive hit? lol

[@politicalbandwagon4989]

There’s multiple ways to avoid a hit without jumping into the guy hitting you

[@joshuawilliams9344]

no, don’t jump. simple.

[@khazraknotreal7224]

I disagree with the basis of your assesment but enjoyed your analysis.

[@udig]

100% an oilers fan

[@k1m6a11]

What a terrible analysis. "Look, you can clearly see him travelling backwards...", shows clip of him jumping straight up. "Oh, look, he bent his legs when he jumped...", as people do, when jumping. There is no world in which that constituted "jumping into" within any sane definition of "charging", and you lose all credibility arguing otherwise.

[@ToughCall]

*shows clip of him very clearly and deliberately positioning himself to push off his right foot at the opposite angle incoming contact.

[@NoobNoonan-kc9fn]

It was a bit shocking that Elias was called for a penalty. He has one of the better reputations around the league for clean play. That being said, Elias did jump, and that seems to be a penalty when the player is one going in for the hit, so it's not that insane that leaving the feet for a reverse hit was called for a penalty.

[@willsk7068]

Seems like a good hit. Barbashev did something simular to Gudas last playoffs.

[@NeoNstare]

So kronwall should have been penalized every reverse hit he did?

[@ToughCall]

On a good number of them, yes. But the thought process was a little different then.

[@ericweeks8386]

What I call the Trouba now used to be the "Kronwallian Leap". Dirty dirty hitter.

[@FloydRunner2049]

@@ericweeks8386 Drysaddle does it on purpose. Oilers got a PP, didn’t score and @TiughCall can’t let go. Petterson is candidate for the Lady Byng. Examine some of Kane and McDrai behaviour

[@closethockeyfan5284]

​@FloydRunner2049 He has, including a slash by Kane that went uncalled last game. You're just propping up bad faith ad hominem because you don't have a real argument. Jumping into head contact is a penalty, absolutely ridiculous to contend otherwise.

[@ToughCall]

@@FloydRunner2049 Draisaitl and Kane both have slewfooting habits. Draisaitl slashes and crosschecks almost as much as he gets slashed and crosschecked. It’s not hard to admit. But he’s also one of the best “reverse hitters” in the game. Because he doesn’t actually “reverse hit”. He puck protects. You can’t knock him off the puck. Granted he sometimes explodes backwards a little aggressively, and sometimes it borderline should be a penalty. That’s only sometimes, and it’s not even leaving his feet. So imagine someone leaping 6 inches off the ice like Pettersson. If Draisaitl did that he’d knock someone out. Just because Pettersson is a nice guy and a timid player doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve a simple basic minor penalty for a non-malicious jump into an opponent.

[@seannightingale4603]

The closest example to this would be some of Kronwalls reverse hits. And he was going in with speed against the player carrying the puck. In no universe is this a penalty (unless the receiving player is an Oiler)

[@ToughCall]

The closest example is someone who retired last decade but yet I’m told this happens all the time and it’s never called. I stand by that’s it’s almost never called because it almost never happens like this.

[@seannightingale4603]

@@ToughCall just one other example of someone standing in place receiving a charging call please

[@ToughCall]

@@seannightingale4603 one other example of a player jumping as high as Pettersson did in this circumstance please.

[@timothymaynard8017]

If he had time to turn and counter the hit, shouldn’t his opponent have time to avoid contact?

[@ToughCall]

His opponent would expect a counter of some sort. Not a Lambeau leap.

[@theo8831]

In 2 one hundredths of a second? Probably not

[@FloydRunner2049]

Three cm is a leap? Clutching at straws. #97 hooks or slashes or slashes Suter on the goal interference. No call. Edmonton gets the benefit of a lot more calls

[@ToughCall]

@@FloydRunner2049 This is only about this particular hit. No whataboutism can change the fact he jumped more than 3cm. At least be honest.

[@sherpajones]

Tell me you never played ice hockey without saying you've never played ice hockey.

[@khazraknotreal7224]

Will say this, thank god this didn't result in a goal. It highlights an area of dire need of further clarification in the rules before it happens and impacts the outcome of a game in a significant way. If they want this play to be illegal I would sort it under roughing as that would make more in line with the spirit of the section.

[@vimes3702]

A clean reverse hit. But the commenter is obviously an Oiler fan who didn't like it. Sour grapes, bro.

[@ToughCall]

I am an Oilers fan, there’s no doubt about that. But that doesn’t stop me from saying when an Oiler does something wrong any more than saying when an Oiler, or any team, is wronged. On this channel I’m a fan of everyone and protect them equally.

[@user-xi4og2dq9x]

So you admit it. You’re trying to be objective but you’re totally biased. That’s NEVER a call in the playoffs. Mcdavid or Draisaitl do that, NO CHANCE that’s a penalty

[@ToughCall]

@@user-xi4og2dq9x This isn’t done in the playoffs. You guys act like this is the most common play in the world. Show me one time this playoffs this happened. One time.

[@Leafsdude_]

If the only argument you have is "the commenter is biased", you don't have an argument. The only commenter that was clearly biased was Craig Simpson on the SN broadcast, who even after repeatedly having it pointed out to him that Pettersson left his feet (which he _clearly_ did), still kept saying it wasn't a charging penalty. Newsflash: a charging penalty includes leaving your feet to make a hit. 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.* (emphasis added)

[@vimes3702]

@@Leafsdude_ So you were so triggered by my comment on the commenter that skipped the first sentence which was the argument. Take a bow, snowflake.

[@MVP.113]

Honestly, I agreed right away with your first video. I'm very surprised this is still even being talked about and so many are disagreeing with you, on top of so many top hockey analysts being baffled on the call. Reverse hits are really exciting and I think EP40 is normally very good at them, but I can't think of one off the top of my head where the reverser jumps like this. Would be interesting if you end up doing a 3rd video, if you can find any other examples like this

[@ToughCall]

I poked around and didn’t see much. Not quite like this.

[@FloydRunner2049]

Be better looking at examples of examples of a player taking a run for 100 feet and launching another player into the boards and all the missed calls of charging. This a stretch to there was even a penalty called

[@ToughCall]

@@FloydRunner2049 I have a lot of examples of those on this channel. Lol.

[@battleframestudios8989]

Actually we CAN say this isnt a penalty. Whats implied by "jumping into" in the rule about charging is that its following... you know... an actual charge. Its so you can't build up speed and fling yourself like a canonball at people. It doesnt say anything about people flinging themselves at YOU. Unfortunately is was worded poorly and people dont seem to know what "charging" means. If anyone is guilty of actually charging its the oiler, not Petey. Either way I wouldnt call it a penalty. Theres nothing dirty or underhanded about this. If you take a run at someone YOU have to be prepared for them to defend themselves. None of this would have happened if he was more concerned with gaining possession of the puck than taking out his anger and laying a hit on somebody.

[@ToughCall]

That’s one thing. I agree with you people don’t seem to know what charging is. No one is saying it’s dirty or underhanded. It’s just a minor penalty. For leaving his feet. That’s it.

[@sherpajones]

No, the jumping itself is the charge. 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. "shall violently check an opponent in any matter." Jumping vertical to place your shoulder at your checker's head height is a violent check. Lets also look at _jumps into._ If I _skate into_ an opponent who doesn't have the puck and knock him to the ice, this is interference. Now, if we are travelling fairly parallel to each other with me just further ahead, and I _skate into_ you, I actually have to target the position ahead of you on the ice because by the time I close the distance you will have moved. So even though you were moving into the position where I made the illegal check, I _skated into_ you by changing my direction to meet you at a future location. Foegele was gliding into Petterson for a legal hit. His face was not above Petterson's shoulder, but Petterson jumped with the right timing to place his shoulder at the location of Foegele's face when the hit was delivered. He jumped into his opponent. Having no horizontal speed doesn't matter. He jumped into his opponent which is illegal. _Whats implied by "jumping into" in the rule about charging is that its following... you know... an actual charge._ If you read the rules, the _Penalty of Charging_ is assessed for 3 types of actions: 1. skates (into) - I infer the "into" part from the assumption that the word "into" should have actually followed "charges", making the word "into" apply to each action 2. jumps into 3. charges (into) - see 1. above. The next sentence clarifies what item 3. means by saying "Charging shall mean..." which basically gives a broad scope of actions that aren't specifically skating or jumping into. So you are incorrect that _jumping into_ has to follow an "actual charge." _Jumping into_ is an actual charging infraction by itself. It is one of two specific actions that are a charging infraction, with "charges into" being the 3rd, more broad category of a charging infraction that is a combination of distance travelled and a violent hit. Is this poorly worded IMO? Yes. Is it open to interpretation? IMO not really. I read legal stuff every day, and while this is a rulebook and not a body of law, I don't find it difficult to understand the intent here. BTW I'm a Canucks fan. I don't care if this call went against my team. It was the right call. We want Refs to make the right calls, not calls in our favor. I want my team to be able to win on their own merits, whether that is good offence, good defense, good goalkeeping, or good penalty killing. I don't want our team to win based on the Refs being soft on calls and I won't blame our team's losses on bad calls either. There are more than enough bad plays by Canucks players to sort out before we have to resort to blaming officials for our losses. We can criticize them on the merits of their calls or non calls, but whatever team you cheer for has to win or lose on their own merits too.

[@stuartscott5711]

@@sherpajones rule 607 further explains this exact situation! Leaves his feet not foot! His right skate never leaves the ice to initiate contact! Howver Foegele distance travelled to initiate contact is a perfect match for the charging call!

[@battleframestudios8989]

@ToughCall He jumped directly upwards, not 'into' the oiler so whether his feet are on the ice or not, the impact force they both receive is the SAME. The only difference the jump makes is that Petey wouldn't get steamrolled and potentially have his head hit the ice. Theres a reason they tell you to jump when you're about to get hit by a car and you can't tell me the car receives more force when you jump before the hit. That's ridiculous.The whole point of the ref is to keep the players safe. By NOT jumping, he's MORE at risk of injury.

[@DeCh-wp4uf]

@@sherpajones It is poorly worded. AND it is open to interpretation. Excellent pick up on inferring skating "into." (That's another example of poor wording.) Foegele skates into Petterson. Is that charging? And no, lack of horizontal movement does matter. Unless Foegele was on top of Petterson, a simple vertical jump would result in no contact. Vectors. Yet we know there was contact; that's how Petterson ended up forward of his vertical jump. I can accept that paragraph two applies only to "charges" charging and not "skates" charging or "jumps into" charging. However, it is not absolutely clear based on the wording. "Intent" implies interpretation. And regardless of shoulder/head positions, there was no head shot. Petterson intended to deliver a reverse hit, so to simplify things, i won't argue the "into" part of the jump. But if simple "jumps into" with essentially no horizontal component is charging, then so is skating into an opponent in any manner. is it open to interpretation? Yes, otherwise there would be literally dozens (hundreds) of penalties called every game. Well, except the All-Star game.

[@miltonthatherton1375]

How do you apply a counter force by jumping straight up? If anything, bracing would have produced more resistance. It's like you're imagining he gets heavier once he leaves his feet. Makes no sense. Are you auditioning for Ron McLean's job?

[@ToughCall]

I never once said he gets heavier. You can put all the words in my mouth you want. All I’m saying is by jumping he’s creating an excessively avoidable chance at dangerous head contact. Jumping up to hit is illegal. Jumping out and up to hit is illegal. Jumping sideways to hit is partially legal in some cases. Which category do you put this into?

[@Noordhof]

The force is called torque. The further away from the center of mass the more torque force is applied.

[@MantiszToboggan]

still not a charge dude. the vocabulary isn't there to be manipulated for the benefit of someone getting dummied against a stationary player, a back lunge in your opinion still doesn't equate to 3 strides so your math is flawed and biased so once again stop tryin to change the definition of both english words and hockey rules. mcjesus had his time to shine now its time to move over for the men.

[@ToughCall]

There’s literally nothing in the NHL rulebook about number of strides. Nowhere.

[@joshuawilliams9344]

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." If petey doesn’t jump, it’s nothing.

[@jonschwindt3064]

Wow the worst call EVER!

[@justahuman2002]

Maybe interference but idk about changing

[@nobuddy2012]

By the letter of the law this was a charge, as he did leave his feet. However, it was always assumed that the attacking player was moving forward, leaving his feet, and plastering his opponent.

[@toedrag-release]

IMO the refs likely wouldn't have called it had Petterson not made contact to the head.

[@stuartscott5711]

Even the announcer comments about how his right foot is planted did not leave his feet!

[@Cilvathorne]

Didn’t think it was Charging until I learned the wording for the rule included any hit where you leave your feet. That makes this charging, although the name’s dumb, should be changed to avoid confusion.

[@CanadiansEH]

Oilers fans saying refs won this game for the canucks lmao😂😂😂 they went 0-5 on the pp

[@KyleandRenee-ue1ol]

Doesn’t matter who you are a fan of. It’s a hockey play. It’s not a hockey penalty.

[@geronimo9595]

I'm a Canucks fan and I agree this was a penalty just for the simple fact that Petey jumped into contact as he was hit and you're not allowed to do that. Now given that he jumped basically straight up from standing still instead of crashing into the oiler at speed meant this penalty was like getting a jaywalking ticket on a quiet country road or a speeding ticket for doing 55 in a 50. soft as fuck but technically correct and its really lame this was called given some of the stuff the refs have ignored so far in this series.

[@izumolee6714]

The issue find another instance of this being called at anytime or anyplace during the history of the NHL, heck in any league. I guarantee you will not find another instance of this call being made. Datsuyk was well known for taking hits in this fashion and Nick Kronwall made a living making hits this way. Foegele was probably not expecting Petey to counter his attempted hit in this way which surprised him causing him to take the brunt of the hit. Here's an experiment be stationary & jump in the air, have someone push you or bump you, in most cases the one jumping will be on the wrong end of that contact. Foegele being on the wrong end of that contact just showcases Petey's deceptive strength. This was just a normal open ice hit that the one attempting the hit which is Foegele got caught off guard.

[@ToughCall]

Find me another example of a player jumping up like Pettersson did in a circumstance like this.

[@izumolee6714]

@ToughCall when we have hockey analysts like Ray Ferraro or Craig Simpson who played hockey for years in the NHL, question the call, or are baffled by it, you know something is up. Even if this was a one-time instance, this is the playoffs, and calling a penalty like that was bad. Ask anyone this game was officiated poorly on both sides. What could've been a fantastic back & forth series has been derailed by bad officiating cause every game questionable calls are being talked about. When the refs are the focal point instead of the actual game, that's bad. Like how do you call that and not the high stick on Hughes or the sucker-punch on Marchand? The Avs & Stars game yesterday was incredible cause barely any calls were made. There were numerous infractions that could've been called but weren't and that made this game so much fun to watch.

[@ToughCall]

@@izumolee6714 Ray Ferraro actually quoted Rule 43 and thought that was a logical counter to Rule 42. I enjoy him so much as an announcer but the reasons both of those guys had for it not being a penalty were easy to poke holes in. Even Elliotte Friedman said on air he had to have someone show him the tule. It essentially all comes down to “I’ve never seen it before so how can it be a penalty.” And that’s partially true. The reality is we’ve never seen anyone jump quite this way in open ice before. But the rule still applies.

[@izumolee6714]

@@ToughCall Still at that point in the game a call like that which has never been seen in a game & rarely put into practice shouldn't been called & just let the players play. It ruined the flow of the game and resulted in a delay for no reason. Even if that was a penalty in the books, there's no precedent for it and as we've seen in these playoffs the rules can be bent to some extent. Like that goal for Florida which in the rule books was not a goal cause of goalie interference the NHL bent the rules to allow it. The point I'm making is the refs have made themselves noticeable in this series and that shouldn't be the case.

[@ToughCall]

@@izumolee6714 I agree the refs have been too noticeable. As I said in the video, I can understand wondering why this was called when other things weren’t.

[@neocitron]

Canucks fan but I’ll admit It’s the jump that triggered the rule. And even then it wasn’t an obvious mega jump. This could have been a no-call. Tough one. Petey is strong enough to do this next time without the jump and everything should be fine.

[@twistedcanuck4232]

So, the guy Fogele was gonna hit, hit him back harder, and got called for charging because he turned his back to the hit. So, he was obligated to just absorb that hit then? I'd be very curious what your analysis would have looked like if that was, say, Zadorov trying to run over McDavid or Drai, and they managed to lower the boom on Z. Gonna bet it would sound a lot different. Charging? Pfffft.

[@thaneoffife6904]

He didn't get called because he turned his back on the hit. He got called because he jumped. There is no reason to believe McDavid or Draisaitl wouldn't similarly have been called.

[@ToughCall]

You’d lose that bet. Go ahead and make it.

[@hardyharhar9375]

It seems unlikely anyone had a player jumping to protect himself in mind when the charging rule was written. Surely the purpose of including jumping was to make an otherwise legal hit an infraction when a player leaves his feet to deliver it. Petterson was not delivering a hit, he was protecting himself from one. Also, without some counter force, as you put it, Petterson would have been too vulnerable to someone rushing him at speed. Your idea that he could passively brace himself is unrealistic and would have exposed him to potential injury. If you've ever played a collision sport you should understand this. Foegele was moving too fast and closing too quickly. The call might be correct as a technicality, but it appears to be based on poor wording in the rule. Common sense needs to apply.

[@ToughCall]

He doesn’t have to just stand there and take it. He can apply counterforce. He just needs to keep his skates on the ice when he does it. There’s a ton of people arguing he jumped straight up, not into. I say what you say: that’s unrealistic. I don’t look at this as punishing Pettersson for protecting himself. I’d say the rule was designed to protect players like Foegele who are just looking to make legal contact.

[@hardyharhar9375]

@@ToughCall Jumping up to protect yourself is still protecting yourself. Petterson was vulnerable and his physical intuition told him jumping was necessary to position himself for safety. It's very possible if he'd done anything esle he'd have been hurt. It was purely a defensive move, whereas charging has always been understood as an act of aggression. I doubt very much the kind of thing that happened to Foegele was accounted for when the rule was written. Otherwise, Kronwall would have either had had a slew of penalties or had to have changed his ways. Refs have to use their best judgment when making calls, and the reason we've never seen this before is because refs, despite all the whining about them, usually have good judgment. This was a case of overdoing it.

[@ToughCall]

Kronwall started a now very popular trend of players hitting back first. It’s so common now than it seems like it was always around. Reverse hits are a relatively new phenomenon as a designed play. I’m not saying it wasn’t a defensive maneuver at all. I get where you’re coming from. But there has to be a caveat for players jumping. There’s not many examples of players reacting this particularly extreme way to this type of contact.

[@sherpajones]

Petterson did not have to jump to protect himself, a simple reverse check will suffice. And being the puck carrier, you are always vulnerable and don't have a right to protect yourself from a legal hit except within the rules of the league. He also could have taken that hit shoulder to shoulder, which is the best way to take it, but he turned his back which can make him more vulnerable. A legal reverse hit could have protected him, but again, he isn't entitled to protection from a legal hit. He is only entitled to respond to the pending hit without committing an infraction.

[@hardyharhar9375]

@@ToughCall The only way to interpret what Petterson did as aggressive is in terms of better him than me. He chose his own safety over Foegele's. It' wasn't a play, "hitting back first", it was a natural, intelligent reaction for any player with good instincts and little time to try and avoid injury. That's not an extreme way to act at all. I think this case is easy enough for some to interpret the way you have, but I also firmly believe the fair call would have been no call. I think the NHL needs to revisit the rule, clean up its wording, and make its interpretation crystal clear. If then they said players can't ever jump under any circumstance, I'd disagree but I could live with it. Just don't call it charging when the player is stationary, or fans will continue to moan. Edit: What am I saying. Fans will moan anyway. :-)

[@chrisnurnberg9599]

Sorry, that is not a charge.No way, no, how because he did not jump into the player. He jumps straight up as the puck leaves his stick. If anything, the edmonton player had the opportunity to avoid the contact when the player showed his numbers. That's me right.There are far more hits in this playoff that are charging that have not been called. Aka Jacob Truba charge along the wall with the elbow up.

[@vandao7179]

Absolutely, He was braking himself for the impact why he got penalty that needed to be address. the Ref just made up a new rule . if some one hit you , you have to run away.?

[@user-jo1me3il2m]

This guys logic - Guy coming at you full speed let him smoke you don’t branch for the hit and lay his ass out

[@ToughCall]

Who said let him smoke you? By your logic there’s only two choices: get run over or jump. Who taught you hockey?

[@yougoof]

He might hurt the bum doing this move naked, at Kane or Nurse house.

[@stevecorner5069]

One could argue that by Petey leaving his feet he is lessening the impact on Foegele rather than digging in and leaning into him….. additionally Foegele’s velocity is much greater than Petey’s velocity which had no strides on his part vs Foegele bee-line from the front of the net… just sayin’

[@ToughCall]

I wouldn’t call Foegele’s a bee line. He takes a routine approach to the situation and glides almost the entire way. No strides at all. just a few pushes to get his angle of approach right. It’s true he had more velocity, but nothing outrageous. Pettersson may or may not have lessened impact, hard to say, but it’s a certainty he created a significantly increased chance of head contact/wxcessively high contact.

[@stevecorner5069]

@@ToughCall ever see a bee fly in a straight line??? And yes he stopped skating just before contact but still had a pretty good head of steam Going into the hit.

[@shinyuta]

This is literally a physics problem, not a rule problem. The call shouldn't have been charging and what was he supposed to do, take the hit full on from a charging (ironically) player? . This analysis is pretty stupid and I'm not even a canucks fan. (you, multiple times said bracing for the hit, which is exactly what he did. I feel we would be having a completely different discussion if the player didn't fall down in that fashion).

[@ToughCall]

Another one who believes the only two options are to take the hit like a sitting duck or jump, like there’s no other options. And as a bonus you play the Foegele was the one charging card as well. All you need is the he jumped straight up for the trifecta.

[@zacharyjeffares8158]

Who said anything about absorbing a check? The ENTIRE CROWD knew what he was doing; a reverse hit.

[@ToughCall]

That was the official story rhe first night. My first video is full of people making that excuse. This video addresses most of the first set of arguments.

[@boxvango9021]

It was a bogus call. If you think they saw the slow motion replay and then made the call, you're delusional. You've had how many replays to make a false argument? Bad call, that's all. Didn't help the oil. Tough luck, Edmonchuk.

[@spacemanstuv]

I think people are just confused because in their minds charging requires a distance travelled, which is an understandable misconception given the name of the penalty, but they fail to realize that charging is almost a catch all for hits that aren't clean, but don't have their own category. For instance, delivering an otherwise clean body check from a blindside angle now falls under charging in the Hockey Canada rulebook. Jumping to deliver a check, irregardless of distance traveled, falls under charging. The penalty was correctly applied by the referee in this instance. Plenty of other missed calls, but let's not pretend it wasn't going both ways either.

[@scottyboy6269]

it's literally IN the rulebook "Distance Travelled" and they use examples of INTO being a directional force, eg. Into the goal post

[@garycochrane4829]

You will notice that jumping is a penalty. After jumping there is an “or” then comes charging. So the definition of charging in the second paragraph is not relevant to jumping. Jumping does not need to be tagged directionally force. Petterson jumped towards the player, hence a penalty.

[@brad238899]

​@@scottyboy6269so you're telling me as long as you're not traveling then you're able to jump into someone for a check?

[@DeCh-wp4uf]

"For all hits that aren't clean." So how do you determine what is not a clean hit? "Charging"? Brilliant.

[@grahamdrinkwater4024]

Petterson was being lined up and pulled the reverse UNO . If you're gonna hit some one you shouldn't wine when it's reversed. Live by the sword die by the sword

[@ToughCall]

If you’re going to do something legal you shouldn’t whine when someone counters with something illegal?

[@Hartwell10]

What people are failing to realize. Is it doesn't really matter how far he jumped forward or backwards or up in the air. He was the one making the hit, and you cant jump when making a hit. I do agree with the assessment that this was a soft call in the bigger picture of the other non-calls the refs had made that game. But arguing it wasn't a charge while also acknowledging that he jumped, doesn't make any sense. A charge is a two part penalty. You were either taking too many strides prior to the hit. Or you jumped while making the hit. It doesn't need to be both, it can be either. In this case. Petey jumped while initiating the reverse hit. Which is technically a charging penalty. That being said. I do think if the refs just let this one go. Nobody would even be talking about this.

[@ToughCall]

Thank you. And I agree, no one would be talking about this if it wasn’t called.

[@austintodeson1679]

I agree as a Canucks fan. It’s how the NHL works tho what matters isn’t how it’s written but how it’s called and to me this is never called like this making it a bad call. That’s the reason it often feels so inconsistent year to year because of changes in how rules are applied rather than the rules being rewritten.

[@KenMcBride75]

You call this a "deep dive"? It's incoherent rambling. All you have to do is look at the location of Peterson's center of gravity relative to the glass supports and you can see clearly he jumped straight up before being hit, not "into...an opponent" as the rule states.

[@ToughCall]

Can you name another example of this happening? If it’s such a smart, safe, legal move, why don’t we see it?

[@bogeybichon7000]

Before reading the rule, I thought that there was NO WAY that is charging. I was wrong, here is the Rule 42. Petey definitely "jumps into" his opponent. 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."

[@ToughCall]

Thank you.

[@marmitedan1234]

Nonsense. This should have never been called as a penalty. I’ve never seen a similar play called a penalty in the regular season, let alone in the playoffs.

[@ToughCall]

How many similar plays have you seen?

[@spacemanstuv]

@@ToughCall This is a great point. People acting as though this happens all the time, but reverse hits are not common, and I can't recall one where the player actually jumped to deliver one.

[@toedrag-release]

Read the rules

[@aarongriffin4901]

That is absolutely a penalty on petterson for leaving his feet and checking a player who then falls. Refs got it right calling a penalty. Pathetic part is, our refs have no clue of the rules and called it a charge... Instead of the actual rule which is clipping. The refs don't even know the actual call that should be made and that's pathetic on their part

[@closethockeyfan5284]

Clipping is for low hits, actually. This probably should be more appropriately illegal contact to the head, but it is definitely a jumping penalty, which is (confusingly, clearly, given all the very incorrect comments on these videos) classified under charging--as TC showed in the original video.

[@toedrag-release]

..charging is when you leave both feet so charging is the call

[@aarongriffin4901]

639(a) will help you figure it out

[@aarongriffin4901]

@@closethockeyfan5284 639(a) jumping is a charging call... So they got it right according to you. But look up that rule and you will get it

[@Monsanto_Kills]

He clearly leaves his skates

[@scottyboy6269]

He's not the one checking, also Foegele picking his knee up if you want to over analyze it, nothing in the rule book about a jump being both feet leaving the ice, but it does say you have to jump into an opponent they need to remove the into if it's jumping in any aspect "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. "

[@MickLoud999]

There is nothing in the charging rules that concerns jumping straight up.

[@oldmanbucksaw]

His skates remained on his feet the entire time.

[@brad238899]

​@@scottyboy6269He's the one doing it as a reverse check which is also not the person delivering the check. This happens all the time... But you're still not allowed to jump.

[@sherpajones]

@@MickLoud999 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. Petterson jumped vertically into Foegele's approaching body, making contact with his shoulder on Foegele's face. Foegele's hit did not position himself to smack his face on Petterson's shoulder. Petterson changed that by jumping. This is a foul. Good call refs. Also there is nothing in the rules that concerns jumping at a 45 degree angle, or a 22 degree angle. I guess we should have a coach's challenge where we get the protractor out, determine the angle, and decide if it was an infraction or not.

[@Villifyable]

I hear if you guys cry hard enough they'll replay the game, keep going, you're almost there

[@m.reutelveld1628]

Weak call. If you call this they missed a lot worse.

[@thetruthhurts6652]

Imagine that? How dare Patterson dish it out to a train that’s trying to run him over lol. Gees Peterson next time just be a sitting duck 😂😂🤣

[@Darcyholte]

Not a penalty . If you go to finish a check expect a reverse hit. We all know the charging rule doesn’t apply here.

[@closethockeyfan5284]

Except it is 100% a penalty to jump into head contact. Absolutely ridiculous to assert otherwise. Jumping is classified under charging in the rulebook, as TC showed in the corresponding video. They got the call right.

[@ToughCall]

It applies to every hit. Why wouldn’t it?

[@Redz-]

Rewind the game to kane getting pulled down to the ice from the front of his jersey by Zadorov in front of the refs with no call. Puck no where near kane or Z.

[@ToughCall]

Zadorov holding on Kane - no call kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWnci6iYit2Jeqs

[@alexpayne1364]

Yes technically this is a charging call because he leaves his feet before contact, on the flip side Pettersson does not have any momentum and doesn't dangerously hurly his body at the attacker. But would I call this if I saw it probably not especially in a play where there isn't alot of risk from both players plus the contact is mostly in the chest

[@stuartscott5711]

Even the announcer on this video points out the right foot is planted watch again!

[@rockyb8790]

The Ref’s did all they can to favour the oilers and hand them the win but they still lost lol 😆

[@Drakraxxx]

what a bunch of BS. The attacking player here is Foegele. Charging can only be applied to an attacking player. Pettersson was within his own space. He did not move from his own space. Try to frame it with nonsense all you want.

[@ToughCall]

There can be two attacking players in contact.

[@joshuawilliams9344]

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."

[@joshuawilliams9344]

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." Take it up with the rulebook canuck’s fans.

[@DeCh-wp4uf]

"Skate (into)...an opponent in any matter." So coincidental minors to Petterson and Foegele.

[@matthewbarry7026]

@@DeCh-wp4uf Fogel stopped skating to make contact though he was still moving forward yes. The skating the rule is referring to when a player either does not stop moving his feet with contact, or if a player takes too many steps to make the hit. When making a legal hit your feet are supposed to be planted like Fogels were.

[@z.a.s11]

Your bias is cute

[@closethockeyfan5284]

He posts videos of what Evander Kane gets away with more than probably any other KZbinr. Get out of here, ad hominem troll

[@toedrag-release]

It's funny because you can read the rulebook, it's available online, and you can read the definition of charging according to the rules and see that it in fact fits the bill.

[@davey9365]

I don't know about the other examples you site but your logic is way off here... Just look at your title "...CHARGING PENALTY - a deep dive". First and foremost, it is not a charge - it was the wrong call. Now if you want to discuss other topics, fine, but there was no analysis of a charging penalty in your video.

[@ToughCall]

Elias Pettersson was issued a charging penalty. This video is about that penalty. What should I have called it? Lol.

[@WristFreeze97]

Any kind of jump into a hit is a charging penalty.

[@davey9365]

@@WristFreeze97 I think there is some confusion here because of the difference in (1) the rule at the NHL level and (2) the application of the rule. (1) For both Canada and US hockey (not the NHL) a requirement of charging is at least two strides by the hitter. They change this wording at the NHL level for some reason. Still, I don't think Pettersson's actions fit this description of the of the NHL rule - he didn't travel any distance or violently check an opponent... Rule 42 in the NHL "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" (2) The application of the Charging rule applies to the hitter, the charger. Pettersson was the receiver of the hit. Changing is not applicable to the receiver of the hit. Could a different valid penalty call be made against Pettersson? Perhaps, but not charging.

[@WristFreeze97]

@@davey9365 "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 includes any penalties for jumping in a hit. Jumping as you're making a hit in any way is not legal, regardless of the distance traveled. Pettersson is making a reverse hit and therefor is hitting, not just receiving a hit. Besides, you are still bound to the same rules, even when receiving a hit. You can't elbow when receiving a hit, you can't crosscheck and you can't jump.

[@davey9365]

@@WristFreeze97 Wrist, read the next part of 42.1...the next lines after where your quote ends. The part where it defines what charging means... Then to broaden your understanding of charging in hockey read the US hockey and Canada hockey charging definitions. Though not applicable to this incident, these definitions represent the origins of the penalty. None of them apply to what Pettersson did. Call interference, or elbowing, or some other Edmonton fanboi call, but it is not charging.

[@ThereandBackaKen]

I'd come across your channel before and enjoyed the breakdowns but this ridiculous attempt to justify one of the WORST calls I've witnessed in over 40yrs of watching the sport is so transparent, such obvious homerism that I can't take you or your channel seriously anymore. Too bad... I know what you can do when the Canucks eliminate the Oilers in 6 though. Go back to Game 2 of the series and break down how MANY penalties the Oilers didn't get called for, including major/match penalties. Another thing you could do is break down how many calls were NOT made on McDavid in the entire series... You have no credibility man, I thought you were an objective viewer.... oh well.

[@ToughCall]

Do you think that maybe if I have a history of being objective and this is the one time you think I’m biased then a) you might be jumping the gun in giving up on the channel altogether or b) that maybe I’m being as impartial as I usually try to be and you as a Canucks fan are swayed a little bit into wanting to disagree with me?

[@ToughCall]

I mean, would a biased Oilers fan recommend a fine for McDavid for his slash to Soucy? Or suspend Kane twice this series? Or suspend Hyman? Because I did.

[@mitchhak2]

Yeah I agree with literally everyone else in this comment section & the one below the first video about this. Call it a penalty by the rules & try to convince yourself he jumped into contact, but nobody takes issue with this play 99% of the time. Move on.

[@ToughCall]

I can understand the argument of how is this called when most of the time it isn’t. I can’t get behind the “he was standing still” and “he jumped straight up, not into” and any of that. I can’t answer why this was called when others weren’t, all I can answer is why was this called.

[@mitchhak2]

Should it even be a penalty though? He literally just jumps to absorb the impact because he’s stationary, can’t do much else. If you duck real low it’s clipping but that’s dangerous so I understand why that’s a penalty. But jumping straight up just lessens the impact.

[@ToughCall]

@@mitchhak2 In doing so his shoulder went above Foegele’s head and his elbow was chest/neck height. That’s got to be a minor penalty to discourage that.

[@mitchhak2]

Agree to disagree I suppose. Chara always had his elbow at the head height of many players, it wasn’t inherently dangerous lol

[@Bullshirt1983]

This play doesn't happen 99% of the time... as a matter of fact I challenge you to find a reverse hit where the player leaps 6 inches off the ground. You won't.

[@XxXNinjaFanXxX]

I think in hindsight now, people understand that according to the rules it's a penalty, it's just that in some cases, you have former players and people who have been watching hockey for longer than you or i have been alive, say theyve never seen a jump charge called. people are more surprised, and you need to look at what happened before the penalty; petey had a fantastic shift, lots of scoring chances and the canucks were beating the oilers to a pulp and leaving them in an alley. petey looked himself tonight, and that shift in particular. it just sucks and since no one has seen a jump-charge called before, it confused the fuck out of people. but, as always the egregious and frankly inconsistent officiating continues again. also, dont try to bullshit us, you are an extremely biased individual, everyone can tell, dont try to say otherwise.

[@ToughCall]

A)how old do you assume I am and what my experience level is? B)on what are you basing me being biased?

[@ToughCall]

A lot of former players don’t actually know the rules. There have been jump charges called but usually the player is facing the opponent. As I’ve been saying all day, this never gets called because it almost never happens. When was the last time you saw a player turn their back standing still and get so much liftoff before contact? I can’t think of one example off the top of my head and I’ve covered this league for a while.

[@XxXNinjaFanXxX]

@@ToughCall if your older than 30, you are either lying or just have stunted speech growth. i am basing your bias off your tone when speaking about Vancouver and then your tone speaking about Edmonton, you are much more critical of Vancouver while you are letting Edmonton off the hook for lack of a better word. Jump charges don't get called as charges, that's the point. If you are jumping to hit someone, or to avoid a hit or whatever, that's never been considered a charge, that's usually considered an elbow or roughing. And to assume you know the rules better than someone who spent 10-15 years in the league is hilarious. Nobody is saying petterson turning his back on the play had anything to do with it, it's simply the fact that jump charges don't get called.

[@ToughCall]

Yes they do. Hits that would otherwise be legal get called for players jumping into them. It’s just usually they’re facing the opponent.

[@ToughCall]

Suspended Hyman. Fined McDavid. Suspended Kane. Twice. But I’m letting them off the hook. Lol.

[@oleksiizaprii9334]

I am a new guy in hockey, was surprised when they call a penalty on this. But happy that that oiler is alive after this brutal knockout. (btw I don't like how aggressive hockey nhl is)

[@sherpajones]

I agree with this call. Charging is a term that can be interpreted many ways. We charge our batteries. We get charged fees for an overdrawn bank account. In ballistic weaponry, the charge is what imparts velocity on the projectile. We think of charging as a horizontal acceleration because that is mostly what we see. The rule specifies that building up speed by taking two or more strides before the check is charging. He his charging his velocity right before the hit. What Petterson did was a legal hit known as a reverse check. But the illegal part is that he charged his hit by building up speed immediately before the hit. The speed was vertical, and that is addressed in the rule that says charging is when a player jumps to deliver a check. It doesn't say horizontal speed is also required. Petterson's check ended up being high on his opponent, because he raised his shoulders to the level of Foegele's head. This is charging. Minor penalty. Good call by the refs.

[@toedrag-release]

It's not even up for interpretation it's in the rulebook to the letter that - 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

[@carlmenger9145]

@@toedrag-release where is this from? there is no rule 7.4(a). Rule 7 is Starting Line-up.

[@larrlarr8156]

Clean hit clean reverse hit don't be that oiler fan gaha

[@ToughCall]

Part of most people’s defence is that it wasn’t a reverse hit. It was just absorbing. By admitting it’s a reverse hit you’re confirming the correct call of charging.

[@RJKYEG]

You can argue about what the refs should and should not let slide in playoff hockey, but there is not question that this incident meets the criteria for charging: 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.”

[@WristFreeze97]

Canucks-fans are up there as one of the worst fanbases in the league

[@vincevoltaire]

You start your video with a straw man - nobody's saying Foegele should have had a penalty. You fail to mention what everybody who knows hockey immediately said after the call - this was nothing more than just a legitimate reverse hit. Clueless.

[@ToughCall]

If you read the comments on my first video you’d see how many people were blaming Foegele. I don’t do straw men or click bait. Never have and never will. I’m just answering the questions put to me in the comments.

[@WristFreeze97]

You can’t jump into a hit, be it a reverse hit or a regular hit. It’s not a clean hit if you leave your feet before making it.

[@kripzzy6732]

My god canucks fans are some of the worst fans on the internet

[@k.m.7351]

Canuck’s fan here there should have been a call on it, imagine if everyone did this on receiving hits. Maybe it should have been an interference call.

[@scottyboy6269]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4inlpiepc2ebNU Big Mack literally leans in and jumps into guys during these reverse hits, it does not say it needs to be before contact. Then there's a bunch of other ones where guys after the hit manage to leave their feet and not being pushed back as in they were knocked up.

[@ToughCall]

He leans into guys. No jump. I watched the first two minutes of that video and saw exactly zero instances of players leaving their feet before contact. And definitely not 4 inches or so like Petterson.

[@toedrag-release]

I couldnt believe how people didn't understand why this was a penalty. It was obvioua charging. The reason why its illegal to leave your feet for a check (reverse or not) is because you drastically increase the chances of hitting a player in the head. Its pretty clear in the rulebook. But Vancouver fans just like blaming refs🤷

[@stuartscott5711]

Pretty clear you didn’t watch the video where the announcer shows the right foot planted for contact! Watch again he does not leave his feet!

[@chrislentz9640]

We play soccer now? Stupid penalty he going to get hit and he counters it

[@WolfieMcG]

Don't leave your feet, pretty simple rule when it comes to contact, it's a dangerous play.

[@Bullshirt1983]

If you think this isn't a penalty you need to get your head out of your ass. Does the NHL need to more clearly define it's rules? for sure. But based on the letter of the law this is a penalty.. and for good reason, jumping is dangerous.

[@rob0191]

it never ends this shit ,fuckin coilers fans.......